Page 3658 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 16 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Tourism Awards : Education
MR CONNOLLY (4.48): I am sure the Opposition would join all the other members in the house in being pleased with the rejuvenation of the tourism industry and in congratulating the winners of those particular awards that the Minister just referred to. I am sure that we all look forward to continued growth in the tourist industry. I notice that the Government has justified the fact that it spent 600 per cent more on travel than the Labor Government did during a comparable period. The explanation most commonly given is that there was an airline strike during a period of Labor's stint in government here, and so I hope that we can equivalently expect to see a 600 per cent growth in travel to Canberra as the private sector reflects similar growth to the extraordinary travelling and tourism that is undertaken by Government Ministers in their various travelling caravans around Australia. Mr Collaery noted earlier that he did not see the excellent Richard Carleton report because he was in fact travelling out of Canberra. Surprise, surprise!
I really rose this afternoon to refer again to education. I think we saw this afternoon, most starkly, the difference between the two sides of this house, the divide across the centre of this house on education. We saw it most starkly in comparing the comments of Bill Wood and Wayne Berry on education and social impact and how closures of schools affect people in Canberra with the comments of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister said there was no adverse social impact in Canberra from the 1988 school closures. And how did he know? He looked at real estate values. That is the issue on which this Government decides questions of social impact. That is their measuring stick; that is their yardstick - real estate values. The community is already starting to refer to the Chief Minister as Townhouse Trevor, because he sees a school site and he imagines it covered in townhouses. Rip it down, sell it off, replace it with urban infill.
We have a different view of education, as clearly put by Mr Wood and Mr Berry this afternoon. But the bottom line from the Government side is that we are spending too much on schools; we cannot afford to keep the excellent system we have. Well, we, of course, say: we have an excellent system and let us keep it that way. But let me just examine the economic basis or the figures behind that.
It is repeatedly said, as a result of the Grants Commission inquiries - and this is put down in the ACT Government's submission to the Grants Commission - that the Commission accepts that we spend perhaps 20 per cent above average on schooling in this Territory. That is what we spend above average. What then do we get for our 20 per cent above average spending? The Grants Commission submission of this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .