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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3075 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

In the reporting period, no substantial achievements were made in the battle against adolescent drug use. Indeed, some of the nastier factors trended upwards. Clearly, this was the signal for the introduction of more meaningful and substantial drugs education programs in schools, with perhaps a stronger departmental operational control being exercised. Regardless, I see little inspiration in the budget regarding drugs education. It is almost as if the ASSAD report had never been read by the government.

I turn to disabilities. At a time when we need to be upgrading our learning support centres and learning support units, again to remove some of the growing pressure in schools, I cannot identify any funding in this budget for broadening this program.

Furthermore, I find it most unacceptable that not a single dollar has been allocated to non-government schools, at least the systemic schools, to assist them in their disability children programs. The government should realise, and I hope will realise, that by contributing to non-government school disability programs they will remove the pressure or at least minimise the pressure on government schools. This is at least one area in non-government schools the government must provide support for. Mr Speaker, I seek a short extension of time.

MR SPEAKER: You are entitled to speak for a second 10 minutes if you wish.

MR PRATT: Thank you. In estimates I had occasion to ask about the closure of the LSC at Duffy Primary School. I accept the department's answer that the number of disability children at Duffy has dropped. However, nine children being attended to by one teachers assistant versus previously a qualified disabilities teacher plus an assistant is pretty inadequate. The Duffy example will not give the community confidence that the disability program is likely to be upgraded.

I wish to congratulate the government for carrying on with our initiative of providing valuable technological assets for teachers in laptops to supplement the desktop assets put in place some time ago. However, I am concerned that there is no IT asset support plan in place for these new laptops. Where is the allocated funding for the necessary insurance cover? Where is the allocated funding for the repair and maintenance of this fleet of laptops?

Furthermore, where is the funding allocation for the training required in order for teachers to benefit sufficiently from the utilisation of these new laptop computers? What is the point in providing these valuable assets if we do not have the resources and the strategic plan in place to take care of them and to provide adequate training in their use? The taxpayers may well question why that package is not comprehensive.

I turn to CIT and VET. The government has increased expenditure for the CIT by $2.2 million, at least in cash terms. That is most welcome, given the urgent need to upgrade apprenticeship/technical training in colleges as part of an overall strategic plan involving VET in schools leading to higher level technical training programs.

A CIT activity expansion is vital to this upgrade. Therefore, I wish to flag a major concern that this budget details. Yes, there is a cash increase for the CIT but a budgetary change which demonstrates a drop in actual outputs. For example, curriculum hours will be down by 340,000. That is a 9 per cent drop. Course enrolments will be down

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