Page 3634 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
different next year when we consider the reduction of teacher numbers in next year's budget. The Minister has admitted that the ACT Labor Government cannot successfully negotiate with their Federal Labor colleagues. That, to me, is a very frank admission. We have continuing reductions in grants to the ACT, and it seems to me that we are increasingly in a more difficult position. I really wonder what the strength of the relationship is between this ACT Labor Government and their Federal colleagues.
Mr Wood asked the question, "What is a recurrent budget surplus?". It is simply a reserve. It is money that will not be spent at the end of the 1993-94 financial year. So what on earth are we cutting teaching positions for if we are going to end up with a recurrent budget surplus at the end of the day? Michael Moore and I might well wonder what the Government's commitment to public education in the next election will be. Mr Humphries has speculated about that very matter this morning. How can the community believe that this Labor Government has a high commitment to public education in the ACT, given the reductions in teaching numbers they are now contemplating?
Mr Wood also commented on the question of school closures. I certainly have never suggested that I would support the closure of schools. That commitment has been very clear from Michael Moore and me. The Minister also indicated that there would be no diminution of the quality of education as a result of the loss of teaching positions. What an extraordinary statement from someone who has been extensively involved in the education system over some years!
Mr Stevenson also contributed to this debate. He asked the question, "Does the community support the cutting of teaching positions?". The answer to that question is clearly no. It is a very important point that Mr Stevenson raised. Mr Humphries this morning, and last week as well, talked about the fact that teachers are a vitally important component of our education system; but I would also argue, and I am sure Michael Moore would argue too, that buildings are also important. Buildings relate to our neighbourhood school system in the ACT - a system that we value and one that we would not want to see destroyed by the closure of schools.
Madam Speaker, the speakers in this debate have regarded the proposed cutting of 80 school based positions as a serious matter and one which potentially threatens the delivery of high-quality education services for our children. I, along with my fellow Assembly members, teachers, parents, students, principals and members of the community, will wait with anticipation to see how the Government will now respond in the light of this motion, which I expect will be passed this morning. In fact, we are still awaiting the outcome of consultative processes regarding the loss of these positions. Indications that have been received over the weekend would suggest that colleges will be completely reorganising themselves as a result of this decision. Is this what we want for public education in the ACT? (Extension of time granted) It only remains for me to say that I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .