Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2084 ..
MR PRATT
(continuing):Let's talk about Burgmann College. I know for a fact that Burgmann College, if it is unable to access or apply for ISS funding in the next 10 to 15 years, will have to start raising its fees. It will raise its fees by 10 to 15 per cent. It has said that. That will be the cost. If it is not going to be given assistance to start planning ahead and creating an infrastructure, the college will have to raise its fees. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that, if that pattern is repeated across the ACT, then all of the middle and lower fee non-government schools will have to raise their fees, which would have a negative impact on government schooling. Those families that cannot afford-
Ms Gallagher
: There's only $37,000 available next year, so every school is going to have to hike their fees. I find it very hard to believe.MR PRATT
: Can you turn the clock off, Mr Speaker?MR SPEAKER
: Order!MR PRATT
: The families that cannot afford to keep up with those fee increases will therefore move their children to government schools and I really do not think that an overstretched government school sector would be able to cope with that build-up.The minister indicated in question time yesterday, in response to my question, that it would not have been appropriate to detail and to signal the decision to cut ISS in the budget debate because it belonged to a previous budgetary process. Minister, that is wrong. As the government had decided to withdraw a significant funding program which will be reflected in the outyears, there was a requirement to reflect that in the 2003-04 budgetary debating process-that is, in this place, in the appropriate way-consistent with accountability and transparency. You did not have to be so shy about that.
Why were you so shy about flagging the issue? Indeed, why were you shy about consulting with the very important community education stakeholders? Why did you not have the decency to at least advise them? I'll tell you why. It was because you and your government are ashamed of this ridiculous piece of policy.
The minister also raised an issue about my interests. Yesterday, I heard Mr Corbell quite cutely say across the chamber, "Steve, reveal your interests in this issue."I do not know or care where that sort of low-level inference is going to; I really do not. My interest is in ensuring that my constituents and I are able to move our children into or out of both sectors of education according to our children's needs, needs which should be well serviced in both sectors, and in accordance with our changing means, the resources available to us all. If I want my daughter to go to Copland College to do a VET course because Copland College is the college best suited to provide that service, then that is where she will go.
Ms Tucker had a cheap shot at St Edmunds College. I must object to that, Mr Speaker. I really object to that. We might debate whether St Edmunds took this approach or that approach, but they took a bold approach to sort out a problem and I think it's as weak as water that Ms Tucker should have a shot at St Edmunds about that. Thank God we do not have education policy in Ms Tucker's hands. It would be a free, frolicking, fruit loop policy that we would have in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .