Page 1919 - Week 07 - Thursday, 31 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
location of the classroom is, in that sense, very much a second priority.
I have also heard some comments from Mr Moore on the literacy and numeracy aspect of the paper. He commented that the paper ignored the question of how we should actually improve literacy and numeracy and then he talked about monitoring or matters associated with discussion of the issues. That is a very interesting and ironic comment because it was not so many weeks ago that Mr Moore came to see me to plead for funds for the continuation of the drug indicators project. The drug indicators project is all about monitoring and collecting information about the drug problem in Australia, and in the ACT specifically. It seems to me that in order to be able to make improvements, you must be able to understand the nature of the problem. That is exactly what we are talking about with the literacy and numeracy green paper. The analogy is a pretty precise one, and I think Mr Moore ought to reflect on that.
I had to laugh when Mr Berry made his reference to small business. He seems to think that suddenly there is an opportunity for him to cash in as the champion of small business. I think that, every time any small businessman toys fondly with the idea of supporting Labor on the basis of its being the champion of small business, we ought to remind him of the many references that have been made in recent weeks by members opposite to the need to increase taxes on business.
As far as Labor members are concerned, the answer seems to be to hit people with more taxes and charges and particularly hit business. I very much doubt whether that is any comfort to those people, but I think Mr Berry ought to think very carefully before he goes down the path of being the champion of small business.
The remark by Mr Moore, that we are dismantling our education system and taking it back to a hierarchical structure, also deserves some very serious comment. I emphatically repudiate that comment. We are not restoring a hierarchical structure in our education system. In fact, I believe that we have announced very clearly our intention to go in precisely the opposite direction.
On this side of the house we firmly support - and Mr Collaery has made reference to this in his remarks - a system of education which closely reflects the aspirations of the community and which is closely tied in to decisions at the grassroots level on how education should be proceeding and how it should be managed. There are two clear indications of that in this paper. One is our intention to reintroduce a participative model of community participation in education through a schools council. That is exactly what I believe will do most to repudiate the hierarchical structure to which Mr Moore refers and which I believe has not been a good model for education in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .