Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3119 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

moving from different sectors of schooling, whether it is from high schools to colleges, or from primary school to high school, if there has always been a consistent approach it is obviously much more useful for the students. We are also pleased that the Government supported the recommendation calling on the Government to work with the Australian Federal Police to develop guidelines for the reporting of incidents to the police, because it was clear that that area does need a little tightening up.

Of the recommendations in this report, the Government has really agreed to only about three outright. It seems to be quite common that the Government notes, or agrees to in principle, or supports the intention of certain recommendations, but uses this as a justification for the status quo and says it is already doing what the committee recommended. Obviously, the committee received evidence to suggest otherwise or we would not have made those recommendations.

The Government's response to both this report and the voluntary contributions report was that they would provide a school equity fund. This seems to be claimed to be the answer to equity issues. While we are very pleased that the Government has established this as a matter of principle, we are concerned about the way it intends to use the funds. We would have to comment that the $55,000 allocated by this Government from within the existing budget is not going to solve all the problems of inequity in the school system. What is perhaps most disappointing is that the same issues keep coming up over and over again, with little action. For example, the issue of early intervention for students with behaviour problems is one that has been raised since 1991, yet we are still having "discussions" or replies such as "seeking to establish", but not much real action.

I would like to go through some of the recommendations and raise some specific issues of concern. I have also circulated a motion, or it will be circulated soon, which I will be seeking leave to move shortly. I have selected a number of critical issues from the Government's response on which we are asking for further explanation, information or reconsideration on the part of the Government. We hope that we get the support of the majority of members of this place for that motion.

The first recommendation called for further resourcing of off-line programs or similar flexible approaches for kids not coping in the mainstream. The Government response says its approach is already consistent with this recommendation. Each school receives 0.5 of a teacher, costing $688,000; but, unfortunately, evidence suggested that this is not enough. The Government response also talks about each school receiving half a teacher for student welfare and career programs. They seem to have missed the point there. Career programs and work experience are not really about helping kids who are not coping in the mainstream. The Government says the School Without Walls is being refocused and a similar facility on the south side is being considered. That is an ongoing debate in this place at the moment. We are interested in knowing the timeframe, who is considering it, and so on. The Government also talks about funding for Marymead, the Richmond Fellowship, and Open Family for day programs for young people in substitute care. What about young people not in substitute care?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .