Page 2575 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
system is big enough to have that choice. That is why we have put forward a proposal to have some 7 to 12 high schools—not to make every high school a 7 to 12 school and not to remove all colleges but to simply put forward that choice. As I have indicated, if there is not strong support for that model in a particular region then, of course, the government would not proceed with such a model. But there has been interest in different regions of the city in that proposal.
It is certainly interesting to be able to engage with the community around those issues and around how we can look at meeting the needs of the 70 per cent of students who do not go on to attend university. That is one of the key features of the 2020 proposal. There is a strengthening of pathways into vocational education and training. This is something the government takes very seriously. It is something that I note has received bipartisan support at various public meetings. I note that at a Tuggeranong Community Council meeting Mr Pratt was certainly in support of further investigation of vocational education and training pathways in the Tuggeranong region. I think that is an important thing for the government to do. I have indicated previously that the need to address educational provision post year 12 in the Tuggeranong region is something that is very high on my agenda.
In any overall look at the education system we would need to consider where we need to strengthen the system and whether we may have issues concerning simply too many schools and not enough students to sustain the number of schools. These are all part of this broader consideration and cannot be ignored. The problems will not go away if we continue to delay making the tough decisions and looking at these issues.
There has been a lot of criticism from those opposite about previous ministers for education allegedly not being prepared to engage in this debate, yet the second an education minister engages in this debate I am criticised for even raising the issues. How dare I! This is what is occurring. We consistently get this walking both sides of the street—we get it all the time. In relation to budget policy more generally, the opposition is generally in favour of restraining expenditure and is specifically against every proposal. It is walking both sides of the street. Is it any wonder that Mr Mulcahy cringes each time one of his shadow colleagues gets up and makes a further commitment that would drain the territory’s limited resources on some Liberal Party folly. You can see it on his face when certain members make their statements. He knows the difficulties in providing a sustainable education system. The government is prepared to engage in these issues in a constructive manner and I look forward to those members of the community who are interested in engaging with us doing so.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.04): This motion gives us a picture of what the Liberal Party would do if it were in government and it indicates that it has learned from its early experiences in government. Perhaps it has learned more from the poor process currently being employed by this government, which really is a lesson in what not to do. On the other hand it would not hurt if the Liberals responded to Mr Stanhope’s constant reminders of history by admitting that they might have made mistakes in the past and that they would not do it that way again.
They certainly should not give in to Mr Stanhope’s he-man challenge, “You did not have the guts, and we did.” When Mr Stanhope speaks that is pretty much what the debate boils down to. I will not endorse this motion because I fear that it reflects the Liberals’
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .