Page 3165 - Week 10 - Thursday, 18 October 2007

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


That said, however, any course is only as good as the teacher. Allowing teachers to be a part of the curriculum process and ensuring that they have lots of access to good in-services is vital in ensuring their interest and their motivation to pass the information on. Making them teach courses that they have little ability to influence will merely alienate them, and the best teachers are passionate about their topics. Teachers were, quite clearly—or most of them—not consulted. In an article in the Canberra Times Jessica Wright quotes Mr Ewbank of the History Teachers Association of Australia. He said that there was some initial consultation with his organisation, but that they were not involved in the final stages. In the same article, Clive Haggar from the ACT branch of the AEU states that the plan undermines the ACT government, the education department and the school boards.

The ACT government, through Mr Barr, have advised they believe they will have to accept the proposed changes as he “would not risk $40 million of funding”, and that is understandable. But the Howard government should not put the states and territories in a situation where funding is dependent on changes to curriculum. As many have noted, this is essentially blackmail. It is an underhand way of imposing a rigid conservative agenda in the case of who dictates it—and we know that is the way Mr Howard is going—on the minds of our young people and, again, shows no effort to collaborate with the states.

Mr Seselja: It is okay if Whitlam does it. If lefties do it, it is all right.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!

DR FOSKEY: I know that ideology is like putting blinkers on. I hear it every time the Liberals open their mouths about anything I say. They present a particular image of what I say, but they never address what I actually say. In terms of collaboration, ask the parents and students at Mt Neighbour school what they think about the ACT government’s record on education. (Time expired.)

MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.40): I thank Mr Gentleman for raising this matter. I make the observation that in my time as minister for education I have been struck by the complete and utter failure of the commonwealth government to work collaboratively with the states and territories. It is interesting that the modern day Liberal Party, which was founded on a belief in pluralism and rights of states and territories, has moved a long way from that position.

In his interjection Mr Seselja made reference to the Whitlam government. I think that those who are students of Australian political history would observe that the political party that railed against the modest, by Howard terms, centralisation agenda of the Whitlam government would have to enjoy the irony of the modern day Liberal Party, and particularly a representative in the state or territory parliament, wanting to chastise. As we know, the Liberal Party of 2007 is a very different creature from that which Malcolm Fraser led in the seventies and early eighties. In fact, it is remarkable these days to see the level of agreement between former prime ministers Fraser and Whitlam. But I digress.


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