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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1941 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We are introducing school-based management. We are dependent on voluntary school contributions. We have a growing gap between the rich and the poor in Australia. The big loss here is equity. I thought that most Australians - Liberal Party people as well - had a commitment to equity. I thought that they had a commitment to a public school system.

Mrs Carnell: So, why will paying teachers make a difference to that?

MS TUCKER: You obviously have not listened to any of the previous speakers, Mrs Carnell. What you have just said shows that. You are saying, "What difference will it make if we pay teachers?". You are asking for productivity gains. There is going to be a loss of jobs eventually, because ultimately no productivity gain will be able to be found. We have larger classes. We have high levels of stress in teachers. It is interesting to note that there has been less stress leave taken during these bans. I wonder whether that has something to do with the workload that you are now putting on teachers.

To deny the connection between the workload on teachers and what happens to kids in schools is naive. Mr Humphries says that Mr Stefaniak understands. I doubt that he does. I doubt that he understands the very serious implications in the long term. It is an insult for people to sit there, shake their heads and say, "These bans are hurting students". We have students hurting seriously and, when they enter society, they hurt more. They hurt more and they cost more to look after because we have not been able to support these people when they were young.

The need for early intervention has come out of every single inquiry that has looked at societal problems - whether it be for assault or counselling for assault; whether it be for helping people who have parenting problems; whether it be for helping people who have learning problems. The solutions are there. They are quite clear. Basically, this Government says, "We are going to end up in the black in three years' time and we do not care how we do it". What we have here is bans, which are certainly causing inconvenience to people. My own children have suffered as a result of those bans. But, if you have any understanding of the long-term implications of continuing this trend to reduce education and if you understand the implications for equity in Australian society, you know that you have to take those measures.

We have just had an increase given to teachers in the non-government system, which was 6.5 per cent fully funded. That puts them at about 10 per cent over the public school teachers now.

Mrs Carnell: No, it is not fully funded. It just means that the fees go up.

MS TUCKER: The fees go up. So, once again it is a matter of who can pay. I forgot. Last week Lyneham High School sent out a note, asking, "Who can pay?". That is where it all sits with the Liberals. I forgot. If you cannot pay your subject levies, it is okay; your kid can still do the subject, as long as they provide the material. That is right. That is the market model. I forgot. Everyone ends up being really happy as a result of the market model.

Debate interrupted.

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