Page 3645 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A sharing and use of the proceeds for such purposes also would go some way towards mollifying the critics of non-government schools who argue that the disposal of such property represents a windfall gain because the non-government body paid nothing for the site in the first place. Again, Madam Speaker, we await with interest the Government's response to this innovative suggestion.
Similarly, recommendation 12 to establish a non-government schools consultative committee is supported, and we urge speedy resolution of this recommendation. Two other recommendations, No. 6 and No. 13, have been generally criticised. The first refers to per capita grants to non-government schools being at two levels, K-6 and 7-12. The non-government school sector seeks three-level per capita funding in conformity with the three levels of education now existing in the ACT, and the Liberal Party concurs with this sensible suggestion.
Recommendation 13 seeks more statistics on expenditure of government provided funds to non-government schools. The Liberal Party will support the recommendation only if it means that such statistics to the ACT Government are instead of those now going to the Commonwealth; otherwise we join with the non-government schools in rejecting what is simply more unproductive duplication of financial information.
I turn now to the three recommendations which have caused the most comment and concern. They are, of course, recommendations 8, 11 and 14. Recommendation 11, which calls for the sharing of resources, is opposed not so much for its content as for its compulsion. Certainly, the Liberal Party recognises that there can be substantial capital savings in the provision of joint facilities such as gymnasiums, libraries, et cetera, but this sensible pooling of such resources will call for detailed negotiations.
The inference in recommendation 11 that non-government schools be forced to cooperate is unfortunate and is probably unintended. The Liberal Party would certainly support any pooling of resources if it were sought by both the government and non-government sectors and could be beneficial in the provision of education, particularly in new areas; but we will not support any attempt to force or coerce unwilling participants.
Recommendation 8 probably caused the most concern among the non-government school communities, principally because Mr Berkeley did not appear to have recognised the distances travelled by non-government school students in the ACT. Whether or not this is desirable is not the point. Labor government policies of restricting the development of new non-government schools to new areas has obliged students to travel, so that travel from one side of the city to the other is not uncommon for many non-government students. Therefore, to suggest that options should be examined for transport, and I quote Mr Berkeley, "beyond the nearest appropriate non-government school" simply does not make sense. It ignores parental choice, either religious or academic, and the availability of places in a school, even one of choice or one that is in fact the nearest appropriate. A case could be made for a thorough examination of school bussing, but in the context of this report the Liberal Party does not support this recommendation's thrust.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .