Page 2932 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
key reforms in education in the ACT have occurred since self-government under Liberal governments. And let us look at them.
The minister talked about greater IT awareness. Who implemented the year 10 IT certificate, to make sure that all our students left the schools with the knowledge they need to participate in the modern electronic world? The Liberals did. Bill Stefaniak, as minister, did. And that IT certificate sets the foundation for all that comes after it. We guaranteed that all kids would get the IT education that they need.
Indeed, who put in place professional development? The Liberals did. We put in a fund that has not been increased for seven years, under three successive education ministers, two of whom have not got the guts to show their faces here now. They let teacher improvement and career development languish because they did not care.
This of course occurred at a time when education as a percentage of the budget collapsed under Labor. It used to be almost 24 per cent and it is now just above 20 per cent. So you can put your 26-point list of all the little bits and pieces that you have done, Mr Barr, on the table and say, “Oh what a good fellow am I,” but the reality is that education funding has fallen under this government and the effectiveness of that education has fallen under this government.
They tried to emulate us; they tried to emulate what Bill had done. Let us face it, Clive Haggar and the Australian Education Union are not real close friends of the Liberal Party on most occasions, but what did Mr Haggar say when Kate Carnell and Bill Stefaniak put into the realm that we were going to reduce class sizes for kindergarten, first grade and second grade? They said it was the most significant reform in education since self-government. And that still stands today.
I cannot remember whether it was Ms Gallagher or Mr Corbell—there have been so many education ministers now—who raised it to third grade because they appreciated the value of it. And I commend them for raising it to third grade. They should take the bipartisan approach that occurred then and say, “Yes, four, five and six are important.”
What we had when we announced this was educationalists and members of the union saying, “Do not stop there. This is such a good initiative, do not stop there. Take it into the high schools where the high school students are suffering.” The government, particularly under this minister with his fetish for knocking down schools and building super schools which do not address the needs of students, have allowed the mass exodus of students from our high school system to the non-government sector, which is now over 50 per cent.
The saddest indictment of this minister is that so many students choose not to attend the free system and their parents are willing to pay to send them to get the education that they deserve. That is the sad indictment. And it goes to the heart of the figures. They are spending less on education; they are directing it to the wrong areas; they refuse to acknowledge the many reports and studies that show what the benefits of smaller class sizes mean. The tardiness of the minister on this issue and his feeble speech earlier show that they do not understand what education is about in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .