Page 1215 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
schools. That figure is now 58.4 per cent. There has been a commensurate rise, of course, for non-government schools. The thing that is of considerable concern to me is the complete abandonment by the Stanhope government of high schools in particular.
We had all the promises that were broken about how we would not close schools. That was despite the promises about how the Stanhope government would do so much in this term to support government high schools, because that was the key to improving education in this territory. We had commitments of equivalent funding for two extra staff members in high schools over the life of this government, but what we have actually seen as a result of the EBA arrangements, which were concluded finally in January this year, is that ACT government schools have lost the full-time equivalent of 35 teachers: 35 teachers have gone out of the schools, more than the two new teachers each that were promised to the schools.
This Stanhope government has completely abandoned government high schools. As a result, we have seen that, despite a 2.9 per cent increase in the population attending high school in the ACT, the ACT government share is continuing to fall. Every year, year on year, there has been a 0.5 per cent fall in student enrolments in ACT government schools. That has been happening year on year for close to 10 years now. In three years, that will mean that the government school system will become the minority system in this territory. The minister admits that it will become a system of last resort and he is doing nothing about it. He does not know why the children are leaving and he does not know what he can do to turn it round. He might say that he is spending money, but he does not know why he is spending that money. (Time expired.)
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (4.20): I commend Mr Mulcahy on bringing this motion forward today because it demonstrates a study in contrasts. It is a stark contrast between the budgetary position and the budgetary management of the federal government and the budgetary position and the budgetary management of the ACT Labor government. When we look first at the record of the Howard government in terms of budgetary management, it is quite an impressive list. Over the last 11 years they have paid off $96 billion of Labor’s debt.
In the midst of this they have established a future fund to pay for our future public service super liabilities. We have now seen the Higher Education Endowment Fund and the massive increase in Medicare spending. All the while we have seen taxes cut. At the same time as we have seen Labor’s debt paid off, we have seen extra spending for health, an endowment fund established, a future fund established to pay for our future debts and at the same time this government is consistently cutting taxes.
What a difference to the ACT government. Look at the tax cuts we have seen. We have seen great increases in family tax benefit from the federal government which have benefited greatly low-income and middle-income families in this country. It is absolutely undeniable that low and middle-income families are seeing much, much more of their money in their pockets as a result of this government than they were prior to 1996.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .