Page 1084 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
them with another. The jury is still out on that, but we wish the Skills Commission good luck in their work.
Apart from this, the bill makes a few minor changes by increasing the involvement of the Accreditation and Registration Council in the event of the proposed establishment of a new university in the ACT, which does not seem to be in the offing.
The scrutiny of bills committee made reference to the entry and search provisions in the bill. The committee has general concerns about powers of search and entry, which I suspect I share. But, as these provisions are pretty much replicated out of the previous legislation, I do not intend to make a fuss about them in this instance but, as an Assembly, perhaps under the aegis of the Attorney-General, we should look at our general approach to search and entry powers and whether they are in some cases draconian. The ones in this bill seem to be the template ones for most legislation, but I sometimes wonder whether they are entirely appropriate in all circumstances. They should not be looked at on a one-off basis but in an across-the-board review of how we deal with search and entry powers. That said, the opposition will be supporting the bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.13): This bill puts into place a number of changes that have in effect already happened; so while I do have some concerns I am not convinced that amendments to the bill itself will address those. The bill does three things: it gets rid of the Vocational Education and Training Authority, it incorporates up-to-date references to national protocols for higher education approval processes and it allows for more flexibility in how the department takes advice on post-secondary education.
The Vocational Education and Training Authority was a body with a designated membership. That came with a certain formal transparency and accountability. The membership of the authority, which is to be abolished, includes two employee representatives, two employer representatives, someone from private vocational education providers, someone representing industry training services, someone representing indigenous communities, someone from the parents and citizens council, as well as officials such as the Canberra Institute of Technology director, the department’s chief executive and the chairperson of the Accreditation and Registration Council.
I understand that this structure may have been unwieldy and involved some doubling up. It also would have some costs associated with it, and I suspect that its abolition reflects the Costello review approach to cost cutting more than anything else. I have been advised that people out in the field might respond well to the new regime, which promises to be more flexible, efficient and responsive. While there is nothing to stop the government from becoming more transparent and consultative with this new approach, an approach in which the government effectively picks and chooses the people it wants to advise it, nor is there anything to require it.
I think even-handed observers would agree that this government’s record on transparency, accountability and consultation is deteriorating and, without any legislative or even policy commitments to such an open approach, I anticipate that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .