Page 35 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 7 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
discriminating against non-government schools through a funding model which will result in significant increases in school fees. These increases are effectively a tax increase, one that will affect many low income families, some of whom have several children at school. Some might argue that these people are free to attend government schools, and this is true. But even apart from the rights of individual parents to real choice, the economic effects for the territory of a move back to public education would be disastrous. In such circumstances, either the level of resourcing in government schools would decline or more public money would need to be spent on education as a whole.
It is plain that the decision to reduce funding to one sector, even if it results in an increase in the cost of the total school system to government, is driven by ideology. People who attend Catholic and independent schools save the community money by contributing significant amounts of their own money to their children’s education in addition to the taxes they pay. Most of these people are not rich. They should be rewarded, not punished by a discriminatory school funding policy. This is therefore a policy that is supported on neither the grounds of fairness nor economic prudence and because of this I will continue to fight against it for as long as I am a member of this Assembly.
Mr Speaker, one of my roles outside politics is as a Menslink mentor. I find this work particularly rewarding. One of the reasons I chose to become a mentor is because I believe that there is a crisis in masculinity in modern society. Too many boys are growing up separated from their fathers and without significant male role models in their lives. The results are as tragic as they are obvious—increased rates of homelessness and male suicide, falling education standards for boys, and high levels of substance abuse.
Rates of male suicide in the ACT are about four times the rate for women. A young man is more likely to die as a result of suicide than in a car accident. In the year 2000, suicide represented 22 per cent of all deaths for males aged between 15 and 24. These are sobering figures.
Figures from a recent federal parliamentary inquiry showed that boys’ educational outcomes have been declining since 1975. In the year 2000, 15 per cent of year 5 boys failed to achieve minimum reading benchmarks as opposed to 10 per cent of girls, while recent research suggests that boys represent up to two-thirds of those in the bottom quartile of school achievers. These are significant problems without easy answers. It is my strong belief that the answers need to come from the community rather than from government. However, the community looks to its politicians to show leadership, to support positive initiatives and to create the kind of conditions where positive outcomes are achieved.
Governments of all persuasions have long had a stated commitment to addressing issues that particularly affect women. Here in the ACT we have a minister for women. Federally there is the Office for the Status of Women. Given some of the serious issues affecting our young men in particular, some of which I just outlined, it is now time that a minister for men was appointed in the ACT.
I must acknowledge that I stand here today in large part due to the support of family, friends and supporters. Thank you to the countless friends and party members who
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .