Page 3787 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The preschool-primary link program was first initiated as a pilot program in a number of settings. The links have been successfully implemented at Amaroo, Evatt, Fadden, Mawson, Ngunnawal, Palmerston and Richardson. Preschool-primary amalgamation is not something new for ACT education. It is not something to be feared or thwarted by the opposition. It is just building on successful programs and formalising the custom and the practice that have long been supported by the community and it is meeting the current and anticipated future needs of our children.
This government has proposed through Towards 2020 an exciting reform process to provide the ACT community with high-quality school environments not just in the new suburbs but in all regions, along with major upgrades to schools right across Canberra. This government has outlined a comprehensive proposal and is continuing to consult on educational, financial and social considerations. The alternative proposed by Mrs Dunne is not a policy, merely a brake. Mrs Dunne seeks to stop everything at every opportunity. Well, you cannot move forward by standing still; the world does not allow you to do that.
This government has a strong record of investing in early years of schooling. We have lowered class sizes in early years, we have increased the hours of service delivery in the preschool sector and now we are proposing specialist early childhood schools. This government is proud of this record. The motion as moved by Mrs Dunne does nothing to enhance early childhood education; it is merely a stalling tactic from this opposition.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.13): Mr Speaker, the Liberal opposition will be opposing the amendment. Mr Barr’s approach to this motion this week is better than the approach that the government mostly take on private members day, which is usually, “We will gut the motion and insert words of our choosing,” so perhaps we should encourage him in being a little more consultative. That is as far as I will go. We will be opposing his amendment because it does not get to the crux of the thing.
The crux of the thing that we are talking about is that the preschool community are asking for this. They are not saying that the policy is wrong. They are not saying that they do not want to have amalgamation of preschools and primary schools. They are not saying that that is bad. No-one in this place, with perhaps the exception of Dr Foskey, who expressed reservations about it, has actually opposed that as an idea—not the preschool society, not the Liberal Party. What the preschool society and the Liberal Party are saying is that if you choose to go down these paths there are complex issues of governance and coordination that need to be taken into account and that you cannot close such a large number of preschools—16 preschools as you propose at the end of this year—and effectively carry out that policy.
While the preschool society have been very open and have worked with the government, and have been very open with the opposition about what they think about the proposals, they do highlight problems. Mr Barr has said that because the preschool society are talking to the government everything is hunky-dory. No, it is not. There are problems. The preschool society have highlighted the problems. Those problems have been highlighted here today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .