Page 3141 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 17 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Indeed! I thank the reviewer for reaching that conclusion. It goes on to talk at some length about educational outcomes and quality. The P&C accused the government of not taking that into account in putting the proposal forward. Of course, we are all now aware of the footnote on page 11 that the reviewer did not look at those issues but nonetheless felt the need to still make comments on page 12 about the need for increased opportunities for students, such as a broader curriculum, extracurricular activities, employment prospects for students, the quality of teaching and the teaching experience, and parental involvement. It talks about the benefits for teachers:
There is the potential for flexibility, greater interaction with other staff, improved teaching resources and facilities, and assistance with students with behavioural problems and administrative tasks.
It goes on to quote:
… once consolidation was completed and two or three years had passed, the key stakeholders, including parents who were previously angry or concerned, believed the merger was beneficial for students.
The report went on to say that that was an important conclusion with respect to forecasting the educational outcomes and quality. The government is taking all of these issues into account as part of a detailed consultation process. We have put forward an important reform for our public education system, one that is needed and one that will ensure quality outcomes for students in the ACT. That is the desire of the government. Those opposite seem to be hell-bent on using every possible argument about process, every possible argument about why the government should not address these issues. They are not really interested in debating the substance. They are not really interested in improving educational outcomes for students in the ACT. They seem to be running an agenda. In fact, Mrs Dunne said, last time we sat, that the government’s $90 million injection into schools was throwing good money after bad. That is the attitude of the opposition—that investment in our schools is a bad thing. Interestingly, one needs only to contrast—
MR SPEAKER: Come back to the subject matter of the question.
MR BARR: Mr Speaker, one needs only to contrast Mrs Dunne’s views on this issue with those of her federal colleague Senator Humphries, who—
MR SPEAKER: Come back to the subject matter of the question, or I will order you to sit down.
MR BARR: The subject matter of the question related to a cost-benefit analysis of the government’s proposals, and investment in public education is a major feature of our proposals. I am simply contrasting the views of Mrs Dunne with those of her federal colleague Senator Humphries, who, when announcing a half-million-dollar investment in science facilities at Erindale College, indicated how important it was that governments invest in public education. I could not agree more. It is a pity that those opposite do not agree. If Mrs Dunne believes we are wasting money, she should go around to each of the 72 schools that will be receiving over 270 upgrade programs this financial year and tell them that they cannot have the upgrade; that the Liberal Party oppose it; that there is not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .