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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 4 Hansard (2 April) . . Page.. 1213 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Following on from that, I am deeply concerned that Connors implies a "new schools policy"which will impede growth of new non-government sector schools and their developments. It would be outrageous were the government to follow this through. Such a policy would simply impede the growth of the non-government sector. While different philosophical viewpoints may favour such a move, the simple reality in the ACT is that 38 per cent of students attend that sector, and we must never forget that.

It is a simple reality that shifting funds from the non-government sector to the government sector would severely damage non-government schools, resulting in a student shift back to government schools. Such a backward flow would also severely impact on the ability of the ACT government to provide enough funding to cater for such an inflow of students. Where would they find the money?

The ACT enjoys a diverse education system that allows for choice. It allows for choice within the government sector. Good government schools compete and provide services that others cannot. It is important that parents are able to be responsible for ensuring the appropriate education of their children. It is not appropriate to undermine a system that works very effectively in order to provide funding to one which requires improvement.

Connors recommends the introduction of an interim funding system pending the next Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, which is about only 18 months away. (Extension of time granted.) It seems to me quite silly to introduce an interim funding arrangement which may take 18 months anyway to work through and in the process cause great disruption, only to be overturned at the next MCEETYA.

While Connors has constantly stuck to the lines of the idea that her report is a conservative one and that there is nothing radical, should the government choose to implement some of these policies-for example, some of the recommendations-the make-up of the schooling system 60/40 public/private would be severely disrupted, making it unviable for some parents and their schools to meet the brunt of the extra financial burden to keep the same standard of education which they currently enjoy, and which, by the way, the ACT community benefits from. Connors did not even visit the Radford College, which is one of the three schools in Canberra that would be most affected by the implementation of her new policy.

The report has used skewered and at times outdated information to illustrate a "discrepancy"between the funding arrangements put in place for private schools versus the Catholic systemic schools and government schools. For example, the table on page 127 is seriously misleading. The table leaves out significant funding data. It also seems that data has been adjusted to reflect a certain ideological outcome-I hope that is not the case but, without drawing too many long bows, one could wonder about that.

Another example of outdated information can be found on pages 22 to 25 where Connors refers to the enrolment benchmark adjustment, and earmarks it as current when it no longer even exists. Many of the graphs within the report are illustrated over large time scales which do not give true indicators of the changing-increasing and/or declining-enrolments and therefore the reasoning behind an increase in funding from certain government organisations.

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