Page 5017 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, briefly, I do not think that we can support this. It simply goes far too far and would create far too many problems in the precedent that it would set than we could possibly address in a debate of this kind.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.59 am): Mr Speaker, we must take Mr Collaery seriously, although sometimes we wonder about that. That being the case, it seems that Mr Collaery is bent further on a path of damaging the majority of non-government schools. Just imagine: If this proposal got up, in the current circumstances, it would be likely that some schools would take an appeal - such as you suggest, Mr Collaery. Obviously, a prudent government would need to withhold some of these funds from the non-government schools, not being sure of the outcome of its funding proposals and not being sure that matters would go as it intended. That government would have to bear in mind that the court might reverse the decision - unlikely as that may be.
But, assuming that this did get up, there would be the possibility that there would be a change to government decisions. Hence, it would be necessary for money to be withheld from the non-government school sector to accommodate that change should it occur. What would we do? Would a government hold back something like 10 per cent of recurrent funds? And for how long would it have to do that? Knowing how courts work, would it be six months - a year? How long would it take?
Mr Connolly: A couple of years, maybe.
MR WOOD: A couple of years, maybe. So, the impact of Mr Collaery's proposal would be to deny, for critical periods, some measure of funds that we would want to send to non-government schools. The Labor Party has acted, I say again, in the interests of all non-government schools. Do not forget that there are, I think, 37 other non-government schools in this Territory, and we have looked after their interests. Mr Collaery seems intent on doing otherwise.
MRS NOLAN (1.01 am): Mr Speaker, I cannot support the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Collaery, although I do have to take issue with the comment that Mr Wood has just made in relation to the non-government schools. My concern relates to the discussions that I have had with representatives of the non-government school community. This decision taken by the Labor Government was a political one. It will have to wear the ramifications of that. Certainly, those members of the non-government school community have indicated to me that they would not want to use such an avenue either, because it would be a very expensive one. It probably is appropriate that the amendment does not pass. There are other ways that this avenue can be pursued. It is unfortunate, but one of those ways will be over the coming months leading up to the next election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .