Page 2466 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My colleagues have, I think, adequately canvassed the broader issues of opportunities lost in this budget. I would like to address the question of education. It is a major item in the budget and, along with health, represents some 40 per cent of funding. I may also, if I have time, say a few words about housing. I must say that my initial reaction to the education budget was one of disappointment. After more considered judgment, I see no reason to change my opinion.
This view was shared by others. We know what some of the print media said; but I would like, as an example, to indicate what one of the television stations did. It could feature only two items from the education budget and they were $2.8m for 500 new TAFE places, which is a Commonwealth initiative and is hardly school-based education, and the $7.2m capital works for Conder Primary and Preschool. I accept that that is useful for employment; but, again, it is hardly hands-on education, Mr Wood, at least for this year - though I must say that I am pleased to see that Conder Primary will accommodate only 460 students and not the 750-plus students indicated to me recently in a reply to question No. 95. You may have the opportunity to correct that at some time, Mr Wood, or explain to me where the discrepancy arises. That is in reply to question No. 95 in relation to the student size of that school.
The education budget was a disappointment not only to me but also, of course, to the government school sector and, indeed, the Australian Teachers Union, both of whom, I think, were hoping that this portfolio would be quarantined from budget cuts. I think that is an understandable expectation, given the crucial importance that a good education has assumed these days for obtaining any sort of job.
I think it is also fair to say that the government school sector has not done too badly in this budget. There have been a few very small financial initiatives, such as the $200,000 for integrating special needs primary students into mainstream classes, $145,000 for pastoral care and career advisory services in high schools - heaven knows, we need it - and, of course, the third introductory English centre in Tuggeranong. I applaud these initiatives. They are needed. In fact, one could argue that they are overdue. Similarly, the $1m for minor works, particularly the component for intruder alarms, considering the vandalism that has been going on in our schools, is certainly welcome, although I wonder how many schools will be protected by this component, given the relatively small amount of $1m for total minor works.
The same question arises in relation to the $1.3m in Commonwealth funds for additional capital works for secondary schools. Mr Wood, I might add, has indicated that so far some 17 schools and colleges are likely to benefit from this $1.3m. This represents about $76,500 per facility, and we await further details from you, sir, as to what this relatively small amount will really provide for each school or college.
I know that the P and C Council and the Australian Teachers Union expected more in terms of funding from this budget. That comes as no surprise; they generally do want more. In fact, I do not know of any year when they have not expected more, and to some extent it is their responsibility to seek additional funding at all times. I happen to disagree with them, however, Madam Speaker - not because I do not think most of their requests are necessary, but because I believe that any disappointment the government school sector might experience
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .