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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1325 ..

are requiring the chief executive to investigate all of the complaints, we do not need to spell it out in clause 22(3), but that does not stop in any way any member of this Assembly seeking that information through the annual reports investigation process.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24.

MR PRATT (5.51): I move amendment No 8 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1376]. This amendment is simply for the effectiveness of each government school to be reviewed at least once every four years instead of every five years, that is, basically over the term of a government.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.51): The government does not support this amendment. A period of five years is consistent with the time for review for non-government schools and the opposition does not propose to make equivalent changes for non-government schools. However, in the last budget the government funded the school excellence initiative, which requires reviews against schools on a three-year cycle, using the newly developed school improvement framework. So we have got five years there as a maximum. At the moment, we are working on a three-year cycle and it is consistent in legislation with the requirements of non-government schooling.

MS DUNDAS (5.52): I will not be supporting this amendment. As the minister has said, schools are currently reviewed every three years so, in a practical sense, four is how often they have been reviewed. With five years, it states that they must be reviewed at least once within that five-year period, although it can be more often than that. Mr Pratt indicated that he wants our schools reviewed basically over the term of the government, and I think that sets quite a dangerous precedent. Schools should be able to operate independently of whoever is in government and of the electoral cycle. They should operate continuously over that period, providing the best education they can to our schools. So they should be reviewed when it is necessary—I assume it would be necessary at least once every five years. They should not be reviewed to suit the political agenda or the electoral cycle.

MS TUCKER (5.53): The Greens will not be supporting this either. At present the government reviews all schools every three years; the requirement for every five years in the life of the school is probably okay. The argument of tying reviews into the electoral cycle is not convincing, nor is the argument to circulate all individual school reviews to the Assembly, which is Mr Pratt’s 10th amendment. The information is on the web, is available to everyone and is circulated to members of the school community. That keeps the focus on the education of kids in the school, rather than using the school review itself for political gain.

Amendment negatived.

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