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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 95 ..

MS GALLAGHER: I thank Ms MacDonald for her question and acknowledge her significant interest in the education portfolio. As members would know, the Connors report was publicly released last Friday. I have written to all major stakeholders, providing them with a copy of this report, and I will be arranging meetings with them to seek their views. I am grateful for all the contributions that were made via submissions and through meetings connected with the inquiry. I acknowledge that those contributions were often made in people's own time.

It is a significant report. I do not know whether members have had the chance to read it. I have spent some time reading it. The detail in the report is extremely complex, certainly the formulas for determining funding to both public and non-government schools.

I have indicated to the stakeholders that I will be arranging meetings in March to discuss the report. I am also keen to hear the views of the Government School Education Council and the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Non-Government Schooling.

Through my considerations of the report's findings and the feedback I receive from stakeholder groups, I will be in a position to prepare a response for the consideration of government. Considering the inquiry has run over 11 months and it is a significant document addressing complex issues, we cannot be rushed into responding without listening to the views of others, including all my colleagues. It would not do the report justice if we were to reach conclusions or make decisions prematurely.

MS MacDONALD: My supplementary question is: would the minister please outline the process of consultation undertaken during the inquiry and, in particular, advise the Assembly of the extent to which interested parties made submissions on the matter?

MS GALLAGHER: Yes, certainly. The terms of reference for the inquiry emphasised the need for openness and consultation with the ACT community, and Ms Connors sought to canvass the broadest possible range of views. Public submissions were invited through advertisements in the press, and key organisations and interest groups were invited to public meetings to discuss the proposed process and the timing of the inquiry. As a result, 48 submissions were received-36 from stakeholder groups and 12 from individuals. A full list of those who made submissions appears in the appendices to the report. Again, I would like to thank all of the respondents for their efforts in contributing to such an important and timely inquiry.

A noteworthy no-show, given his stated reservations about the conduct, independence and cost of the inquiry, was the opposition spokesperson on education, Mr Pratt. Notwithstanding that, the government look forward to hearing the opposition's views on the inquiry's recommendations in due course.

Mr Stanhope: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper, Mr Speaker.

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