House:LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY- MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Date:2.45 PM TUESDAY, 8 April 1997 << Previous Page Next Page >> PDF of this document. Member:Gallop, Dr Geoff Subject:MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST - PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM Page:1205 / 1 the communities in our State. These two propositions have been the linchpin of our commitment to the education of our children in Western Australia. Despite our agreement on those principles, we have debated issues such as the appropriate curriculum for our education system and how that curriculum should be adjusted to accommodate the changing society and technology. We have also debated what must be done in our schools to keep them up to date; what must done to incorporate information technology in our schools; how many schools we need; when it is appropriate that one school should close and a new school open; the degree of specialisation that is desirable within the government system; and how much government support is necessary and desirable for non-government schools. Those debates have been held within the framework of a commitment to provide community based education throughout the State, from the preprimary level to the upper secondary level. That debate has been held because of community concern about the state education system. Everyone in this State has been and will continue to be involved in the debate about education. Even parents of children who go to non-government schools have an active interest in the state system because they know that a first-class state system will ensure quality throughout the system at both government and non-government schools. They know that the benchmark of quality set by the government system will be the basis upon which parents will decide whether their children go to a government or a non-government school. Because we have that government provision throughout our community, we also have debate about our government system. It also means that we have community ownership of that debate. Some of the best schools in this State are government schools and, as a community, we are proud that they are provided by taxpayers' money and owned and controlled by the community as a whole. Our best schools are those which have a range of students with different backgrounds, income, and levels of ability. The great schools are those which bring together this diversity of income, background, and ability and make the school community work. The students who come from those schools are those who are capable of meeting both the educational and social challenges they face. Having a government system that brings together those differences makes our community much stronger and those schools better, and that means our democracy functions better. Therefore, throughout Western Australia's history we have taken pride in our government education system because all members of the community, no matter their background, income or aspirations, take an interest in and involve themselves in debate about education. Mr Barnett: What years were you Education Minister? Dr GALLOP: In 1990. Mr Barnett: For how long? Dr GALLOP: For that year. We should take great pride in our community-based, government-controlled education system. However, a member of the Government - not a backbencher - has publicised his view that the rich must pay school fees, as reported in the Sunday Times, and as indicated in debate in this Parliament, and throughout his local area newspapers. The conclusion that follows the logic of the Minister for Lands is that we will have two types of schools in Western Australia. That is, schools provided by the Government, available only to those who have parents with a low income; and, secondly, non-government schools to which those on a higher income will be obliged to send their children. This would be a retrograde step for the community. We have had interesting debates in this place about where it is appropriate for the community, through Parliament and the Government, to be involved in a social or economic activity. However, the bipartisan agreement that has occurred over many decades in Western Australia means that our Government has responsibility for the provision of education for all students who live in particular communities within the State, and to provide government schools in those communities. To break that pattern would be a retrograde step for the community. The implications of such a move would be twofold: First, we would have a less united society. Societies which are riven down the centre by class conflict are those which say there are schools for the rich and schools for the poor and never the twain shall meet. A healthier democratic society brings unity between people on different levels of income rather than divide them, and the education system in this State has brought about that unity. Secondly, and most importantly, the result of the application of that philosophy would be that government schools would turn out the poorer and would become stereotyped in the nature of the education they delivered. Therefore the assumption of the Minister for Lands in advocating his proposition that somehow more money would be available for government schools, is fallacious. We would have less care and concern for government schools. As we have debated in this Chamber, and as will be debated in the Federal Parliament, the steps taken by the Federal Government to reduce expenditure on government schools as a result of its policy to encourage more non-government schools, << Previous Page Next Page >>
the communities in our State. These two propositions have been the linchpin of our commitment to the education of our children in Western Australia. Despite our agreement on those principles, we have debated issues such as the appropriate curriculum for our education system and how that curriculum should be adjusted to accommodate the changing society and technology. We have also debated what must be done in our schools to keep them up to date; what must done to incorporate information technology in our schools; how many schools we need; when it is appropriate that one school should close and a new school open; the degree of specialisation that is desirable within the government system; and how much government support is necessary and desirable for non-government schools. Those debates have been held within the framework of a commitment to provide community based education throughout the State, from the preprimary level to the upper secondary level. That debate has been held because of community concern about the state education system. Everyone in this State has been and will continue to be involved in the debate about education. Even parents of children who go to non-government schools have an active interest in the state system because they know that a first-class state system will ensure quality throughout the system at both government and non-government schools. They know that the benchmark of quality set by the government system will be the basis upon which parents will decide whether their children go to a government or a non-government school. Because we have that government provision throughout our community, we also have debate about our government system. It also means that we have community ownership of that debate. Some of the best schools in this State are government schools and, as a community, we are proud that they are provided by taxpayers' money and owned and controlled by the community as a whole. Our best schools are those which have a range of students with different backgrounds, income, and levels of ability. The great schools are those which bring together this diversity of income, background, and ability and make the school community work. The students who come from those schools are those who are capable of meeting both the educational and social challenges they face. Having a government system that brings together those differences makes our community much stronger and those schools better, and that means our democracy functions better. Therefore, throughout Western Australia's history we have taken pride in our government education system because all members of the community, no matter their background, income or aspirations, take an interest in and involve themselves in debate about education. Mr Barnett: What years were you Education Minister? Dr GALLOP: In 1990. Mr Barnett: For how long? Dr GALLOP: For that year. We should take great pride in our community-based, government-controlled education system. However, a member of the Government - not a backbencher - has publicised his view that the rich must pay school fees, as reported in the Sunday Times, and as indicated in debate in this Parliament, and throughout his local area newspapers. The conclusion that follows the logic of the Minister for Lands is that we will have two types of schools in Western Australia. That is, schools provided by the Government, available only to those who have parents with a low income; and, secondly, non-government schools to which those on a higher income will be obliged to send their children. This would be a retrograde step for the community. We have had interesting debates in this place about where it is appropriate for the community, through Parliament and the Government, to be involved in a social or economic activity. However, the bipartisan agreement that has occurred over many decades in Western Australia means that our Government has responsibility for the provision of education for all students who live in particular communities within the State, and to provide government schools in those communities. To break that pattern would be a retrograde step for the community. The implications of such a move would be twofold: First, we would have a less united society. Societies which are riven down the centre by class conflict are those which say there are schools for the rich and schools for the poor and never the twain shall meet. A healthier democratic society brings unity between people on different levels of income rather than divide them, and the education system in this State has brought about that unity. Secondly, and most importantly, the result of the application of that philosophy would be that government schools would turn out the poorer and would become stereotyped in the nature of the education they delivered. Therefore the assumption of the Minister for Lands in advocating his proposition that somehow more money would be available for government schools, is fallacious. We would have less care and concern for government schools. As we have debated in this Chamber, and as will be debated in the Federal Parliament, the steps taken by the Federal Government to reduce expenditure on government schools as a result of its policy to encourage more non-government schools,