Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 4099..
CIT staff membership of key committees and boards in the Canberra community assists in providing avenues through which stakeholders can provide feedback to the Institute (for example, Knowledge-based Economy Board, Adult and Community Education Advisory Council, Team Canberra, Board of Senior Secondary Studies, Vocational Education Training Authority, Canberra Clinical School).
Responses from surveys undertaken by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), employer satisfaction surveys, graduate surveys, module evaluations, and feedback from industry liaison (as detailed above in Question 8) are all sources of information that the Institute takes into account in measuring the effectiveness of its training programs and improving the delivery of a client focused service to the Canberra community.
CIT is unaware of claims that some CIT Assessments do not meet approved work place practices and standards. CIT would, however, address such claims immediately they are brought to its attention. CIT's education processes, including assessment practices, are audited by the ACT Accreditation and Registration Council (ARC). Satisfactory performance is a condition of continuing registration. CIT's last ARC audit was in 2002.
The Institute has developed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Australian National University (ANU) and the University of Canberra (UC) to develop jointly delivered programs, provide seamless articulation pathways for CIT students wishing to progress to university studies, and provide opportunities for university graduates to enroll at CIT for the development of practical skills.
UC and CIT have two key committees to facilitate collaboration. The UC/CIT Liaison Committee comprises all senior executives of both institutions and meets twice a year. The UC/CIT Joint Status Committee meets five times a year and facilitates negotiations of joint programs, credit transfer and educational collaboration.
(Question No 944)
Mrs Dunneasked the Minister for Planning, upon notice:
In relation to the building of dual occupancies and further to your reply to Question on Notice No 829:
Why are the figures supplied in answer to Question on Notice No 829 for dual occupancies built in 2000-01 and 2001-02 different from the figures supplied to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment earlier this year and published as Appendix 1 of Report No.15.
Mr Corbell: The answers to the member's questions are as follows:
The statistics provided in March 2003 were prepared using different reporting parameters to those prepared in September 2003. The request for information was slightly different on each occasion and the reports had to be set up using different parameters to capture what information had been requested.