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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2066 ..

MR STEFANIAK

However, the whole idea of that school was that it should be a fairly low-fee paying school so that it was open to pretty well anyone. I never fail to be amazed by the people I bump into who actually send their kids to the two grammar schools, Boys and Girls Grammar, who are just absolutely ordinary people who often maybe do two jobs, simply because that is the type of education they want their child to have.

Also, I've bumped into lots of people who have very good, well-paid jobs who send their children to the government sector, and they obviously do not have to worry about paying fees there. Even when I went through the government sector here, we had people who were absolutely destitute with the backside out of their pants, at Narrabundah, and we had those in the dress circle up there in Red Hill, who were very well off, thank you very much. You cannot typecast people in our system. There are people who are absolute battlers who send their kids to Canberra Grammar and there are some incredibly wealthy people who send their kids, say, to Hawker College, Lake Ginninderra College, Tuggeranong College or whatever.

It is a diverse system and one of the beauties of our system is that it does cater for all tastes. There is a school here which can satisfy any taste in terms of how people want to educate their children and what philosophy they want to see adopted there. That is one of the beauties of our system.

Now 39.2 per cent in the non-government sector is something you just cannot ignore. Really, we are in many ways getting an education on the cheap, as Mr Pratt says, because, by the very nature of government funding, the vast majority of ACT funding-about 90 per cent or more-is naturally spent on the system for which we are primarily responsible, the government sector, and a very small amount is spent on the non-government sector.

However, just imagine how much it would cost us if all those kids suddenly came into the government sector. I'm not necessarily saying that would happen over this, but who knows? I suppose it is not impossible.

Really, it is again a false economy. I have no idea what effect this will have but I do think it is a very, very false economy. Even this government is not saying they are going to stop funding non-government schools totally. I do not think they can, but they are certainly cutting off this very, very good scheme. For the amount of money they are going to save and the adverse effect this action is going to have on a great number of schools, I really think it is a very false economy indeed. I think you will rue the day that you did it.

The cost effectiveness of this type of scheme, for any government of any political persuasion, in terms of the educational value obtained in the community is huge. The various facilities that all schools in our non-government sector have been able to utilise through this scheme-virtually all schools; there are probably some that have not-and indeed that schools would be able to utilise should this scheme continue, is and would be of immense educational value to students in our community.

The numbers of students in our community who are going to non-government schools has been creeping up a bit over the years, so 39.2 per cent is five or six percentage points higher than what it would have been about 10 years ago. I do not think that percentages

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