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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1790 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

reduced to 25. It also made the point that $27 million could give the education department's central office the resources to support schools across the system and fund a quality education program for all students at risk.

The Secondary Principals Council has provided its own preferred expenditure of that $27 million, given the freedom of choice, and targeted increased counselling, additional staffing for students at risk, additional staff to assist students with special needs, increased information technology funds, equity funding and reduced class sizes. The Catholic Education Office has made it clear that in its view the provision of educational resources within the budget should address-

Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I have looked at the motion and, although I do not see the motion necessarily anticipating discussion, almost everything that Ms Tucker is saying I think does anticipate not only the budget but also the bill that was tabled by Mr Berry today. I think the two are together. Having listened to this much of the debate, I have to say I think the motion is out of order.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did warn the member earlier, gently, in respect of standing order 59, anticipating discussion. Now that the matter has been brought to my attention by the leader of the house, I would have to uphold the point of order.

MS TUCKER: May I speak to that point of order? My motion is that this Assembly calls on the government to conduct an independent comparative analysis between increased expenditure on student transport and educational programs. I am speaking to the reason why we need to see a comparative analysis of those two potential ways of spending public money. That is the motion on the notice paper.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, I am not taking exception. I do not think the point of order raised by the leader of the house is in respect of your motion. It is the words that you are using in your oral submission to the house. If you read standing order 59, and I did caution you earlier, you will see that you are anticipating discussion on the matter that is to come before the chamber.

MS TUCKER: I thought I was putting up arguments that they need to research. Okay, if you do not want me to talk about the particular money, I can still argue for the need to research.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that would be helpful to all.

MS TUCKER: Thank you. Okay, I am happy to do that. Basically, what I am saying is that every member of this Assembly, as I understand it, does see a very strong need to be careful with scarce dollars that we have available to us as an Assembly. We do care about education and we want to work out the best way to spend money. We are interested in knowing whether we can improve education outcomes for students from all socioeconomic groups. We are all interested in that in this Assembly. We are also really interested in ensuring the viability of our local school system, I thought. This motion is asking that we do look really carefully at the social implications of various ways of spending money, particularly on transporting people. We are also all very interested in targeting disadvantaged students, I thought.

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