Page 1834 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So why the delay in applying for the necessary approvals? The government could hardly say they did not know that they needed to do that. They could hardly say that they did not know there were red gum and yellow box trees in the area. Such trees are hard to miss. They could hardly claim they did not think about the possibility of superb parrots, legless lizards and golden sun moths because they are frequent listings in any ACT development considerations. The fact is that, for reasons unknown, the application did not proceed when it should have. And indeed it was the ACT Greens who had to remind the government of the need to refer the school site for an environmental protection biodiversity and conservation assessment.
We know of course that in January this year residential development for Throsby was halved and with it went any chance of a school at Throsby. The school will now be built at Nicholls. I do not presume to know what expense the delays and relocations have caused the Catholic Education Office. I do not know what inconvenience this will cause parents in Gungahlin who had planned on a school located in Throsby. But I know it must have caused great angst to both the Catholic Education Office and parents, and clearly there are financial implications.
In summary then, my motion highlights a number of things. Nearly a third of ACT students are educated at Catholic schools. That means significant savings for the public sector. It means reduced pressure on government schools across Canberra. There is a wide variation of support for Catholic schools and government schools, and the gap is wider in the ACT than in any other jurisdiction. Why is that so? There is a blatant and systemic unfairness in how successive ACT Labor governments have treated Catholic schools, and there is no justification for it.
The Gonski review—does Dr Bourke remember that?—provides great opportunity to enhance educational outcomes across all sectors, government and non-government. But the minister needs to demonstrate that he acts for all students and their families in ACT education, irrespective of what school and at what level.
I am aware that the Greens will move an amendment to Dr Bourke’s amendments to this motion, and I will reserve my comments on those for later. But we call on this government to acknowledge the significant contributions in both financial investment and educational outcomes that ACT schools make to the education of ACT children. We are calling on the government to apologise to ACT families for the unnecessary delays and additional costs that failure to progress the construction of John Paul college has caused.
We are calling on the government to explain the variation between ACT public school funding, which is higher than any jurisdiction in Australia, and funding to ACT Catholic and independent schools, which is amongst the lowest of all states. And we are calling on the government to provide assurances that no ACT schools will be disadvantaged if the recommendations of the Gonski review are to be implemented.
DR BOURKE (Ginninderra—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Corrections) (3.25), by leave: I move:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video