Page 1628 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
argue that raw statistics do not show the complete picture. Mr Cornwell calls for a rationalising of school facilities to maximise the education dollar. Surely the education budget needs to be examined to ensure the best use of available resources, not to ensure that available resources provide revenue through the closure of schools and asset sales.
Madam Speaker, my first reaction on seeing Mr Cornwell's first statements on school rationalisation was, "Here we go again". I was a proponent against school closures when the Alliance Government started with an ambit claim of 25 schools, of which it eventually closed three. The community has already decided that school closures are an unacceptable option for reducing expenditure in education. The Grants Commission has given notice that there is a level of $18m of overfunding for ACT schooling across the board - an assumed overfunding of private schools by $11m and public schools by $7m. The Liberal Party has responded with calls for cuts in the education sector which could significantly reduce the impact of the total Grants Commission proposed cut of $79m. Once the Chief Minister has put forward the case for the ACT, including a strong defence of the ACT's record of high retention rates, we will have a better idea of possible real reductions. I, and many others, find it perplexing, if not unbelievable, that the ACT is effectively being disadvantaged because it is best able to fulfil a Federal Government goal of high retention rates and a well-educated community. But the reality is that the Grants Commission report is a recommendation to government, and it is now up to the States and Territories to argue their cases and to put forward their views at the Premiers Conference, which I am sure Ms Follett will do extremely well on behalf of the ACT.
Madam Speaker, a decline in available education resources should not mean, and should never mean, closures of schools. In fact, I would argue that more resources need to be made available for government school education. It is distressing to me to see other States reducing their expenditure on education, thereby placing the ACT under even more pressure in the Grants Commission process. I would prefer to see education spending in Australia compared with international rates of spending on education. In this context it clearly would be seen that Australia does not spend enough on the education of our children. I look forward to the day when we will be discussing how to spend increasing resources in education, rather than how we will spend our ever declining resources. As I have stated before, Madam Speaker, I do not believe that this equates with the closure of schools.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (4.26): Madam Speaker, I think the issue here is really about the quality of our education in our education system. Certainly, from a Liberal Party perspective, that is what we are talking about. Basically I think it is what the Labor Party is talking about as well.
Mr Kaine: We are not certain about that.
MRS CARNELL: No, we are not certain about that. The Labor Party's approach to education cuts has been the across-the-board cut - let us trim 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent. It might be 5 per cent this year if the Grants Commission get their way. It could be 10. So, on the equation goes. The Labor Party say, "We will just trim right across the board and from the same base". I think we all agree that what happens when you take that approach to budgets - it happens no matter what budget you are talking about - is that at the end of the day the quality of the service that you are providing ends up suffering. I drop my kids off at school in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .