Page 3361 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I want to concentrate on a couple of things. Sadly, I think the government has not really advanced quality education. We have a system in Canberra that is probably still the best in the country. It was definitely the best in the country up until a few years ago, and it probably still is. But a number of bad decisions have been made, which I think the government will rue. I saw an interesting letter in the paper today from Senator Humphries, who was very critical of the government in relation to opposing school closures right up until about 2004—the senator did mention 15 years—and then suddenly deciding, as a result of the functional review, to do a complete 180 degree turn and close 23 schools, although it was initially proposed to close 39.
I think the government has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. No-one disputes that you have to review schools and the most effective way of providing a quality education system, and in that process some schools do need to close. The opposition has tried on about three or four occasions this term to put into law a very good method of consulting the school community in terms of what is needed in the future, including addressing the need for school closures. That was the criteria set out in 2000. Mrs Dunne has attempted over the last few years to get that into law on several occasions when she was the opposition’s spokeswoman for education, but all to no avail. It involves taking the community with you, something this government clearly did not do.
We are seeing quite frequently now that this government is suddenly trying to fix up some of its mistakes with rather illogical and ill-thought-out schemes and knee-jerk reactions. I will just mention some in the last budget in relation to education. As I indicated, the government arbitrarily and without proper community consultation decided to close 23 schools. The consultation happened only after the event, and the process pitted school communities against school communities. As a sop to the community, the government put aside money in the budget for certain things like, for example, an arts centre at Cook primary. Some $3.2 million, I think, was provided for that. I am not quite sure how much it cost to run Cook primary per annum, but I understand not much over $100,000 a year was saved from closing Cook primary in terms of recurrent running costs.
Mr Barr: About $400,000 or $500,000.
MR STEFANIAK: Was it? That is interesting. That is a bit more than Hall, which was $100,000, but I will come to that. Let us say the minister is right. Even if it is about $400,000, the money set aside for the arts centre would pay for about 10 years of operation of Cook primary. The people out there do not want an arts centre; they want their school, which has now been slated twice for closure, to remain open. A lot of other groups use that site. It was a smallish school, fluctuating between 120 and 150 students, but it provided good quality education.
One point the government is missing in this debate is that one size does not fit all. One of the best features of our education system was the fact that you could put your child into a larger school or a smaller, more intimate school. From seven years or thereabouts as the education minister, I know well and truly that there ain’t a helluva lot of money to save from closing a primary school. A bit more may be saved from closing a high school, but huge amounts are not saved by closing a primary school. A
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .