Page 4899 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What really annoyed me was that families with both parents working, earning very good salaries, driving expensive cars, would say, "Sorry, we are not going to pay any fees. It is not compulsory. It does not matter whether we can afford it or not. We do not believe that it is necessary to pay these fees. Therefore we will not pay them". Yet in some cases there were single parents who were seeking just a little time to pay their fees. Quite frankly, I found that inequitable, and it used to annoy the heck out of me. I believe that it showed a most selfish approach to the provision of education for our children.
I close by echoing the concerns of my colleague Mr Collaery in relation to the possible reopening of this divisive issue within the community. I do not think anyone wants to see the issue of secular and non-secular education approached in a confrontationist way. Our role and responsibilities as legislators and members of this community are to make sure that everyone gets an equitable slice of the education cake and that proper consultation takes place before decisions are made about cutting. I do not believe, from my information, that proper consultation took place in this case.
It is unfortunate that Mr Wood made these decisions before there was a proper review of the process for allocating funds. What Mr Wood was saying was that he was not prepared to listen to the proposals that were being put forward, that they had made their decision and that was all there was to it. It is quite clear that, now that their attention has been drawn to the groundswell of opinion, they have seen that they have to review their approach and do something they should have done some time ago; that is, complete the inquiry that had been started and the assessment that was going on between the parties before they made this inequitable decision.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.26): The point has been made numbers of times, quite falsely, that this inquiry is being forced upon the Government. It is not being forced upon the Government. In fact, it has been forced upon Mr Humphries to raise the matter. That is where the force is. Let us be clear about that.
A great deal has been said about equity. I have not heard Ms Maher, Mr Jensen, Mrs Nolan or anybody else raising the equity of taking nearly $2m in a full year away from all non-government schools. You very carefully stayed away from that point. You very carefully did not mention the "equity" of hitting the schools with the greatest need. That does not seem to come under the definition of "equity".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .