Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3386..
The sessions offered prospective students, their families and other interested parties the opportunity to meet with representatives of the AIHS and establish a better understanding of career development opportunities offered by the AIHS.
� Promotion of the AIHS's Career Week Programs -
"Introduction to Hospitality Management". During 2000 and 2001, the AIHS held nine Career Week Programs attracting a total of thirty-three students from NSW, five from the Sydney metropolitan area.
� The AIHS has maintained an ongoing presence at key tertiary education expositions across NSW.
These events draw large numbers of prospective students who are encouraged to register interest with the AIHS. Information regarding those students that do register their interest is recorded on a database that allows for direct mail and telephone based marketing activities.
� In addition to marketing directly to prospective students, the AIHS also undertakes ongoing liaison with careers advisers throughout NSW to ensure that the program of study offered by the AIHS is well understood and is presented to prospective students as a clear option when assessing their tertiary education options.
(2) The numbers of students from Sydney enrolled at the AIHS were three in 1999-00, two in 2000-01 and one in 2001-02.
It is not possible for the AIHS to separate its expenditure on Sydney-specific marketing activities from its expenditure on its NSW marketing strategy. The total cost of the AIHS's NSW marketing strategy was $48,518 in 1999-00, $72,508 in 2000-01 and $72,718 in 2001-02.
Department of Urban Services
(Question No 287)
Mr Humphries asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice:
In relation to the 2002-03 Budget Paper No. 4, provision has been made for funds as an 'Injection for operation' for each of 2002-03 and the three out years within the estimates for the Department of Urban Services:
(1) On what activities is it anticipated that these funds will be expended in each of these years.
(2) Why have funds been identified as an 'Injection for operation' when elsewhere in the same table, funds previously identified for 'Injection for operations' have been reallocated from the category: Capital Injection to the category: Government Payment for Outputs.