Page 3644 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of the remaining recommendations, the majority can be regarded as unremarkable, though not to say uncontentious, with almost half being accepted, sometimes with minor qualifications, by the non-government school community. For example, a new method of funding non-government schools to a percentage link with government schools, which is recommendation 4, and a working party to examine needs based funding, which is recommendation 7, have met with general cautious support. Although heavily qualified, there is a preparedness to examine - and I would stress that word - the new funding scheme set out at recommendation 5. Much more consultation and investigation is needed upon these three recommendations, however.
Recommendation 9 is another recommendation welcomed by the non-government school community and is vigorously supported by the Liberal Party. There is no doubt that the interest subsidy scheme is crucial both to the establishment of new non-government schools and to the refurbishment of existing non-government schools. Unfortunately, as the ACT grows and the demand for non-government schools correspondingly increases, so too does the demand for more funds through this scheme, not only for these new schools but also for the refurbishment of the increasingly older original non-government schools. As Berkeley pointed out at page 80:
A number of the non-government schools operate on facilities at a standard considerably below that provided in the government schools ...
Opponents of non-government school education might care to ponder on that statement and ask themselves why parents continue to opt for non-government schooling for their children, often at considerable financial cost, when the facilities at the school are less than can be found in the government system.
Governments too should take note of the statement and the implied warning that the situation can only get worse, not better, with increasing demands for a higher level of funds to be made available under the interest subsidy scheme. The Liberal Party therefore awaits the Government's response to recommendation 9 with great interest, conscious that the interest subsidy totalled $1.8m actual in 1991-92 and is estimated at some $2m for 1992-93.
Perhaps one solution, Madam Speaker, to the ever higher and higher interest subsidy demands as our established non-government schools grow older and new schools are sought in new areas can be found at recommendation 10. It represents a radical departure from what normally occurs and raises a very fundamental question about the application of government action on disposal of non-government school land and building assets.
This recommendation, members will be aware, recommends that such surplus facilities be sold and the proceeds of the sale shared between the Government and the non-government authority concerned. From my own limited research it appears that it is not quite possible, due to government policy, for the Government's share of the profits to be allocated specifically for educational purposes. However, I see no reason why the splitting of the proceeds between the Government and a non-government authority should not be entertained, particularly if the non-government proceeds are used for educational development and to relieve pressure on the interest subsidy scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .