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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 948 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I do not really understand what the agenda is here. I am concerned that Mr Pratt is perhaps laying the ground for a rejection of Ms Connor's report, when it is brought down towards the end of the year, by implying that Ms Connors is unable or unprepared to undertake a sufficiently balanced inquiry into all relevant aspects of the ACT's education system. This would obviously make it easier, later, to reject any recommendations that he finds difficult.

I am concerned that he may be seeking to vindicate a prejudiced position on the questions that this review will be asking. For me, the issue is a serious one, because I think that anyone who has looked at Ms Connors' work would have confidence that she is very well prepared and expert in all areas of education, and in her methods. In fact, the dean of education at Melbourne University has publicly congratulated Ms Connors for her open mind, for her preparedness to change her view of self-managed schools, for instance, in the course of the review she recently conducted in Victorian public schools.

I could spend significantly more time providing similar evidence of Ms Connors' professionalism and quality. What is clear about this educational leader, who we are extremely lucky to have conducting such an all-encompassing review, is that she has a demonstrated commitment to equity and diversity, to needs-based funding, to addressing the issues of disadvantage, to transparency and to accountability. Is it these commitments that concern Mr Pratt? I certainly hope not. If it is, then surely his beef should be with the terms of reference.

Perhaps one aspect of the terms of reference that may be a problem-I do not know-is the primary responsibility of education being to provide well-staffed and well-equipped public schools accessible to all children. If that is a problem, that should be what is addressed.

Mr Corbell: It is not a term of reference.

MS TUCKER: It is not a term of reference. I am sorry. It was in the preamble where the government said what it saw as its primary responsibility. That is true. If that is Mr Pratt's problem, it can be debated.

Issues of effectiveness, equity, transparency and accountability: if Mr Pratt has a problem with those aspects of the terms of reference, let us debate it. Is he uncomfortable with a policy framework and options for replacing or enhancing current funding arrangements of government and non-government schools, which acknowledge the relative needs of students and which are financially sustainable? If that is a problem, let us debate it.

Is it conceivable that Mr Pratt is unsettled by the reference, in the terms of reference, to the impact of Commonwealth government school funding policies? I think this motion is not helpful in moving forward with one of the very important reviews of this government. It is long overdue. The stakeholders in the community support it. They have been asking for something similar for quite some time, and I sincerely hope that it moves forward in a positive way from this point.

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