As the Canberra Institute of Technology weathers a fresh round of controversy, talk of merging the public training college with the ACT's own public university has been reinvigorated.
A suite of high-profile political and education sector figures, including federal Education Minister Jason Clare and the Australian Tertiary Education Commission's chief commissioner, have backed the suggestion of establishing a dual-sector university in the territory.
On Thursday morning, University of Canberra vice-chancellor Bill Shorten said he thought the two post-school education institutions would be "better together".
"I mean, at UC, we've got teaching strengths and research strengths. At CIT, they've got teaching strengths and industry engagement. I think the sum of the parts for a jurisdiction like Canberra can make us a national leader," Mr Shorten said.
Calls for a merger of the ACT's higher-education institutions were being made before self-government. In 1988, the Confederation of ACT Industry wanted the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE), to merge with the ACT Institute of TAFE.
Before serious talk of merging the CCAE and the Australian National University was dropped, the confederation recommended instead creating a different body, called either Canberra University or the Canberra Institute of Technology.
The CCAE became the University of Canberra on January 1, 1990. The ACT Institute of TAFE was renamed the Canberra Institute of Technology in 1993.
In the 21st century, the merger of the University of Canberra and the Canberra Institute of Technology - the only two tertiary education institutions established by ACT legislation - was a recommendation of Allan Hawke's major review of the ACT's public service handed to Jon Stanhope's government in February 2011.
"There is undoubted duplication and arguably inefficient competition between UC and CIT in an education market and city in which there is enormous scope for cooperation and alignment of effort," Dr Hawke's review said. Dr Hawke died in 2022.
"A combined institution along the lines of Swinburne University is likely to enhance significantly educational and economic outcomes in Canberra, as well as efficiencies that might be redirected towards enhanced course offerings."
In May 2011, then education minister Andrew Barr tasked Denise Bradley AC with considering "greater collaboration" between the University of Canberra and the Canberra Institute of Technology "up to and including amalgamation".
(Professor Bradley had completed a landmark independent review of the Australian higher education sector in 2008 that led to the Gillard government introducing the demand-driven system for university places.)
In the ACT, Professor Bradley, who died in 2020, recommended a merger of UC and CIT to create a new dual-sector university for the ACT that would "allow rapid, flexible and effective responses to the emerging educational needs".
"Neither UC nor CIT is well positioned for a more competitive future if the status quo prevails. It is not difficult to envisage hard times ahead for both if the pace of change accelerates," the report said.
"In their respective sectors each is a medium sized institution with budget to match. They perform creditably on the usual indicators, although each has points of weakness."
The review also said: "If the institutions are to come together, given their size, reputation and history a new institution must be formed - a dual sector university. This must be seen and managed as a partnership of equals, not a takeover of one institution by another."
Mr Barr said in August 2011 the territory government agreed maintaining the status quo for CIT and UC was not an option.
Professor Bradley's review said if the two institutions were not merged, the ACT government should grant CIT greater independence and rule out merger talks for a further five years.
In December 2011, Chris Bourke, who had taken over as education minister, rejected the recommended merger and announced a third institution would be established to be jointly run by UC and CIT.
That was the recommendation of a steering group made up of ACT public service heads, who said while the merger made some intuitive sense in Canberra, the two institutions should have time to "test the waters" with a collaborative venture that might allow for further future ties.
"Despite the well documented successes of the dual sectors in Victoria, there are equally well documented deficiencies: even after twenty years of operation, it remains a 'clunky' model," the steering group's report said.
The plan for a jointly established, third institution was abandoned in early May 2012 and UC and CIT were to remain separate ahead of the territory signing a new national agreement on the vocational education and training sector.
"From the university's point of view, I feel we have wasted a lot of time and energy," said then University of Canberra vice-chancellor Stephen Parker, who had supported the merger.
Adrian Marron, the CIT director at the time, in 2013 blamed external pressure and the rigid structure of the vocational education and training sector for derailing the merger proposed in 2011.
"In this story there are no villains and no one was jilted; there was mainly goodwill as the journey progressed, but in reality when faced with a duty to protect the interests of institutions - even more so when there is some tension between the idea at hand and the legitimate concerns of one's staff, students and institution - good-will is not enough," Mr Marron wrote.
The Canberra Institute of Technology's structure was overhauled in 2014 to give it a "greater commercial and entrepreneurial focus", replacing an advisory council with a governing board and the director with a chief executive officer.
Labor's Joy Burch drove the introduction of the new CIT board structure. "Replacing the CIT's advisory council with a governing board demonstrates our commitment to supporting the public provider to remain strong in a more competitive environment and helps to ensure even greater accountability for public funds," Ms Burch told the Legislative Assembly in November 2015.
"The act clearly sets out CIT's mandate to continue to provide high quality vocational education and training, engaging and supporting the community, consulting and collaborating with business and industry and developing pathways for learners."
Under this structure, CIT has now weathered two high-profile departures of chief executives.
In June 2024, Leanne Cover resigned after nearly two years on paid leave shortly before ACT Integrity Commission released its findings that Ms Cover had engaged in serious corrupt conduct.
This week, Margot McNeill resigned after a year in the same post after coming under increasing pressure in two Legislative Assembly inquiries. The first had found Dr McNeill had "actively misled" the CIT board by denying there was a finding of misconduct made against her in connection to her former job at TAFE NSW.
Dr McNeill would be paid a settlement of about $445,000, the institute's board chair said.
