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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2986 ..

MR PRATT (11.51): Budget paper 2 lists a 5 per cent increase in funding for 2004-05, resulting in 910 fewer education places for students than was the case last year but with an increase of two schools. There is $16.4 million more funding being put into education but with 910 fewer education places for Canberra students. The issue here is not the 910 fewer places but the dichotomy between the two figures, which raises the question: what are we getting for the extra money?

The information taken from budget paper 4 is that the increase of $32.476 million in funding for 2004-05 from the 2003-04 estimated outcome, which is being partly offset by declining student enrolments in government schools, equalling $2.263 million, is not an element of education funding that this bill is presenting as an advantage to the parents, students and teachers of the ACT. Instead of the Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support trying to fund initiatives to attract and retain students in ACT government schools, she seems to have accepted the loss and thought, “Oh, well, we can just spend the money on something else!”

The appropriation bill also includes a 4.1 per cent increase in spending per government preschool student. There are no increases in services, quality or effectiveness for government preschool students and only one additional education place has been offered. There is a recurring theme with this appropriation bill—we are funding more and receiving less. That is the theme that runs throughout. The minister for education in this appropriation bill is bringing to the students and parents of Canberra one additional government preschool place.

Mrs Dunne: One—one kid?

MR PRATT: That is it.

Ms Gallagher: One enrolment. There are plenty of places.

MR PRATT: No wonder there are declining enrolments in the government school sector. The minister is not addressing the problem. She does not care about the impact this has on public education and prefers to spend the money on things other than attraction and retention strategies—strategies which stakeholders and community representatives say must target students at risk of failing to complete their education, strategies targeting early high-schooling, strategies targeting children at risk in primary schools and strategies that reduce disruptions in the classroom. The government should be focusing more effectively on pastoral care, values and discipline. I am pleased to see that the government is paying at least modest attention to this in its curriculum renewal process.

Let us look at the issue of disruptive students and students at risk. I asked the following questions of the minister in the estimates hearings: why is there no funding for a centralised alternative setting for students with severe behavioural dysfunction in years 7 and 8? What is your plan for dealing with severely disruptive children in early high schools? The minister gave a fairly good briefing on a number of issues—schools as communities was one of the issues raised—but there was not a clear-cut strategy about what to do with kids falling by the wayside in years 7 and 8, particularly when they are disrupting other kids in the classrooms. I make the observation that while it was

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