Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2085 ..
Ms Gallagher
: What an insult! She's not even in the room.MR PRATT
: She never is; but that is her problem, Ms Gallagher, not yours and not mine. We would have been happy to have the ISS reviewed. We would have supported a government review of, for example, the criteria for fund allocation to ensure that the most needy core infrastructure requirements were being met or there was a more equitable allocation of the ISS in its current format and principle across the non-government sector, to ensure that all schools got a fair share. If the government continues to bang on about equity, that would be the most effective and honest way to exercise equity, not by abolishing the ISS.Mr Corbell says that there will be no reduction in overall allocations to the non-government sector. To whom have you been talking, Mr Corbell-the tooth fairy? When governments take money from a particular source, they are famous for not giving it back. Mr Corbell repeated the distorted picture portrayed by Connors and pulled out the significant sums reflecting the history of the past allocations.
I agree with him that there has been an imbalance in the past with some of the funding. Of course there has been. But what Mr Corbell failed to point out-and the minister as well, by the way-is that the schools coming on line now which would be applying for funding under the ISS in the life of the next 15 years, the $13 million having been already allocated, are going to miss out. That is where the picture is distorted.
The government is taking away a system that will not allow new applications for schools which would have taken up the sort of financial scope that we have already seen allocated to certain schools. Do not be misled by which schools are getting the money. Look at the system and which schools are now going to miss out.
Why is this government obsessed with qualifying its funding policy according to Commonwealth grants and funding levels? Regardless of Commonwealth resources, the government has a duty to ensure the upkeep of ACT funding to non-government schools and, indeed, to seek to build on that. Do not be distracted by what the Commonwealth provides; worry about what we can provide. Eleven per cent is not good enough.
In conclusion, Mr Corbell and the minister have cleverly repeated the Connors mantra, which distorts the track record of the ISS and fails to spell out projected allocations for new applications. Smoke and mirrors! Mr Speaker, this is a black day for ACT education.
Question put:
That Mr Pratt's motion be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .