Page 4679 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010

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


must be provided with more funding. Yet what is their voting record? They voted against paying every single teacher in the ACT education system. They voted against providing an extra $4 million to students with special needs in non-government schools and interestingly, Mr Speaker, they voted against the seven per cent increase in funding for the department of education in 2010-11. That is the voting record of the Canberra Liberals. It is against everything.

As I said earlier, the government is committed to delivering a balanced budget through the efficiency dividend that this place supported in the budget this year. All ACT government agencies are required to meet the efficiency dividend. The Department of Education and Training is required to achieve savings of one per cent in the current financial year, which translates into a $4 million saving.

The efficiency dividend review undertaken by the department considered how best to structure its workforce whilst continuing to deliver on its commitments. This process has been conducted in accordance with the obligations the department has under the ACT Department of Education and Training staff enterprise agreement 2009-11. It is also being conducted under the obligations contained in the ACT Department of Education and Training staff union collective agreement 2007-10.

The department has been working with staff, principals, unions, key stakeholders and parent groups through the efficiency dividend review process. The department has met with relevant unions on a regular basis through this process and has spoken with or met with other key stakeholders and interest groups.

On 23 September the department circulated a consultation paper to employees and relevant unions which outlined proposals for modifications to central office staffing levels and associated functions. The paper noted that a key priority for the department through this process has been to minimise the impact on schools, which have been exempted from identifying savings. Proposals were therefore developed to ensure minimal impact, if any, in classrooms, with no school-based jobs being directly affected.

The initial consultation paper indicated that there would be some changes to the way central office supports schools, with most changes affecting the way services are delivered, rather than a reduction in the level of service. As a result of the proposals, a number of highly skilled teaching staff currently based in central office will be returning to schools.

An efficiency dividend review question and answer document was posted on the department’s website providing more information on the ED review process and proposals. This responded to a number of concerns that had already been raised through the consultation period. The consultation period on the ED review paper was initially scheduled to close on 8 October but was extended until the 14th to provide for additional time.

Importantly, the timing of this process has been designed to ensure that the department could conclude its consultation in time to enable affected staff to be redeployed into schools and other positions with minimal disruption to those staff and to students.


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