Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 2928 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

The committee found that the voluntary contribution system is creating tensions within and between schools, and there is uncertainty about the roles of both parents and schools in the system. Given those sorts of concerns, Mr Speaker, it was something of a surprise, at least to me in my work on this committee, that so many of the schools and the organisations representing their interests were adamant about the need to continue with the voluntary contribution scheme. It seems to me that, having raised the issue in the first place, they might have wanted to come up with some alternatives to this scheme. At the back of the report the committee deals with some alternative propositions; but, as I have said, Mr Speaker, given the clear support for the scheme, it has concentrated its efforts predominantly on improving its operation.

Schools also charge subject levies. While the committee acknowledges that some parents may have a philosophical opposition to the payment of voluntary contributions, they may not fully appreciate that subject levies are specifically focused upon providing students with materials necessary to ensure that they are exposed to a well-rounded and interesting education. Mr Speaker, I think we are reluctantly forced to conclude that it has become essential for schools, mainly high schools and colleges, to charge subject levies and course fees for elective subjects, mainly those subjects which use consumable materials. It was made clear to the committee during the inquiry that current per capita funding does not allow schools to provide sufficient funds to offer viable, educationally sound courses in optional areas where students use materials to produce goods which they subsequently retain.

Within a continuing system of voluntary contributions and subject levies, however, there is a good deal of scope for ensuring that students are not disadvantaged either through the inability of parents to contribute or where parents choose not to contribute. The committee is firm in its view that the distinctions between voluntary contributions for general school funding needs and subject levies to ensure that schools can provide and maintain hands-on subject tuition are emphasised by the Department of Education and Training. At the same time, the committee is totally opposed to any forms of discrimination whereby students whose parents do not pay subject levies or voluntary fees are singled out, including being singled out and not allowed to join classes or not allowed to retain the goods produced in class.

It was a subject of some regret within the committee that we did hear evidence of students being singled out in this way. That evidence was put forward by schools who, in many cases, defended that action. It remains my view and the committee's view that this is indeed discrimination. I would ask everybody to bear in mind that it is not the students who are liable for these fees; it is, in fact, their parents. It would be very wrong, in principle and in practice, to make the student, the child, suffer, even where it is clearly the ethical and social responsibility of parents to pay those fees. I do not believe it is appropriate that any child should be disadvantaged because of a decision taken by their parents, and that has been the line that the committee has taken.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .