Page 1882 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
agreement on that, so she is now seeking to tie future funding. So she is going to deny every student in a public college in the ACT funding from 2009 unless we adopt the 1950s assessment methods. It is interesting to look at the different views that have been expressed, the different variations, depending, of course, on the nature of debate. According to Hansard of 23 August last year, Mrs Dunne said that our college system is:
… a world-class education system with a fine, independent free-standing secondary college system that has, and has had for many decades, the best retention rates …
Then she went on to say:
The community wanted to see a better education system than the one that had hitherto been provided by the New South Wales education system.
So back in August of last year, Mrs Dunne said we have a world-class college system and we do not want to go back. We have moved away from the New South Wales system and we do not want to go back to it. Now she has changed her mind. Julie has yanked her chain, told her what she had to say in response, and she has now completely changed her position. Let us make this clear. Last year, the shadow education minister was prepared to support the college system, to say that it was once radical but has since amply demonstrated its benefits, and the benefits of the thought and consideration that produced it. That was moving away from external exams, moving away from the New South Wales HSC system.
What is Mrs Dunne suggesting now? We need to go back to that—that that is where we should be going. In setting up our education system for the 21st century, the way to do that is to go back to 1950, back to the New South Wales HSC system, because that is what we will get. That will be deemed to be the simplest model for the ACT. I can tell you now what the commonwealth is going to say: “You are an island within New South Wales. You may as well, for economies of scale, use the New South Wales system.”
Mrs Dunne: And you should resist it.
MR BARR: I am pleased to hear you say that, Mrs Dunne, because we will be. I would like to have you as my number one ally in this, because you probably have more influence with Julie Bishop than I do, but I do not think I am going to get it from you. Certainly it is something that I am going to argue passionately from now until we have to make a decision finally whether to sign up to it or not.
I hope I am not negotiating an agreement with Julie Bishop. I look forward to negotiating with Steven Smith, and I note all of his comments. I am 100 per cent confident that there are no educational grounds for making this change. Mr Smith indicated in his extensive comments on this issue that the only way that federal Labor would in any way seek to change the ACT system was if there was demonstrated educational benefit. They would certainly not tie our compliance to funding, and they would not seek an arbitrary introduction in 2009. They were clear and categorical statements. I am utterly confident that there are no educational grounds for moving away from continuous assessment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .