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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1394 ..

MR SPEAKER: I think the point is well made that the amendment would go to an interesting issue insofar as TAFE courses are concerned, but I will stick with my inclination in relation to standing order 140 and rule it out of order because I think that it is outside the scope of the original motion.

MR PRATT (11.03): I, too, thank Ms MacDonald for raising this quite important issue. VET is at the forefront of our minds and has been for quite some time. It is important that we address whatever needs to be done to make VET more affordable, given that we are now providing high school students with choices that such students probably had not had for quite some time.

In terms of the issues raised about the federal government, it is not so easy to keep pace with the increasing cost of living. That is a challenge that all governments have to face. But I think that we do need to recognise in this debate that the federal coalition government has gone quite some distance in improving the opportunities for students across Australia to access vocational education and training. Indeed, the federal government is spending $2.3 billion annually on providing allowances for young students going into tertiary level and/or VET training opportunities.

The federal government’s philosophy, which is, of course, the philosophy of the Liberal Party itself, is very much to encourage personal growth and development. That is part of what underpins our thoughts about how to make Australia a better place. Consequently, the federal government will also be looking to encourage youths to better themselves. Certainly, federal Minister Nelson has demonstrated his intentions to improve access for students to funding.

Let’s look at the federal ALP’s track record on this subject. Their means-tested system that dictated how well students could access funding allowances was far tighter than the current system. At least the Howard government has freed up those constraints. I think that needs to be recognised here. The $5,000 income allowance before any penalty is imposed is a long way better than it used to be, which is very important. Let’s recognise that as well in this debate.

It is important that we have in place funding systems that encourage youth to strive for excellence, rather than a funding system that merely supports a hand-out mentality. That means that we have to target funding to encourage our youth to step up and take the opportunities that our system should be able to provide. Youth who demonstrate both potential and a hard work ethic, regardless of their SES background, deserve to be funded.

I support Ms MacDonald’s call for the federal government to carry on with its reviews and to look more closely at a number of areas. I would certainly encourage the federal government to look at the scholarship system. I would like to see a scholarship system which closely assesses student potential and the work ethic of a student; that is, you know if you give a student a scholarship that that student already has a track record, demonstrated in high school, of being a diligent student and you know that the taxpayers’ money will be well spent.

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