Page 4769 - Week 11 - Thursday, 20 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
obfuscation from Minister Barr. It is a shame that this debate has not been treated with the seriousness that it deserves and allocated the time that it should have had.
Let us pick up the threads of that debate and continue. I would like to acknowledge that there have been some fascinating developments since 25 August in relation to this merger proposal.
On 27 September 2011 the University of Canberra vice-chancellor, Professor Parker, set out a set of what appear to be demands which would have to be met if the merger of UC and CIT were to proceed. Among other things, Professor Parker identified merger costs of more than $20 million. This makes perfectly the case that Mr Doszpot was making. These funds would need to be covered by either the commonwealth government or the ACT government, but it is not something that was public before that time. As Mr Doszpot pointed out, it looked as though we were about to make decisions in total financial darkness on this matter.
Professor Parker said that the ACT government had until 30 November to meet the demands from the University of Canberra; otherwise, according to the article in the Canberra Times of 27 September, UC would “part company with the idea”. On the following day, the 28th, we had the CEO of the CIT, Adrian Marron, quoted in an article in the Australian repudiating any idea of the proposal being a takeover of CIT by UC. As Mr Marron said:
If a takeover is the bottom line, then we won’t be merging.
We should recognise that there may be some hubris associated with some of these reports; nevertheless, we have to ask what is going on with the proposal, particularly when two of the key players appear to have such divergent views. Added to this are the concerns which have been expressed on behalf of employees of each of these institutions about any merger, amalgamation or whatever form the final proposal may take.
Further, there is a more fundamental issue with the proposal for a merger. I am not aware of any financial analysis which has been undertaken of this proposal or made public. This proposal for a merger would involve two substantial education institutions. Each of these organisations has its own significant financial arrangements, substantial financial and other assets, substantial liabilities and numerous financial commitments. And any relationship between these two organisations would involve quite complex financial negotiations. Unfortunately, the estimated cost of the merger, at in excess of $20 million as quoted by Professor Parker, is the only indication that I am aware of of the financial cost of this proposal which is in the public domain.
That is not a particularly good example of the ACT government being open and accountable about such an important matter, given that the Chief Minister, in the only real speech about where she wanted to take the ACT, said that we were to be in a new era of openness and accountability. How about we practise what we preach? I could say that this is yet another instance of a lack of transparency from the ACT government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video