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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1664 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

This is about a society that has egalitarian principles. It is a question about what we say in Australia about the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and how our government services are put in place to try, at least within the school system, to give an equal ground for young people's experience, because you can bet your bottom dollar that it is not going to happen once they leave, if things continue the way they are.

What we heard in the committee from many people was concerns about issues such as school-based management, sponsorship of schools and voluntary contributions. We are getting more and more likelihood of good schools and bad schools, poor schools and rich schools, and what kids are going to end up in the poor schools? The more upwardly mobile parents move their kids upwards, always out. So who gets left in the poor schools? It is the kids who need the most support, and they will not find it. That is what has happened in the UK and New Zealand. One of the recommendations of this report is that we have asked the Government to provide to the Social Policy Committee a clear assessment of any negative implications of school-based management on equity and on the abilities of schools to deliver services to kids at risk, special needs kids, and basically to take on the task of trying to instil a sense of cooperation and non-violent resolution of conflict.

The committee also made similar recommendations to those of the Public Accounts Committee on voluntary contributions because we received similar evidence expressing grave concern about the effect that it has in our community when some schools are collecting 80 per cent of their voluntary contributions and some are able to collect only about 10 per cent. It is clear from what the schools say that these contributions are not for frivolous extra things. They are essential for the basic running of the school. The school that can collect only 10 per cent of the voluntary contributions is probably the school that needs the resources most, because some of the kids in those schools cannot even afford a basic book, let alone go off and pay for an expensive school excursion.

We heard about some children living in an outer area of Canberra who, until they went on a school excursion, did not know that there was such a place as Lake Burley Griffin; they had never been to the city. There were children who had had a lot of trouble expressing things in school. They had a very limited experience of life in Canberra. There was an excursion to Sydney undertaken by that school and it was really interesting to hear what the teacher said about the way the work of those children was so exciting after that experience. School excursions may be just recreational, but they may not be. They may be extremely important for the experience of children, and this is more likely to be the case in the poorer socioeconomic areas. So this committee has made similar recommendations to those of the Public Accounts Committee, and we know that the Assembly sent the Government's response to it back for reconsideration. This committee is also saying to the Government, "We do urge you to reconsider your response to these sorts of concerns". Surely we do not want to go down the path of the United States.

In conclusion, are we going to tackle this issue, or is this just another report which will bite the dust? Will we hear, "No, no, we do not have any more money", or will we hear a recognition from this Government that it makes sense to take a long-term view that this is a priority; that we do value our young people and our teachers; that we do recognise that life is harder for some than for others, and that these people need support and are not to be blamed?

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