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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1087 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

throwing up models for the delivery of public education which look to the current economic orthodoxy of economic rationalism, free market economics and privatisation of public sector functions to solve problems. This is very much the debate of the day. I notice that APFACTS' budget submission argued for competitive neutrality to be applied in the area and in fact suggested that the Department of Education was confused about its role because it saw itself as a provider rather than just a purchaser. This, to me, is a very significant issue to be discussed.

If it is to be argued that competitive neutrality should be applied in the education system, then that is suggesting a very radical change in how we in Australia have regarded education and valued public education as basic to equity and to achieving a society that is not polarised. We see free, high-quality public education as a force for equity - if you like, for equalising members of the community. It is obvious that we have a growing problem with inequality within Australian society. Inequalities are growing dramatically, and the public school education system is the one institution that can mitigate these inequalities and ensure that every child has an equal chance at developing skills for life and work and also an equal chance at becoming an active participant in democracy.

It might be interesting to have a quick look at what is happening in the United States. They have gone very enthusiastically with this model of applying the market to education. The Background Briefing program on Radio National recently looked at this issue. It gave the example of Michael Millikin, the United States junk bond king in the 1980s. He served two years of a 10-year gaol sentence for insider trading. But that is history. It is the 1990s now and he has discovered education, specifically kindergarten to Year 12 public education in America. Radio National's Background Briefing program quoted him as saying, "We're creating a brand name in education". His brand name is Knowledge Universe and his goal is to try to do to education and training what Rupert Murdoch did in the media world. Another commentator observed that Millikin and his Knowledge Universe are looking to vertical integration in public education as their pot of gold, so that the company that publishes textbooks and provides the computers is also the company which builds the schools, trains the teachers and develops the curriculum.

I think we need to look at what is happening internationally in this area, because this is where this Government is going and the Federal Government is going. We are not going that far yet, of course. We are just talking about efficiency, and the independent school sector is arguing competitive neutrality, but we would never end up like the United States, would we? Why not? We need to raise these issues and say, "What is it you are heading towards here?" and "What is it that you are giving up?".

In Australia funding to public schools has decreased dramatically over the last 25 years. Between 1974-75 and 1994-95 total government outlays to government schools increased by 49 per cent, while total government outlays to non-government schools increased by 171 per cent. During that time the proportion of students attending non-government schools increased from 21.5 per cent in 1974 to 28.5 per cent in 1994. So government funding to non-government schools over that time increased disproportionately in relation to the number of students attending non-government schools.

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