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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3966 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

to the students on the one hand and to meet very high academic standards on the other hand is, I think, a feature of this system that operates in Canberra and is a credit to the people who are on that board even now. It also is a credit to the people who put this together back when the Schools Authority was originally established. Mr Speaker, I hope I have not put you to sleep in this speech, but I support the legislation.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (5.58), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their fine comments in relation to the work that the board does. Since I became Minister I have been quite amazed at the smoothness with which the board operates. The ACT and Queensland, I think, are the only places in Australia where we have continuous assessment, where we do not have some form of exams, and when you have that you have the potential, I think, for a number of problems to crop up. Of course, problems do crop up from time to time, but the fact that they are very few and far between speaks volumes for the respect the Board of Senior Secondary Studies has had over the years. When you look at the other very important roles of the board, its success speaks volumes for the competence that we have almost come to take for granted over the years.

I thank members for all their comments in relation to the matters at hand. First, in relation to Mr Moore's amendments, I am pleased to see that he picked up that "14" should have been "13" in paragraph 15(c). His more recent amendment in relation to disallowable instruments, for the purposes of section 10 of the Subordinate Laws Act of 1989, also will be supported by the Government. The Government does have some problem with Ms McRae's amendment, and I look forward to seeing what other members say in relation to that.

Mr Speaker, one of the big issues when we look at what is the ideal size of the board is just who should be on it, and members have referred to the different situations around the country. In relation to Ms McRae's comments, I agree with her that it would be sensible for us to have another look and see how it is all going in two to three years' time. I think that is a sensible period. We can then assess whether any further changes need to be made by way of amendments at that time. It is a reasonable period to see how the new arrangement will work. I note, however, from the comments made by the members, that there is a natural and quite reasonable optimism that this board will work very well. It has an excellent track record.

In terms of numbers, there are always difficulties. It is always a balancing act to maintain a board small enough for decision-making but large enough to cover the areas of expertise required, and what we are dealing with here is, in fact, an expert board. The board has been expanded to include a parent and a Chamber of Commerce and Industry nominee. To expand it further, I believe, would upset the balance between the government and non-government sectors, the VETA and the university sectors, and the major providers and shareholders.

This board will serve two very important purposes. Firstly, it removes the possibility of a Minister being placed in the invidious position of being asked to intervene in decisions on the assessment and certification of individual students. I think the previous arrangements could have seen the assessment of individual students being raised in debate

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