Page 3241 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
students, I really have to question that. I think that the government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that there are quality facilities. If Mrs Dunne has an issue with any of the 223 projects that we have announced and have put to tender, if she believes that we should not be upgrading irrigation systems and if she believes we should not be improving schools playgrounds—
DR FOSKEY: I did not hear her say that.
MR BARR: She said that we were throwing good money after bad. Dr Foskey, do you not believe that we should be investing money in schools? Nonetheless, the government will continue with this program to invest record amounts of money in our public education system. One needs only to look at the advice of the Government Schools Education Council in relation to the need to invest in school facilities. That was a key feature of their advice to me very early in my time as minister. It was amongst a range of issues that they brought forward and that we are working on.
Returning now to the issue in Dr Foskey’s motion in relation to a cost-benefit analysis and the implications of change, I think it is important to look at the report that the P&C put forward. Again, I draw members’ attention to the following interesting quote that is contained within the report:
Once consolidation was completed, and two or three years had passed, the key stakeholders involved, including parents who were previously angry or concerned, believed the merger was beneficial for students.
The government is showing educational and political leadership on this issue. We are willing to argue the case for improvements that will ensure our schools and our students will be ready to meet the demands of the 21st century. An extensive six-month consultation process is under way, and as this process proceeds the government is listening to and considering the educational, social and financial costs and benefits that schools and their communities are bringing to its attention in relation to the proposal.
My senior departmental officers, my staff and I are regularly meeting with school and community members and discussing a whole range of issues. I regularly receive feedback and respond to issues that are brought to my attention. The government will, of course, consider all submissions in relation to the process, including the report provided by the P&C. In fact, most of the issues raised in the report commissioned by the P&C have already been taken into account.
Let me list them again. The first is distributional effects. What the government is seeking to do is to ensure a fairer distribution of educational resources that will have a maximum effect on improving student learning outcomes. Education is, of course, the second largest area of expenditure in the ACT budget, and we need to ensure that we get the best outcomes.
The second relates to the one-off costs and benefits that would result from closure of schools. I draw members’ attention again to the Towards 2020 web site. Whilst the P&C researcher did not look at that information and was perhaps only provided with a very limited brief by the P&C, nonetheless those issues are addressed. Thirdly, there are the issues around the curriculum and the consultant’s reference to the need for a broader
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .