Page 4005 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 October 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Education—focus group meetings
(Question No 486)

Mrs Dunne asked the Minister for Education and Training, upon notice, on 18 August 2005:

(1) What exactly were the terms of the 2005 contract between the ACT Government and Colmar Brunton Social Research with regard to focus group meetings on ACT schools policy;

(2) Is it the case that participants in the focus groups were requested to sign a confidentiality agreement; if so, what were the terms of that agreement and why was it deemed necessary;

(3) Were participants in the focus group meetings paid for their participation; if so, how much were they paid.

Ms Gallagher: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

I am advised that:

(1) Colmar Brunton Social Research were contracted to conduct a number of focus group meetings and report on community concerns of a proposal to build a P-10 school in an area of declining enrolments; how any concerns might be overcome; how to effectively communicate the benefits of such a proposal; and maintaining confidence in public education.

(2) Yes, Colmar Brunton Social Research used their standard agreement with participants, in accordance with the Market Research Society of Australia’s Code of Professional Behaviour.

(3) Yes, participants received $50.

Roads—development advice
(Question No 489)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Planning, upon notice, on 18 August 2005:

(1) On how many occasions in the last 12 months has the advice of ACT Roads been ignored or rejected by ACTPLA when approving developments;

(2) Where are the sites where such advice has been ignored and rejected and on what grounds was it ignored or rejected.

Mr Corbell: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) None. The ACT Planning and Land Authority is required to consider all advice received from Government agencies. It does so having regard to a range of planning issues, which might make incorporating that advice into a development approval either impractical or undesirable.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .