Page 3234 - Week 07 - Thursday, 1 July 2010

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

come to us and what is innovative for them is perhaps an add-on to traditional-type qualifications, to add business skills. So it is not necessarily an innovation in itself but, the combination of that with other training for their workers, we might have capacity for that there.

Although the spirit of this element is somewhat understood—loosely defined as it currently is—it is uncertain whether innovation in the context provided is a priority industry or a method or content of training delivery.

Returning to the point of CIT revenue generation, it is important that it has a risk management plan in place with regard to drivers affecting its revenue stream. For example, what would happen if immigration policies led to a strong decrease in international student enrolments? What would happen if PPP funding decreased or was subsumed under a different commonwealth government initiative? Similarly, the consideration such as the minister’s proposal to follow the failed Tasmanian polytechnic model would have knock-on affects on an organisation like the CIT. These may seem far-fetched at the present moment but that is part of the process of managing risk.

It was disappointing to see that two years on, the government’s $900,000 feasibility study, which included looking into the redevelopment of the CIT’s Reid campus, as outlined in the Reid master plan, was so incredibly light on details. With regard to the actual work of the redevelopment, the minister could only advise that there has been some discussion about a public-private partnership for the student accommodation at Reid and also for a new building on the corner of Constitution Avenue and Coranderrk Street.

Subsequent mention of the matter by the government included next step initiatives like doing a business case for approaching possible developers, litmus test developers to gauge interest in the project, and finally looking into a mixture of commercial revenue options. My question is this: should this have not already been done in the $900,000 feasibility study? What exactly did we get for almost $1 million? What tangible can the ACT people actually expect for that huge expenditure?

As we have said before, this budget is not fiscally responsible. It is not accurate; it is not transparent. It contains so much waste. It contains higher taxes. It is an anti-family budget.

MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (12.48 am): The CIT is the major provider of vocation education and training for Canberra students as well as for many students from interstate and overseas. The government is continuing its significant investment in the CIT through this budget.

An amount of $3.2 million will be provided for the new CIT learning centre at Gungahlin college. This will meet unmet demand in the Gungahlin community and provide locally based vocational training opportunities and local access. CIT’s presence at Gungahlin will include recognition of higher learning; self-pace, start-any-time flexible learning courses; bookable access to computers and the internet for any CIT student; semester-based classes for a range of courses; a drop-in location

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