Page 347 - Week 03 - Thursday, 1 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.31): Mr Speaker, I agree with the earlier speakers, particularly Mr Wood. The whole issue is specifically about benefits to students and, thus, the community. Mr Wood makes the point that quite often we do not want change for change's sake, and that is why it is much better to look at it in committee, to consider both sides because there certainly are questions on both sides.
The major benefit to students is that with amalgamation they would have the opportunity to use the services and facilities of both organisations. There could also be a benefit to do with economics. If the two establishments were amalgamated, it is highly likely that certain areas that are now duplicated could be lessened. Another point is that students would have the ability to use research facilities at both organisations, which would indeed be quite useful.
On the other side, the problems with amalgamation would perhaps most come down to the philosophy of both establishments. Of course the Australian National University has more of an academic philosophy while the Canberra College of Advanced Education has more of a vocational one. If these two organisations were amalgamated there could well be problems as to which way each course is looked at - does one increase a standard and is it looked upon as an academic standard, or does one decrease a standard into a practical or more vocational area?
Another problem with amalgamation is that students may have to travel between both organisations. If it is what they choose to do, in taking a course, that would be fine. If, because of amalgamation, certain units of courses are done away with and students have to travel between both, that could certainly be a problem. I think it is important that this Assembly look at the matter in committee. It is perhaps possible that the major advantage - that of students being able to use both facilities - could be achieved without amalgamation. I note that it is one of the points that is indicated as one to be considered. I commend the motion to this Assembly.
MR BERRY (Minister for Community Services and Health) (11.34): Mr Speaker, I agree with Mr Humphries, that this issue should be dealt with more sensitively than would have been the case if we had proceeded to deal with his original motion because had we - I think, to use his words - "crunched it through" it may have created some difficulties for us in the sensitive area of negotiating with the Commonwealth on education issues. I think that the alternative that he has proposed is a very sensible way of dealing with the matter.
I have been concerned about the attitudes of some of the opponents' public statements on amalgamation in the way that they enunciated their opposition to it. In some cases
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .