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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3845 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

In terms one and two of next year, schools will be tied to CityScape for landscaping, as they are now. The only difference is that they will pay the bill, with the full funding devolved to them. No further action is required. For all of next year schools will be tied to City Operations for their scheduled mandatory maintenance - things such as boilers and cooling systems. Again, they will have the option of paying the bills and, again, with funding devolved to them. In 1997 all schools will be fully funded for all energy and cleaning. All schools have the option of continuing to extend their central cleaning contracts until these contracts expire. Only eight schools will run out of renewals during term one of next year, and they have all been offered the assistance of the central office in organising their new contracts.

A third reason for opposing the motion, Mr Speaker, is that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by delaying the implementation in some schools for an extra term. Schools have been involved now for 18 months of consultation, in many cases, on a one-to-one basis, and have had extensive preparation for its implementation. Principals, registrars and bursars have been briefed through thousands of person-hours of professional development. Schools are currently finalising their planning for next year, and a delay now would cause great disruption. Every school has received a detailed booklet listing each financial allocation proposed for their school, with supporting historical information including maintenance costs and costs of utilities going back several years. There have also been meetings scheduled between individual schools and central office for the handover of cleaning contracts and discussion of school-based management resourcing generally. The school-based management team has also visited most schools in person and has attended the meetings of many school boards and P and C associations.

Mr Speaker, there is no issue that has not been discussed and no significant issue left unresolved. I think the adoption of Ms McRae's motion would result in the waste of what has already been a very extensive consultation process. There are a number of other things, too, which are relevant in this debate. That process, the consultation process, has involved the unions, principal associations, registrar and bursar associations, the school board forum and the P and C council. At a meeting of the School Board Management Consultation Committee on 23 September there was not one group - not one group, Mr Speaker - which took a position in favour of delaying extended school-based management.

I think the final reason why the motion is inappropriate is that 1997 has been planned as a year in which a considerable amount of support is being organised to assist schools with their school-based management expansion. I think this is terribly important to the point Ms McRae mentioned in relation to some of the small schools without deputy principals. She referred to primary schools and conceded that it is probably only a very few which have these concerns. But I think it is important to note that support. If school-based management is delayed, as proposed by Ms McRae, then schools will not be able to fully utilise this support for the entire year. The School-Based Management Coordination Unit will continue to assist schools with all facets of their new responsibilities. In fact, in the near future schools will be receiving management manuals outlining all necessary processes. Any school experiencing difficulty has only to pick up the phone and dial the

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