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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1212 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

The previous education minister appointed an inquiry convenor who he knew would push the outcome of this inquiry to reflect the government's ideological biases. We said that at the time-again to be met by Mr Corbell's contrived outrages. He only gets outraged because he is trying to protect a Labor mate.

Ms Connors said in a speech in 1999 that she was "not an education researcher". She is an advocate for the public system. In 2001, Ms Connors said, "There are many Australians wanting to take a stand and to speak up for public education-I am one of them."In August 2001, Ms Connors gave a speech to the AEU in Victoria where she said, "I continue the theme of celebrating public education and unionism".

An article in the Herald Sun in 2000 said this about the various committees led by "high profile has-beens"-their words, not mine-being put together by the new Victorian government:

That is from an article in 2000 which reported on comments made to the Herald Sun.

Mr Corbell: Don't believe everything you read in the paper, Mr Pratt.

MR PRATT: Does that sound familiar? Well, Mr Corbell, you can eat humble pie. This report has manipulated the inquiry terms of reference to reach vague conclusions which reflect the government's bias. It is a bias which sees the impeding of the non-government school sector to the advantage of the government sector, rather than a report which supports and reinforces an education strategy celebrating the strengths of both and rewards our diverse system-the rich, creative tapestry that is the ACT education system.

Ms Connors has strongly inferred that a portion of funding in the non-government sector ought to be redirected to the government sector. This solution proposed by Ms Connors may provide some benefits to the government sector but I am concerned that it would be at a detrimental cost to the non-government sector. I am concerned that there seems to have been a lack of evaluation or analysis as to how these problems could be dealt with in a cost-neutral way within the government sector.

The solution provided-simply to rob Peter to pay Paul-does seem somewhat simplistic and may serve only to transfer the problem from one sector to another. Through my consultation with interested parties, it appears as though Ms Connors' report has caused major concerns in the community about the simple transfer of funds from one sector to another. That is the feedback that we are getting. I am deeply concerned about the implied threat in Connors to the interest subsidy scheme which, if implemented, will devastate the smaller independent schools which depend on the ISS for even the most humble of school infrastructure developments.

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