Page 1705 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have been clear from the beginning that this is not going to ensure that a lot of additional commonwealth money comes to the ACT. The most significant reason for that is that we have made the investments in education that the Victorian government, the Queensland government and the New South Wales government, to take the three large states, have not made. In order to bring their kids up to a resourcing standard that our kids are currently enjoying, it requires a greater effort by the Commonwealth of Australia’s government to invest in those systems. Is that unfair to the ACT—that we are not getting the same amount that New South Wales is getting? The easy answer to that is yes. But what about children in the country all receiving a fair allocation of education funding?
Too often these debates disintegrate into what slice of the pie I got for mine. This opportunity before us in terms of reaching agreement on this is about what is the best outcome for education across the country. That is, at the heart, what we are trying to negotiate here. Is it right that a child in the Northern Territory, Far North Queensland or western Sydney gets half of what a kid gets in a government school or a non-government school here? I do not agree with that. I do not think that is fair.
We are wanting to be part of this national approach. There is an opportunity, and it is probably a once in a lifetime opportunity, to get agreement on national funding for all students in all schools. For once, it takes away the non-government/government debate around funding which has plagued education funding and frustrated education funding changes for years.
There have been, as Mr Doszpot outlined, a number of studies on education funding. We had one here in 2001 that looked at the issue of education funding. The fact is that when you divide it into what is right for the non-government schools and what is right for the government schools, you never reach agreement. This is about saying that regardless of what school you attend, this is the money you should get—just over $9,000 if you are a primary school student and just over $12,000 if you are a student in the secondary system. That is what it says. It does not matter whether you go to the local Catholic school or the local public school; it just does not matter anymore. That is the opportunity that is afforded us here.
Yes, it will mean that we get less funding from the commonwealth than other jurisdictions. It will. And any requirement to argue for more takes away from the school resourcing standard, which is the agreement that this is what it should be as a base level of funding for all students regardless of where they live in Australia.
I note the opportunity for the opposition to make hay with this, to point the finger and fight for the ACT, fight for rights and all this sort of stuff. But when you drill down, you actually have to answer the question: “Do you support needs-based funding in education?” If you do not, say it. Say it so that everyone can hear that you, the Liberal Party, do not support needs-based funding for education. That is what you are saying without saying the words directly, and that is not something this government supports. We are negotiating for all students across the ACT, but we are also in a position where we are already resourcing our schools very well in comparison to other jurisdictions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video