Page 562 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We only have to examine the recent NAPLAN scores and listen to the conversations about the influence and significance of the ICSEA scores to see that quality teaching is the critical factor in improving educational outcomes. In question time yesterday we tried to get Minister Burch to enunciate the basis for the changes that she was wanting to make to numeracy and literacy testing. We were keen to understand what her vision was for improving quality teaching and what research she was basing those changes on.
She tells us regularly that she wants our schools to be the best they can be. We agree that they should be. But she is unable or unwilling to tell us how she plans to go about it and what research and evidence she is using to base her judgement on. If it is only based on whether the federal government has signed up to a four or a six-year funding deal, I suspect there is not much more behind this rhetoric. The Australian Education Union has spent a lot of energy and I suspect a lot of union funds on their “give a Gonski” campaign. Whether this motion is intended to give new light to the campaign well past its use-by date is an interesting point to ponder.
I am not surprised that Mr Gentleman feels the need to be the AEU’s promotional spokesman. However, I am disappointed that he believes this is a sensible fiscal approach. The opposition will not be moving any amendments because, frankly, it would be futile to do so. This is a motion full of slogans, not substance. The substance of this motion is to ask a federal government to commit to expenditure outside the financial limits of a budget. How fiscally irresponsible is that? The reality is that the federal coalition government has given a commitment to a four-year funding agreement. It is a far more reliable commitment than any that previous labor governments—Rudd-Gillard-Rudd—have talked about.
The federal government’s position is a fiscally prudent arrangement to make, especially given the economic position it inherited. There is an agreement to the national education reform agenda. It is funded nationally for four years. During that time no doubt negotiations and adjustments will be made to meet the changing circumstances that in every probability will arise.
The ACT government would do very well to worry less about what impact the federal government might have on ACT schools and concentrate more on what effort the ACT government can make to improve the quality of our schools. We need a more honest evaluation of where the ACT is failing its students and not try to shift the focus and blame elsewhere. Based on that, we cannot support this motion that is full of slogans but which has no substance.
MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Disability, Children and Young People, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Women, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (5.29): I think that was a most telling few minutes from Mr Doszpot. He has no notion to support Mr Gentleman’s motion that calls on the Assembly to recognise this government’s agreement to the national education reform that provides certainty of funding for government schools but, importantly, also for the Catholic system and the independents. For Mr Doszpot to say that he is not going to support that, that he has no interest in supporting stable, secure funding for those three sectors that look after our kids in this community, is truly quite extraordinary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video