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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (18 April) . . Page.. 1068 ..

MS TUCKER (12.22): I think the interesting thing about this debate is Mr Stefaniak's statement that it is an extraordinary motion, because apparently it has not been done before. But when I read your response to the PAC report, I thought that was an extraordinary response. The underlying concern is: Why did we have a committee looking at this issue? It must have been concern about equity. If it was just a frivolous issue of discretionary funding which schools could use one way or another but which did not really matter, I do not think we would have had a committee inquiry at all. There was a very real concern about equity considerations and what the place of voluntary contributions was - whether they were voluntary and whether people were being discriminated against. They were very serious concerns, if you believe in having equal access for all young people to a public education system.

When we first saw your response, we immediately contacted the media, which apparently surprised you. You were surprised at our negative response. I am surprised that you were surprised, because you had not addressed the major concerns. The major concerns of this whole inquiry were not addressed.

Mr Stefaniak: I think I would expect a negative response.

MS TUCKER: You are very negative. We are not always negative, Mr Stefaniak. You forget it when we are positive.

Mr Stefaniak: I am afraid you are, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: No; we need to keep a list of when we support what you do. You have a very bad memory about the support that we do give you on occasions. Maybe it is not as often as the negative responses, but that is because you come up with unfortunate ideas. Anyway, the point is that, if you had in your response in some way allayed the concern of the community and members here about equity considerations, then maybe we would have been happy to accept your response.

I have talked to you about school-based management - this is another issue; this is a whole approach to public education - and you have assured me that we will not have what happened in the UK and New Zealand. You said, "No; we know about those models. They are flawed because there were not the proper concerns; the concerns of equity were not addressed. No, we will not end up in a situation of further polarisation of schools; which school you go to depends on the service that you want. You will not have subtle discrimination; you will not have anxiety caused in the minds of students". I can tell you from personal experience and from anecdotal experience that children come home and say to their parents, "Mum, you still have not paid the fees". We still have children involved in what should be always a discussion between a parent and a school, and I have not seen that addressed in this report at all. I want to see in this next report a response from you to that issue, because it is totally inappropriate to include children in that way and brings on an anxiety in their school life which is not appropriate.

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