Page 3962 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are those issues, but there are also issues about subject levies. That is a matter that I am particularly concerned about. In this place, I have related an incident with one of my children about a subject levy. She was asked to bring a subject levy in cash so that the art teacher in question could go down to the art shop and buy supplies. I think that that is an appalling situation and an indication that some of the subjects that we purport to be teaching in our schools, and that we pat ourselves on the back for teaching in our schools, are not properly funded. It makes it difficult for children, especially those whose families cannot afford to pay the levies, to participate in the subject.
We need to draw some clear distinctions. There should not be compulsory fees in areas which are related to curriculum. We see it in schools everywhere. There are industrial arts levies, IT levies, book levies, art levies and things like that. Art supplies, industrial art supplies and woodworking supplies are expensive. Home economics supplies are expensive. We have to take the funds that are already in the school system, make sure that they are properly allocated to the running of curriculum programs—perhaps they may be diverted from less important areas—and make sure that they are going to the coalface and actually being used for educating children. That is what people expect from the system.
I understand from some email traffic that it is possible that section 26 may be withdrawn or that there have been some discussions about section 26 being withdrawn. The opposition would not support that idea. It is reasonable that we continue to have a discussion about the nature of levies in schools and about ensuring that people who can afford to contribute to their children’s education do so. The Liberal opposition would welcome discussion that would arise over any disallowable instrument that a minister might make in relation to section 26 and in relation to compulsory and non-compulsory fees.
I think that, for example, there is no discussion or dissent from the view that, if a school is sending children overseas—for instance, on an excursion—only those children who pay go on those excursions. I know that it is difficult for less advantaged children, but I also know of schools that do fundraising for that purpose—to supplement and make it easier for children from families on lower incomes or children from large families to participate in these events. My own schools do that where it is possible. It is a laudable example of school spirit and community spirit which schools engender.
However, I would support the notion encompassed in the amendments to section 26 of a disallowable instrument. I look forward to the minister’s providing that disallowable instrument and I also flag that there needs to be considerable discussion in the community before that instrument is finalised. I would not expect that the first we hear of it is when it appears in the government Gazette or in the legislation register. I would expect considerable discussion in the community before it makes it to the legislation register.
The other issue that has come to my attention is this. As I stood to speak, I received on my desk eight pages of amendments. They were printed yesterday at 11 o’clock. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .