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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2233 ..

MS McRAE (5.37): I will take my second 10 minutes now, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, and get it over and done with. To complete my theme, what I am calling for is a much better articulation of priorities; a much better articulation of how the budget allocation feeds back into those priorities; what the major objectives are in any year; and where, in each year, those objectives might change. I think it is of grave concern that major issues like violence, ongoing adult education, equity issues - equity issues were really hot in the last year; they were an issue of major concern - are not built in as a measurable process of change and are not able to be found in our budget papers.

As I have said, does it need to be in here? It could be cross-referenced to other major policy documents. Maybe we just need a better outline of who is responsible for what. I think the nature of the papers in front of us, from both the department and the Minister, lead us to a situation where we think, "Is this it? Is this all they are doing in education?". It seems very thin and in no way reflects the work that we are all aware of on the ground and the types of changes that need to be undertaken and kept an eye on. For instance, college reforms were begun this year. It is going to take three years before the full range of changes is in place at Narrabundah and Hawker colleges and probably a full three years before the new assessment process is in place for the colleges. It may not, in itself, require a specific budget allocation, but it is a changed priority within the department; it is a changed outcome that the Government is working towards. In the key budget papers we do not know anything about it; we have no record that anything is happening at the college level that will actually result in a new process of assessment documentation and a new outcome in terms of the type of product that the Education Department is giving out to the market. That is a very easy example to demonstrate what I am talking about.

I am sure it is still departmental policy to include more students with disabilities in all levels of mainstream schooling, but we have nothing to demonstrate that. I am sure it is still Government policy to review and change teaching practices and the quality of education in high schools. It has been an ongoing drama for years. I know that they are looking at the middle schooling process at Nicholls. We see nothing of that. We know that Mr Stefaniak has his ministerial advisory council working on equity, but we have nothing to show that there will be any qualitative change or a change in the delivery of product as a result. I do not mind at all where all that ends up. I stand to be corrected that all I am talking about, everything I am on about, may well be better put in annual reports and then be cross-referenced; I am not sure.

I am not an expert on accrual accounting, but I do feel that we have lost something very important. If it is simply reduced to the unit cost of every activity and it is simply reduced to output classes and the various targets against that, we somehow, somewhere, need to have a better grasp of the whole picture of the qualitative objectives of the department and the overall output; otherwise, as a community, we stand to lose some of the things that I think ought to be talked about and looked at. It puts even more pressure, then, on the Assembly to be vigilant and keep an eye on these things; otherwise, you get a more and more hands-off approach. We have school-based management; we have advisory councils; we have other forums where decisions are made.

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