Download Fragment

Thursday, 24 November 2011
Page: 9592

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (20:36): As I understand it, the government's explanation for not allowing the re-accreditation of the approach taken by Dr John Culvenor is not that the result was in any way deficient, or that the training was deficient. There was nothing wrong with the course. It was simply based on a survey of employees as to the type of training they might prefer. That was my understanding. If that is wrong, please tell me.

It reminds me that democracy is not two wolves and a sheep getting together and voting on what is for dinner; we know the outcome, and it would not really be fair. Similarly with training one wonders why one would do a survey as to what people might or might not want. Surely the survey ought to be on the results. Was the training effective? Was it good? Did people like it? Did people think they learned something from it? As a result, are our workplaces safer because we have better trained people? According to all the Commonwealth agencies and depart­ments, that was exactly the outcome with Dr Culvenor's training methodology. Yet we have just unilaterally ruled it out without any genuine reason being given. We allow different approaches within our education system. Some schools still have the old chalk and talk; others have an open classroom. What suits some people should not be the deciding factor as much as asking, 'What is the outcome at the end of the day?' If both methodologies deliver the same outcome, why would not you allow the two methodologies to co-exist? That is what we still do not have an answer to.