Page 783 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this 1991-92 annual report, where all sorts of worthy groups are listed as filling up surplus spaces in the schools. That is all that they are doing, I submit - filling up surplus space. As the Government admits:
Subsidies of up to 60 per cent are also provided to community groups renting space in schools.
As a result, a miserable $60,000 was raised in revenue from this Government's stubborn refusal to admit that it was wrong on school closures. Again I ask: What do the parents of Gordon and Conder, with their 750-pupil primary schools, think of this largess to non-educational community groups at the expense of their children? One wonders.
I suggest that we will see more evidence of the way this inflexible decision has cut into available funds because increased school sizes, presumably to offset the costs of maintaining smaller schools, are not confined to the primary level. Despite assurances from the Minister on 18 November last year that the proposed Lanyon High School would be "within the range of our routine high schools", at page 41 of the annual report it is stated that planning proposals for new schools in Tuggeranong and Gungahlin have been reviewed and that peak enrolment levels are now 1,000 students for high schools. This is at least 200 students above what the ACT P and C association claims the 1984 Commonwealth Schools Commission survey thought desirable and well above the average of 647 students in our existing 17 high schools, as at February 1992. Again, other students and other parents are paying a high price for keeping open small schools.
The dilemma continues, of course. As I mentioned briefly this morning, what is the Government going to do about this proposed single-sex high school for girls? If you are going to have one for girls - I know that the Chief Minister is all in favour of affirmative action, but at least she can be even-handed - why not one for boys as well? Be it one for girls only or one for girls and one for boys, that will inevitably draw students from other high schools and thus decrease the enrolments at those high schools.
Are you going to stick to your stubborn decision to close no school within the three years of your term of office? I suggest to you that you rethink this matter very seriously, because, if the costs of not closing a primary school can be an additional $500 per student, I would not like to speculate on the cost per student of refusing to close a high school. It requires very careful consideration. As you would be aware, Minister, you had to cut $3.4m from your budget this year. Presumably, next year you will have to cut it even further, so you must address these quite important issues.
I would like to turn to another matter, in concluding my comments. I regret that, despite the quite proper acknowledgment of EEO for women and for Aboriginals, there still does not appear to be any formal recognition or encouragement for male teachers to serve at primary school level. The Minister and I have discussed this and, as the Minister is aware, it is a matter of some concern that last year five ACT primary schools had no male teacher whatsoever on staff and, therefore, given our society today, no male role model for some of those schools' pupils from single parent families.
Mr Lamont: Oh!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .