Page 5830 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

be technical about it, they are a few hundred dollars short. And it is incorrect to say, as Ms Porter says, that there are 3.5 per cent increases in years 2 and 3. The pay increases agreed in principle are 1 October 2011, a differential increase; 1 October 2012, three per cent; 1 October 2013, 1.5 per cent; and 1 April 2014, 2.5 per cent.

Second, part (iv) of the motion refers to:

… the establishment of a $100 000 teacher leader position, keeping talented teachers in the classroom …

This, Ms Porter, is also wrong. There is no teacher leader position. The AEU agreed to 20 SLC positions called “executive teacher—professional practice” who, along with all other SLCs, will be paid over $100,000. This bonus teacher stuff has been Mr Barr’s mantra for years—in fact, for almost a decade. How far out of touch he is with teachers and their representatives. A media release in November this year from the federal office of the AEU says quite clearly:

Bonus schemes do not meet the challenge we have in Australia which is to put in place career and salary structures that will ensure we can attract the best people into teaching and keep them in the classroom.

The motion also refers to the successful implementation of the national curriculum in the ACT. The national curriculum is not yet finalised; some key learning areas are still in draft. So it is wrong to suggest that it has been successfully implemented. This is an ongoing three-year phased process that has not been adequately supported by the government to give time for teachers to get their heads around it, link current with new curriculum, develop units of work and so on. It is still just a framework; there is much work to be done to get it to the syllabus stage.

It is another error when Ms Porter claims the successful ACT implementation of national partnerships. The national partnerships are ongoing as well. There is still much to be done with low SES issues, literacy and numeracy and teacher quality.

At best, this motion is misleading and hasty. At worst, it might well reflect the arrogant beliefs of Labor members of this Assembly that they have done well and are heroes in the education sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. The department officers are well regarded. However, the management of education at the political and policy level by Labor has been abysmal, and the unions, the teachers and Canberra families know it. I move:

Omit all words after “for ACT students” in subparagraph (1)(a), substitute:

“(b) the new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement offer has been given in-principle support by the Australian Education Union’s Executive Council;

(d) continued work needs to be done to consider ACT teacher work conditions in our public school system; and

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video