Page 3562 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
paragraph, which is what we always expect. It does not matter who moves the motion on that side, there is always the paragraph that says, “The nasty federal government has got in the way and caused problems for us.”
If Mr Barr wanted to redraft his amendment to insert some of his points into the original motion, we could support much of what he has said. But the amendment in its present form guts the original motion. You turn your back on a proposal to improve your public policy making. You turn your back on research to find out why you would spend money and where you would spend money so that you would have an evidence base for why you would spend money. That is what the Chief Minister likes: an evidence base. We cannot support this amendment in its present form, but if Mr Barr wants to come back and insert some of his points in the original motion and undertake to do the research asked for in the original motion, I would be happy to accept most of those.
I move the amendment circulated in my name to Mr Barr’s amendment:
Omit paragraphs (7) and (8), substitute:
(7) notes the need to understand why there is a steady decline in the proportion of school-aged children attending government schools;
(8) calls on the ACT Government to increase its understanding of the declining proportion of school-aged children attending government schools; and
(9) calls on the ACT Government to ensure that the expenditure of the $90 million capital upgrade is based on sound research and understanding of need.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (5.18): I support Mrs Dunne’s amendment. As I said earlier, the real issue here is the decline in the proportion of school-age children attending government schools. It is a fallacious argument to suggest, “Well, the population of young people is declining and everybody is in the same boat.” That is not the case. We did one piece of research prior to this debate. Schools have asked that I not cite them, and I understand that. But one particular non-government school indicated to my office that they had a waiting list of over 100 children, the majority being younger children. It is a testament both to their success as an educational institution, and frankly, in all likelihood, to satisfaction amongst the public with various aspects of the government system.
I know with one of my own children I had to almost walk over hot coals—an expression I have used several times recently—to get her into St Clare’s, which is a fine school and growing in strength. The school is an excellent one but it was a challenge to get in there, and it is still a challenge to get into that school and many of the other non-government schools, because parents are saying that they want to get their kids into the non-government system because of a lack of satisfaction with what is on offer.
I came across somebody only the other evening at a function. I had not met this gentleman before but he said, “I am trying to get my kids into St Eddie’s.” He said he did not want any more of his children to go through the government school near
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .