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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4237 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It seems to me that, if the Community Advocate had the ability to report to an Assembly committee, then the report could be taken seriously, and it may well be that the matter would be resolved between that Assembly committee and the Minister. The Assembly could, in fact, take on a particular role in this way. It would also allow the committee to determine whether the matter should remain confidential. I think that it would have two advantages. Firstly, it would ensure protection of the people whom it is the Community Advocate's role to protect. Secondly, it would ensure that confidentiality was respected, when appropriate. I think that is a very sensible recommendation that clearly needs further investigation. The committee recognised that it needed further investigation. I hope that such an approach will be adopted.

I also draw attention to recommendation 10, which states:

The committee recommends that before the government is formed in the next Assembly, the requirements of all legislation similar to that covering the Schools Authority be reviewed to ensure that all statutory boards and advisory authorities can be established by the next government or, where appropriate, amending legislation be introduced.

Under questioning in the Estimates Committee it became very clear that the legislation that applied to the Minister for Education was not being obeyed. When legislation is not being obeyed, then the will of this parliament is not being respected. It is a very serious matter. Had it not been for the extenuating circumstances that came out on further investigation, I would have done what I had intended to do, namely, move a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Education. The extenuating circumstances were that it would have been only fair to move a motion of no confidence in every Education Minister since self-government. I accepted the view of the committee that what quite clearly had been an oversight by all Ministers ought not to be visited on this particular Minister only.

However, there was an important issue for us and for all members who might at some stage become a Minister. When you have legislation that you are responsible for, one of the important things that you must do is go through that legislation and ensure that you are acting in accordance with the legislation, even if something is out of date. There are two courses, as was the case here, if something is clearly out of date. You can bring into the Assembly an amendment to the legislation and you can put your case to the Assembly. It should also send a very clear message, as I believe this situation did, to senior members of the bureaucracy that they have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation that their Minister is responsible for is followed. I think they have a responsibility to advise their Minister accordingly. We probably ought to ensure that that is in the employment agreements that such senior bureaucrats now sign.

I would also like to draw attention to the recommendation that the Government review all issues associated with the sponsorship of schools and provide information in the department's annual report on the amount of sponsorship received by the department and by each school. I am particularly concerned about the possibility of sponsorship resulting in some government schools being very well off compared to others and there no longer being equitable educational outcomes for our children. The fundamental principle underlying government education is to ensure that there is an equitable educational outcome for each and every child in our community.

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