Page 4676 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
session in this Assembly, the minister for disability advised that she has not received a “full in-depth discussion” from the education portfolio. It is also very instructive to note that the minister for disability is not here to discuss the important elements of today’s motion. I am very unimpressed with Ms Burch’s non-appearance this morning.
Furthermore, in the same question time session, the minister for education went on record to state that these cuts are a “sensible measure”. A sensible measure? In short, what he is insinuating is “the hell with our most vulnerable students; we need to make up for ACT Labor’s fiscal imprudence”. This is at a time when revenue to government coffers has been at an all-time high but negated by this government’s spending on legacy projects.
Mr Speaker, you will recall yesterday that on the topic of these cuts the minister avoided answering questions regarding his involvement in and knowledge of the details of the cuts, laying accountability squarely on his department and, in particular, his chief executive. This is unfortunate. It is lacking in leadership and sincerity on the part of Minister Barr. It makes the chief executive a fall guy for decisions that ultimately should have been approved by a minister and it politicises the public service.
In short, hiding behind the government bureaucracy, we have a minister who believes that cuts to disability support services in the education system are sensible, and a disability minister who simply does not know or does not care, because they operate in silos. They sit next to each other in the Assembly. Their offices are next door to each other upstairs, yet the chasm between them—
Mr Barr: No, they are not.
MR DOSZPOT: I am sorry; two offices down. It makes a big difference, Mr Barr. We are in the same building, for God’s sake. If you cannot cross a corridor, if you cannot cross a floor, there is something further to be said here.
Obviously, this lack of consultation stems not just from these dividend cuts but from amongst ministerial portfolios too. But on the note of consultations, the process is not unbecoming of the minister’s standard procedure on the matter. With cynicism for the community by Minister Barr, we have witnessed a near replay of the school closures of 2006. The minister makes a decision, notifies some people, calls for consultations and allocates an unreasonable time frame—and preferably makes a key announcement a day before school holidays to throw the education community off-guard, as we saw just recently. Teachers had four days—four days, Mr Barr—to come back from their holidays and respond to your internal consultation.
History seems to be repeating itself again, and I shudder to think what the minister has in store for us in the subsequent dividend cuts to come. Minister Barr has said that these internal consultations are in accordance with the enterprise agreements with the unions, yet the Australian Education Union—who, by the way, attended the consultation that we had with the community on Monday—has already commented that the consultation “makes a mockery of the required consultative processes under the terms of the DET teaching staff enterprise agreement”. That is from your union, Mr Barr. The process is further made dubious—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video