Page 3402 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that need maintaining but apparently cannot see parallels with the need to maintain another, I would argue, more precious asset - our education system. Why is a road an asset more deserving of high-quality maintenance than our government education system? New roads need to be built, and this is achieved in a cost-effective and expedient way; but we are informed that to do any less than to maintain the high quality of our road system would be to run down a valuable asset. Why is education less well defended against moves to let it run down?
Unfortunately, I still see many areas where more money desperately needs to be spent in our education system - high school development, reading recovery, schools serving populations with socioeconomic disadvantage, and colleges to stem the rising rate of the students who leave early. These initiatives cannot be achieved by cutting teacher numbers. The Government has talked in terms of improved teaching occurring through the use of technology. While this may well occur, a computer will never be able to give a student the interpersonal skills he or she needs to learn. A computer or a video player can only impart information. Personal human contact enriches and reinforces the learning experience and gives students skills that enable them to keep learning. I am not convinced that technological improvements will compensate for lost teaching positions, as I am similarly not convinced that cutting teaching positions is an essential part of the Government's strategy to meet the shortfall in Federal funding.
If the Government remains determined that it does not place a high priority on quality public education, then the whole ACT community should be involved in looking at reshaping public education in the long term. The education system should not be subject to budgetary tinkering at the edges. We need to set goals, establish priorities and then look at funding the system in the long term. The process exists which could produce such an outcome. The "Future Directions for ACT Schooling" exercise could be expanded to include the addressing of the major question of declining resources into the future. This would give teachers, parents, students, the community and the department an opportunity to work together to achieve a satisfactory outcome for our young people. What the Government should not do is proceed with its announced intention to cut 80 teaching and support positions in schools. It should have the courage of its earlier commitments to young people to reverse this decision. What is needed is a closer and more thorough examination of the priorities we need to establish for school based education now and in the future. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.32): The Government will oppose this motion. I would like, at the start, to put this budget decision into its proper context. I recognise that budget matters are of little interest to Independents and Opposition members. It is up to the Government to produce a budget and to take responsibility for it. But I am sure that all members know that the ACT is required to adjust to State-type levels of Commonwealth funding. We have been meeting that requirement year by year. In the past year, as a result of the Grants Commission review, the Commonwealth has sharply reduced its funding to us. That reduction of around $78m, or 19 per cent, has accelerated our transition to State-type levels of funding. Unlike Independents and the Opposition, the Government cannot ignore that fact. We must take account of it and, as a responsible government, we must acknowledge that this is a very major issue in our financial future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .