Page 385 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore elaborated on that theme to some extent by saying that we may be overspending by State standards but there is no reason why we should not continue to do so. I think that by implication he was saying that since we are spending our money so well already we should think about getting some more from somewhere to put into solving the problems of our high schools. I have to describe that view in no uncertain terms as unrealistic. It may be that we are a mere $32m overfunded by State standards in our education system. But irrespective of whether that money is being overspent well, if I may put it that way, it is simply unrealistic to talk about pumping more money into education in this Territory.
The Minister might not have said this, but I say to you that it is inconceivable that any government in this Territory for at least the next five years could talk about putting more money into education on a relative basis to States. It is simply unrealistic. The fact of life is that we have to go back to the question of finding better resources within the education system - that is, by reordering our priorities. You know my view on this subject. I think that we waste extraordinarily large sums of money already in education through the maintenance of empty school places. That view has been canvassed lots of times in this place, and I will not enter that debate again. But until we face up to problems of that kind and there is no doubt - - -
Mr Berry: You lost that one, Gary.
MR HUMPHRIES: I beg to differ with Mr Berry's comment. We will see what happens in the next three years as pressure is put on our school system - not just high schools, but secondary colleges and primary schools - as some schools sustain continuing serious and damaging reductions in their staffing levels and their resources levels because of the lack of students. Those schools are going to have to face the crunch sooner or later. They might not face it under this Government if it keeps to its promise not to close any schools in the next three years, but they will face it sooner or later through the sheer drain on resources that they experience. It is a problem that is not going to go away. (Extension of time granted).
I would argue that the other side of the coin of having won the right not to close new schools, at least for the next three years, is that we now have to find other ways of dealing with the lack of resources in the system in some areas. We have a problem here. High schools are a problem. High schools need extra resources, I suspect, if they are going to face that problem, and there just is not anywhere else in the education system to find those resources unless you make some effort to deal with structural problems elsewhere. We had one solution come forward - - -
Mr Moore: You should not take them from health.
MR HUMPHRIES: I would not urge that solution. We have had one solution proposed by the recently outgoing head of the Minister's department, Dr Willmot, who said that one way of finding extra resources would be to reduce the number of years of teaching in the ACT to the model that applies in Queensland - 12 years rather than 13 years of teaching. That is a solution. It seems to me that that solution must cut a corner somewhere and result in some reduction in the quality of education. That seems to me, as a person I think I would still describe as a lay person in education, to be cutting a corner somewhere.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .