Page 840 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BARR: I again thank Ms Porter for her interest in these very important national education debates. It is an interest that, sadly, is not shared by those opposite. They have had nothing to say on education for some time. It has been quite a while since Mrs Dunne has even asked a question in relation to education.
The ACT government supports the move to a national curriculum covering core subjects. We do so for a number of reasons. Firstly, states and territories have already been cooperating and have achieved a high degree of commonality amongst the jurisdictions. Recent work has shown that year 12 courses in chemistry, physics and higher level mathematics showed in the order of 85 to 90 per cent commonality in jurisdictions around the country.
We also believe that national collaboration will lighten the curriculum development load on the ACT education department and our teachers. Further, given that 80,000 school students move to a different state or territory each year—and many students who move are part of defence families, and many of those move in and out of the ACT—we should seek to minimise the disruption to those students’ education.
More broadly, it is important that, as a nation, we agree on what it is essential for our students to learn. As individuals our students face the challenge of keeping up with an ever increasing rate of change; as a nation we face the challenge of maintaining our global competitiveness.
We have before us two very different visions of how a national curriculum should develop. On one hand, we have the federal government, through the education minister, Julie Bishop, who believes that the national curriculum should be set up at her prerogative and should be tied to the next funding agreement between the commonwealth and the states and territories.
On the other hand, the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, and Labor’s education spokesman, Stephen Smith, have proposed the establishment of a national curriculum board. This board will be made up of curriculum experts from all states and territories and will develop the national curriculum over three years, focusing on maths, science, English and history.
At the meeting of education ministers in Darwin, state and territory ministers again demonstrated that we can work together to help students and their families. This is in stark contrast to the approach of the Howard government and the deafening silence from those opposite on these major issues. There are seven or eight major issues.
I understand that the shadow minister was overseas for a period during this crucial national debate. I recognise that the Leader of the Opposition provided comment on a couple of government initiatives, and I welcome his support for our $20 million investment in information technology. It was good to finally see someone in the opposition recognising a significant investment in public education. Mr Stefaniak was on the public record on this. It stands in remarkable contrast to the shadow minister, who has had nothing positive to say about any education issue in the territory for some time. She will not ask questions in this place; she will not contribute to national debates. The only time we hear anything from the opposition on an education issue is when the leader is acting in the portfolio.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .