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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2064 ..

MS GALLAGHER

While we applaud the efforts of the non-government schools to provide the best facilities their community can afford, public funds must be used to address need. The Connors report recommended that the interest subsidy scheme be closed from 2003-2004 and, as funding from the scheme becomes progressively available, that it be reinvested into the non-government school sector. To continue the scheme would be to countenance the use of public funds to create additional capacity in a time of overall declining enrolments and it is difficult to justify from a public policy standpoint.

I consulted with all stakeholders after the release of the report and before the formulation of the government's response to the report. I was made aware that certain elements of the non-government sector-and I can't stand here and say all of them are opposed to the scheme's closure, but certainly some of them are-did not like the Connors recommendation to close the scheme. However, as I said yesterday, the government has taken a decision to accept that recommendation and it was the right one.

Mr Pratt's reference to pressure on government schools through the knock-on effect doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that by redirecting the scheme's funding from the well-resourced schools to all non-government schools, some well-resourced schools may be forced to close? I find that rather unlikely.

The non-government sector will also continue to have access to the Commonwealth government's block grants program for capital projects. No doubt in deciding the recipients of these grants, the block grant authority ensures that funding goes to those most in need of such support.

The Connors report makes it clear that the scheme is inequitable, since it is valued by those schools able to service large capital debts. This runs counter to the equity principles built into the Commonwealth's capital program, under which the capital block grants are made, to give priority to schools to provide an acceptable standard of facilities.

From a government's perspective, there are competing priorities to be served by a finite budget for education. Connors demonstrated that non-government schools spend considerably more per student on capital works than is the case for government schools. This government decided that it was not a sensible use of public funding to continue the scheme.

Mr Pratt refuses to acknowledge that the government's actions are motivated by the principle that equity in the distribution of funds to the sector is paramount. We may well question Mr Pratt's motivation in pushing the perpetuation of a scheme which benefited a few well-off schools at the expense of other less well-resourced non-government schools. By redistributing the funding to all non-government schools on the basis of need, this government is putting the funds back where they are most needed.

Schools can then decide what they use the additional funding for. I hope that they will use it for the direct benefit of student learning. If they decide additional infrastructure is the highest priority, then they can apply the funding to that end, but the decision will be theirs.

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