Page 2305 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
system. Clearly, it was the case in the ACT in 2006 that resources were being allocated on the basis of educational need or socioeconomic disadvantage.
You have got a massive public subsidy, often 2½ times the amount spent on your education as opposed to the education of a particular student in a particular school, for no reason other than they happen to attend that school. There was not an educational reason for it and there certainly was not a socioeconomic disadvantage that was trying to be overcome in the distribution of those resources. That is going to change.
The structural changes that were made in 2006 certainly levelled out that situation, more fairly distributed resources, and freed up a considerable amount of money for the government to invest, for example, in high priority areas like pastoral care, Indigenous education, support for students with a disability. We are able to redirect that funding towards areas of higher educational need or socioeconomic disadvantage. And I think that level of transparency is important. To have that recognised in this particular amendment is significant.
We also then look at some of the other issues. Undoubtedly, even with agreement on environmental impacts, there will no doubt in the future be some contest over, for example, greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Smyth made some observation in his speech earlier that there were a number of students—and it was about half of the student population in Tharwa—who drove many kilometres to attend Tharwa, thereby contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Whilst I understand that the intent of including that would probably be around the provision of local schools, unless we are going to change the policy and require that all students must attend their closest local school, then there will be greenhouse gas emissions as a result of transportation for students to attend a variety of different schools.
These impacts need to be assessed both ways, and I am sure that the independent committee, should it ever be formed, would have quite a challenge. Nonetheless, it will be an interesting challenge should they ever be formed and ever have to consider these matters in relation to, for example, calculating greenhouse gas emissions.
Overall, with the exception of the two amendments that I propose to move, I think this represents, as best we can find, a balanced list that considers all of the issues. I am sure that at some point in the future there will be some other ideas that people might think of and that there will be a future debate in this place where some additions might be made to this list or some issues that are on this list might no longer be deemed to be relevant. But for the purposes of a debate in 2010, I think they represent a very balanced outcome.
Again, I thank Ms Hunter and her office for the manner in which we were able to discuss these particular ideas and, indeed, a number of, I believe, important elements that were incorporated into the final amendment. And I suppose it would be appropriate now for me to move amendment No 1, circulated in my name, to Ms Hunter’s amendment. I move amendment No 1 to Ms Hunter’s amendment [see schedule 2 at page 2370].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video