Page 2932 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.38): The government will not be supporting the amendment, and let me tell you why. We put down some very clear terms of reference for the committee so that there are no excuses—they are very broad—and the committee has all the authority it needs.
Ms Bresnan has proposed today a number of matters in her amendment which, if agreed to, would mean that the terms of reference are seriously deficient. In at least two respects it would mean the committee inquiry would not deliver on the parliamentary agreement commitment between Labor and the Greens.
What are those two key problems? The first is that there is no deadline in the new terms of reference. The deadline set by the parliamentary agreement was within 12 months, and this is reflected in my original terms of reference. So the amendment sets no reporting date. That is not what was agreed to between Labor and the Greens. Frankly, I do not think that is good enough.
Secondly, there is no clear reference to or definition of the achievement gap. The definition of the achievement gap that is put forward in the amendment is too vague to guide the serious work of the committee. The government proposed that the committee investigate the performance of ACT school students, government and non-government—ACT school students, Mr Doszpot—in national and international assessments to identify whether any gaps exist in the performance of ACT students, government and non-government, compared with the highest performing jurisdiction or country and to make recommendations as to how to close those gaps and ensure that the ACT is the top-performing jurisdiction. This is specific, measurable, achievable and ambitious.
By contrast, the revised terms of reference, with their bland statement about “existing socioeconomic difference in educational engagement and achievement”, are too vague and too narrow. It is not good enough and it is not what was agreed between Labor and the Greens.
There are a number of other deficiencies in the Bresnan terms of reference. The two most glaring, in my view, are removing the reference to strategies for informing and engaging parents in support of their children’s literacy and numeracy development. In the government’s view, parents are the first teachers and home is the first school. So I do not understand why Ms Bresnan wants to ignore this in her amendment.
Ms Bresnan seeks to remove my reference to a longitudinal analysis of the ACT’s results such as ACTAP and 2008 NAPLAN and other national assessments, PISA and TIMMS. In my view, that should be part of the terms of reference. Good evidence is the lifeblood of progressive policy, and again I do not understand why Ms Bresnan wants to remove these references.
For these reasons, the government will oppose Ms Bresnan’s amendment. We believe that the original terms of reference met the requirements of the Labor-Greens parliamentary agreement. In particular reference to Mr Doszpot and the Liberals, it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .