Page 674 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So it is critically important to get on record, and I would like to get on record, the similar sentiment that we heard from the Treasurer today in question time. I am not sure whether other members heard this but when there was a question about funding for non-government schools, Mr Barr was very quick to interject and say it is not their money, that the money that they get is not their money. That suggests to me that Mr Barr is adopting the line that the non-government sector should not have autonomy, that they should not be able to choose how they spend money, that the government want to take that autonomy away. And it does fit with what the Labor Party has said. It does fit with what they have said when they have said that the growth of private education is facilitating the fragmentation of Australia’s children along ethnic, cultural and, particularly, religious lines.
We would be happy to give Dr Bourke the opportunity to speak again to say whether he endorses that, whether he voted for that line, along with Katy Gallagher and Simon Corbell, or whether he rejects that. And he would have the opportunity to condemn those kinds of divisive statements that are such a fundamental attack on the right of non-government schools to exist. He can have that opportunity. But Mr Barr today has made it very clear that the Labor Party believes it is not their money, which of course begs the question: can they choose how to spend that money? Can they have any autonomy?
The Greens do not want them to have autonomy. It is in the Greens’ policy on education. They have said this publicly. They want to take away that autonomy. They want to take away money.
So the question we need to ask, and what Mr Doszpot’s motion is about, is seeking some assurance: do you support the principle that non-government schools should be getting reasonable indexation so that they are not going backwards, and indexation which reflects their reasonable costs and their reasonable growth in costs? Mr Garrett has been very careful with his language. But everyone can read between the lines. He was asked many times. He said, “No school will lose a dollar.” What does that mean? Does that mean that they will have the same funding next year and the same funding the year after and the same funding in five years time as they have now? If that is the case, they will go backwards. They will go backwards significantly. Fees will have to rise. Fewer people who want to access those schools will be able to access those schools. This is a fundamental question we are asking. We are saying, as a statement of principle, we believe there should continue to be reasonable indexation. There should be support for both sectors. We should not be playing one sector off against the other, as the Labor Party has in their divisive motion.
We call on other members of this Assembly to stand with us and say: “Fine, there has been a Gonski review. But as a statement of principle we want to see fair funding for ACT schools, and we do not want to see any of our schools going backwards. We do not want to see them going back in real or actual terms.” That is what we are calling on today, and that is what other members have the opportunity to vote on when this comes to a vote later.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video