Page 2323 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in forms, what is so different now? Or is it simply a case of being seen to be enforcing accountability, not actually achieving accountability?
Ms Gilmour’s letter had a number of genuine concerns, delivered on behalf of teachers within the ACT public education system. But in case anyone believes that this is just the unions developing an issue for whatever reason, let me quote from a letter I received, quite unsolicited, from a teacher earlier this week. Her complaints are wide ranging, but in respect of the teacher absence record keeping issue she says:
I am tired of reporting things twice. As a college teacher I am required to mark rolls twice, once on a paper record and then again electronically. Now I am required to complete an absence form each fortnight which records again, any absence I have recorded on a leave form. As these absence forms are to be kept in schools for 2 years how can this improve record keeping? This just increases our workload.
The minister’s reply to Ms Gilmour is almost dismissive and certainly not conciliatory. In five brief paragraphs he makes a number of claims and—why am I not surprised?—I am advised that much of what he says is wrong. The minister says that the absence record was developed in consultation with the AEU. That is not how the AEU see it. They suggest they were told what was to happen, and it was trialled. They highlighted the anomalies and said it would not work. The pilot became a permanent process. Some consultation, Mr Barr! But then again we are used to that. Why would anyone expect any better? This minister has form for calling this consultation.
The minister suggests that there were 1,600 officers, approximately one-third of the directorate’s workforce, with discrepancies between leave taken and leave processed. The AEU disputes these figures and I am in no position to verify that. However, while I will not dispute the number of teachers supposedly found to be in breach, one has to ask: why have the department and its minister known or believed that over a third of the teaching force is in breach of the enterprise agreement, and known for six years or more, and done nothing—not a thing? This was all on your watch, Mr Barr. The minister admits to similar findings in the 2005 and 2006 audit years, so yes, I guess you can point the finger slightly to those before you. What on earth have you been doing, minister? And if the problem has been known about for so long, why is the only solution now yet more paperwork that clearly is set up to fail? It makes no sense. There is an old saying: do what you always do and you will get what you always got. Surely this is what is happening here and likely to continue unless something changes.
There are better alternatives. A cursory look at other jurisdictions suggests a range of electronic systems that appear to have little of the flaws and complexity being rammed through schools in the ACT. In the Catholic education sector here in the ACT, some schools have a fully integrated electronic system that to all intents and purposes has the support of the teaching staff and delivers the necessary due diligence required in any efficient personnel record system. Didn’t anyone bother to look at other alternatives? It is not rocket science. It just takes sensible dialogue and sensible listening skills. The minister would do well to heed the words of the 19th century US Chief Justice John Marshall, who said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video