Page 1763 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
pursue its functions under the CIT Act 1987—its mission to deliver high-quality education for Canberrans. The Canberra Institute of Technology operates under a governing board structure. They have an executive that is external to government. The structure is outlined in the Canberra Institute of Technology Act 1987. The release and negotiation of external contracts are a matter for the CIT board and executive.
However, I have had some concerns about a range of different contracts which the CIT has signed over the past few years. In March 2021, upon becoming aware of a couple of contracts, I wrote to the CIT board to clarify the nature of four of the contracts that CIT had signed, and asked a range of questions about how those contributed to the efficient and effective delivery of CIT’s mission to deliver high-quality skills and training for the Canberra community. I was then provided with a range of information by CIT which detailed what would be delivered under those contracts, but I flagged concerns that those contracts may not represent efficient use of public funds or be in line with community expectations.
Upon becoming aware, yesterday, of the signing of a further contract for $4.99 million, I wrote to the chair of the CIT board again to raise my concerns and ask a range of questions as the Minister for Skills.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, Ms Lee was heard in silence.
MR STEEL: That includes why CIT has determined the work to be procured under the contract represents necessary, efficient and appropriate expenditure of public funds; specifically, what would be delivered under the terms of this new contract and what personnel will be involved in its delivery; and asking them to provide a detailed, itemised breakdown of the kind provided in the response to my original correspondence in March 2021, justifying such a large quantum of funding, $4.99 million, being used for change management services of this nature, and asking whether lower cost alternatives were considered. I also asked questions about CIT procuring change management services from this external consultant, around why they have not looked at options for insourcing and providing in-house advisory services to undertake that work at potentially less expense.
These are the range of questions that have been asked, that have been detailed in the correspondence that I have tabled, and I will seek to amend Ms Lee’s motion to have that reflected. Ms Lee has asked for an audit to be undertaken in relation to the series of contracts taken out by CIT with this particular provider and affiliated companies. We believe that this is a matter that should be audited by the Auditor-General, so we are seeking to invite the Auditor-General to do a review, to provide further advice on this matter and to give a sense of timing to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. As to whether they intend to pursue an inquiry, we will ask them to advise the Speaker on whether they will be undertaking a review so that we can provide that to all members of the Assembly.
This is a matter that the government has been concerned about. I thank Ms Lee for bringing this motion to the Assembly to undertake this audit. We agree, but we would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video