Page 1436 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We are unsure how the conservative states will respond. Some have indicated in-principle support for the commonwealth government reforms; others are still reserving their position. Of course, the new Queensland government will have only just taken office and so will clearly need some time to consider their position. So it is uncertain what will emerge out of the COAG process.
I understand from news reports that South Australia has already signed up to this, and the ACT would need to give very serious consideration to it given the amount of money that is on the table and the principles that have been put in place by the commonwealth. It is for those reasons that it is appropriate that we consider what happens at COAG in a few weeks time before making further decisions on structural reform in the ACT. That is the sensible approach to adopt.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (3.31): I will speak briefly to support Dr Bourke’s amendments. Obviously there were some discussions between Dr Bourke’s office and my office, and it was felt that this added to the motion by acknowledging that there is this COAG meeting Mr Barr has just spoken about on 13 April, when a number of reforms and dollars will be spoken about.
Dr Bourke has also put a second amendment around not proceeding any further with the collaborative venture until after COAG meets in April and then reporting back to the Assembly, which will basically fit in with that 1 May time line in my motion. We have no problem with supporting Dr Bourke’s amendments.
I will say that I found that quite a useful speech given by Mr Barr. There was a lot of information in there, and I find it quite interesting that Mr Barr had more information in his speech about what is going on at the moment than the education minister did. That is a very interesting thing that is going on. But we will be supporting Dr Bourke’s amendments.
MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (3.33), by leave: We do not have a major issue with Dr Bourke’s amendments. I can understand that the Treasurer might like to discuss funding of education at COAG. But the amendments are basically not a lot more than a red herring. They do not excuse the total lack of accountability that this government has shown in this particular matter. It was not originally and nor is it now just a matter for COAG. My concern was and still is financial accountability. The government had three reviews, none of which addressed the cost of any changes, and seven months later, having made various announcements, now pleads the need to consult at COAG.
The Labor government has a poor track record in managing projects—the Cotter Dam and the GDE come to mind—and this is just another in a very long line. In fact, “poor track record” is too light—“a track record of incompetence” is closer to the mark. The latest debacle has all the hallmarks of another government financial stuff-up. To throw COAG in is nothing more than a red herring. But we can play along with that, if that is what you wish to do. We will support your amendments. After all, COAG will meet before the 1 May deadline, so we hope the government will not escape the need to report back to this Assembly and to the standing committee on education.
Amendments agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video