Page 3559 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 15 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is because for the last five years you have not maintained them; it is just catch-up. Then we have paragraph (5), which is my favourite:
supports the use of part of the Government’s record investment on ensuring our school buildings are more energy efficient and environmentally sustainable …
That is code for “knock them down”. Knock them down and they do not produce any greenhouse gas. It is like Sir Humphrey’s perfect hospital: a school system with no students. The minister for education says they are not going to sell the land and he pretends he does not have any money to maintain the schools because he does not know how many he is going to shut. So it is the Sir Humphrey model: let us have empty schools in the ACT because they are more environmentally sustainable, and we do not want students in them. Paragraph (6) says:
notes that there has been a decline in the ACT school-age population that necessitates change to ACT government schooling …
Well, just wait until February and get the census data and you will have the long-term projection. You will have some solid data. I know you do not trust the federal government, but the ABS has got a pretty good reputation in this. But, no, you cannot wait. You have made the decision. You just have to do this.
Paragraph (7) is the classic “everything is John Howard’s fault”. You have been in government for five years, but the rundown of the ACT school system is John Howard’s fault. You quote some figures that say that more money goes to the non-government sector. Well, where is the grants money? You get money from the grants commission for the provision of services, and in that is money for education. You say:
expresses concern over the increasing Commonwealth funding gap between public and private schools …
You are trying to say that because the federal government has given more money, extra money, additional money, to those kids in those bastard private schools, everybody is going, “Hell, we had better jump ship and go to a private school.” Let us look at the funding gap. Let us look at the party of equity. Only 17 per cent of the money that they spend goes on kids in non-government schools. It is an 83 per cent gap on your funding. That is equity? Andrew Barr thinks an 83 per cent gap is equitable. Paragraph (8) says:
notes that without change and significant investment, the government school system faces the real danger of becoming the residual option for ACT children and parents.
You ought to go back to the estimates Hansard—I think it was last year—where Katy Gallagher said, “It is about choice. If they want to go there, that is okay.” It is about cost-shifting. You have run the system down for five years and you throw your hands up and pretend that you are dismayed. You say: “Oh, my gosh, parents and students are leaving the system in droves. But gee, if they go to the non-government sector, we do not have to pay for them as much, because we only give them 17 per cent.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .