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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1214 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the policy suggestions have not been costed by Connors and she has not disclosed/calculated the effect in financial terms that her suggestions would have on the ACT schooling system. In her recent press conference she said that until the government provides a "blueprint"of her policies which they intend to implement, there was no point in providing costings. Not only was that a blatant cop-out in her consultative responsibilities, and one which has negated the effectiveness of this report, it also means that the hidden effects of her suggested bad policy will not be seen until they are implemented-then it will be too late for the community to object.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Connors has based her report around attacking the funding structures that support the non-Catholic private school network in the ACT. Most importantly, I feel strongly that the Assembly must send a strong message to the government that the Connors inquiry has not put forward proposals that would in any way significantly advance the ACT education system. Further, this inquiry has put forward recommendations that would fundamentally undermine and irreparably damage the diverse nature of our education system and, therefore, they should not be adopted.

The inquiry was unnecessary, it was a waste of time, it was late and it blew the budget. The most disappointing aspect of Connors is that it does not drill into the problem areas affecting schools across the board. It does not offer funding and it does not offer non-funded solutions-solutions that could be used to address those areas where we need to do a lot of work.

Mr Speaker, all Connors has done in fact is concern and alarm the community. The report undermines and, indeed, attacks the rich diverse nature of the ACT education system.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.20): The motion moved by Mr Pratt this morning demonstrates a lack of knowledge about good governance generally, and about the Connors report in particular. Mr Pratt's motion pre-empts the government's response. It would be useful to remind members that this is the government's report.

The motion is an attack on Ms Lyndsay Connors, an extremely well-regarded Australian education expert. I think that is very unfortunate, Mr Pratt, particularly as you at no stage raised any of your concerns directly with Ms Connors; you did not take part in the inquiry; nor have you since the report was released made any attempt to speak to Ms Connors about your concerns about her credibility and the report that she has delivered.

Mr Speaker, this government committed to holding a public inquiry into ACT education funding as part of its election platform. It has been a long time since there has been an assessment of the public funding of ACT education. The last inquiry in 1992 dealt only with the non-government schools sector. So it was timely to review the basis upon which public funding is provided to both government and non-government schools. It is appropriate that there should be such a review because the appropriation for government and non-government schooling is a significant portion of our budget. If you take away Commonwealth funding, the schooling appropriation in the ACT budget comprised around 25 per cent.

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