Page 1883 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
less than that, depending on just how the numbers at certain year levels fall.
I do not know what the Priorities Review Board is about. I do not think it understands the system, and in a few other places I think it says things that suggest that it has not had enough time properly to understand what education is about.
I will make one qualification. It is important at the secondary college level that there be a wide variety of courses. If their numbers fall, and I would not care to say at this stage to what level, it becomes more difficult to provide that wide range of courses. So I will make that qualification.
Mr Humphries: It is true in high schools as well to a large degree.
MR WOOD: Well, to a much lesser extent than the colleges, because they do not have that same flexibility. From the day they were given their staffing formulas, the colleges had that staffing flexibility, and the high schools were nowhere near as well resourced. I do not think the Priorities Review Board really understands that.
I want to make another comment about the Priorities Review Board and link it to Mr Collaery's statement. The board seems to be suggesting that we ought to be charging fees at post-compulsory level - that is, in our secondary colleges. Indeed, it is making a very clear statement.
Mr Kaine: I have already rejected that.
MR WOOD: Yes. I believe that has been rejected and I thank you for that. Maybe you will look more closely at this report and reject a whole host of other things.
Mr Collaery: Have you had time to read it?
MR WOOD: You have had a number of days before I got hold of it and you have numbers of other briefings, but in any case let me finish on this. It says a deal about the philosophy of the Priorities Review Board and I think it urges on us a caution about taking on too readily its submissions. I have no doubt Mr Collaery is very concerned about that social disadvantage problem that is inherent in any suggestion that we charge fees at years 11 and 12. Maybe he has already argued about that, and it must be one of the reasons the Government has rejected it. Even by noting that you have rejected it indicates that you have had some prior discussion about it. (Extension of time granted)
No doubt Mr Collaery will argue the severe social disadvantage that would follow if we charged all people to go to years 11 and 12. Bear in mind that there is a whole heap of other stuff in this report of similar philosophy. You ought to be looking at it very critically and I believe we have to question its worth entirely.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .