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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1217 ..

MS GALLAGHER (continuing):

Education Council and the Ministerial Council for Non-Government Schools. I have received their submissions in relation to how we spend the $7.4 million. But the $7.4 million is not in the budget this year, so I could not have spent it-I guess I could have spent it illegally as it was not there. But that money has always been in the forward estimates to be used in next year's budget, and that is certainly a commitment that the government is keeping.

When I met with key interest groups about Connors, I informed them that the government does not intend to act prematurely on some of the longer term issues. I think Mr Pratt covered succinctly some of the national work that is being done by MCEETYA. I think there was broad support-

Mr Smyth: So you say he did get something. Well done.

MS GALLAGHER: I know it is a bit scary, but there were some things that I agreed with. From my discussions with the sector, that is the way they feel it would be most sensible to go.

In relation to Mr Pratt's concerns about a working party being established and about us going ahead on our own, I guess we could but, again, I have spoken to the sector and I know that there is really strong support for them to be involved in anything that happens in relation to Connors; they have said that they need to be sitting around the table and talking to government while it is happening. So I think your concerns about that are not supported by the rest of the education community. They want to be part of any discussions in relation to the government's response to Connors. Schools need certainty in their funding arrangements and, therefore, they need reasonable notice if things are going to change.

Mr Speaker, it is difficult to know exactly what point Mr Pratt is trying to make in saying that we are prevaricating so far as the $7.4 million is concerned. However, as I have said, the money is for next year's budget, the discussions are ongoing and the Connors inquiry will help to inform policy making in the setting of those budget priorities.

Holding this inquiry fulfils an election commitment of this government. It is a substantial piece of work and I am certainly grateful for the time and effort put in not only by Lyndsay Connors but by everyone who participated. I need to balance the need to respond within a reasonable time frame to the Connors inquiry with the need to give the education community time to put their views to me and with the need to think carefully before we make changes. This is good governance; it is using information to inform good policy making. Why would we go to the expense of commissioning such an extensive inquiry and then not spend the time to work through the best way forward from the information gained?

Perhaps Mr Pratt thinks that as soon a report is received the government should jump straight into making decisions and moving in new directions. But we are about properly working through well thought through policies and making sure that we get the best return for our dollar; that we do not short change the Canberra community by jumping into things and not doing the less exciting but just as important groundwork. We do not want any changes that we make to education funding to be referred to as premature and

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