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; Ripper, Mr Eric Subject:MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST - PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM Page:1206 / 1 would be a retrograde step for the community. To go the next step from that proposed by the Federal Government, and to create a divided education system in the community, would lead to poorer government schools and a stereotyping of those government schools. Through this motion we are giving all members in the Chamber the opportunity to declare their support for an excellent system, for community based, state provided education, accessible to all, no matter the background or income. This is a fundamental principle with which all members of Parliament would agree, as it has been over many decades in this State. MR RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.55 pm]: I owe my position in life today to my parents' commitment to education, and to a state school system which provided a quality primary school in a small country town and a very good secondary school in the metropolitan area. That is the situation for many members of this Parliament, particularly those on this side of the House. It is surprising that we need to move a motion like this. However, the comments of the Minister for Lands in this House and in the media are extraordinary. He told the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, 12 March - Members sitting on that side of the House who enjoy the same income as I enjoy, and who send their children to high school because they believe the system should be paying for their education are bludging off the system. They are pulling the system down. I proudly send my eldest son to a government high school and my second son to a government primary school. There are very important reasons for us to support the public school system. This is not a debate about the merits of the private school system and those of the public school system. We need choice in the education system because that provides a measure of accountability and innovation. It will always be the case that, for some reason or another, parents will shift their children from school to school, but if there is to be proper choice in the education system, we must have a quality public education system; otherwise there will be no choice for people in remote country locations or for those who do not have the income to provide an education for their children. It is not a question of debating the merits of private or public education systems. It is all about providing a real choice for many people in the community. It is about supporting a great public institution, which is very important for the future of our community. It is not the private school system that is under threat. The public school system is under threat as a result of a number of developments, including federal policies and the attitudes that have been alarmingly expressed by a senior member of this Government. The public education system in this country has an historic role to promote equality of opportunity. Bright young people from families on low incomes must be given the means to get ahead, and in many cases that means has been our state school education system. It is a bulwark for upward social mobility in this community. If we sabotage or compromise the public school education system, we will add to the threats to the equality of opportunity in our community that are already too present. We must provide access to the benefits and opportunities of life for children from low income families, and that access is through the state education system. If we do not provide that access, we will threaten the cohesion of our society. That is the second great role of our public education system, because it educates people from all stratas of society, religious persuasions and cultural views, and it promotes a degree of unity and cohesion in our society. If each social class had its own school system, the quality of life in the community would be affected negatively, because the tolerance that is promoted, at its best, in our state school system would be lost. Many examples of intolerance exist in our state school system, and many things should be done to reduce victimisation and bullying and to encourage acceptance, but without a public school system, the opportunity for doing that across the community would be compromised severely. The social context to this debate is the increasing competition in our community and the increasing threats to equality of opportunity. Income distribution is one example: The top 20 per cent of income earners in this country earn 13 times more than the bottom 20 per cent of income earners. The daily experience in the labour market is that some people can avail themselves of full time jobs, with all of the benefits that accrue from those jobs, while others are restricted to part time or casual work, or to a job here and a job there. Current economic developments and the operations of the labour market will lead to an increasing division in the community. Jobs for unskilled people will become increasingly scarce, and people who do not pick up skills will have an insecure future in the labour market. Therefore, education is now more important for equality of opportunity and for those people who would previously have filled unskilled jobs than it was in the past. In the context of this threat to equality, the Minister for Lands has told the House that we must encourage those people in the middle, who believe the system owes them and who have the capacity to educate and provide housing for their children, to reassess their philosophies. He wants to get the middle classes out of the public education system. He believes, apparently sincerely, that people who can afford private education but send their children to state schools are bludging off the system. They are not bludging off the system. Their contribution to and their << Previous Page Next Page >>
would be a retrograde step for the community. To go the next step from that proposed by the Federal Government, and to create a divided education system in the community, would lead to poorer government schools and a stereotyping of those government schools. Through this motion we are giving all members in the Chamber the opportunity to declare their support for an excellent system, for community based, state provided education, accessible to all, no matter the background or income. This is a fundamental principle with which all members of Parliament would agree, as it has been over many decades in this State. MR RIPPER (Belmont - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.55 pm]: I owe my position in life today to my parents' commitment to education, and to a state school system which provided a quality primary school in a small country town and a very good secondary school in the metropolitan area. That is the situation for many members of this Parliament, particularly those on this side of the House. It is surprising that we need to move a motion like this. However, the comments of the Minister for Lands in this House and in the media are extraordinary. He told the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday, 12 March - Members sitting on that side of the House who enjoy the same income as I enjoy, and who send their children to high school because they believe the system should be paying for their education are bludging off the system. They are pulling the system down. I proudly send my eldest son to a government high school and my second son to a government primary school. There are very important reasons for us to support the public school system. This is not a debate about the merits of the private school system and those of the public school system. We need choice in the education system because that provides a measure of accountability and innovation. It will always be the case that, for some reason or another, parents will shift their children from school to school, but if there is to be proper choice in the education system, we must have a quality public education system; otherwise there will be no choice for people in remote country locations or for those who do not have the income to provide an education for their children. It is not a question of debating the merits of private or public education systems. It is all about providing a real choice for many people in the community. It is about supporting a great public institution, which is very important for the future of our community. It is not the private school system that is under threat. The public school system is under threat as a result of a number of developments, including federal policies and the attitudes that have been alarmingly expressed by a senior member of this Government. The public education system in this country has an historic role to promote equality of opportunity. Bright young people from families on low incomes must be given the means to get ahead, and in many cases that means has been our state school education system. It is a bulwark for upward social mobility in this community. If we sabotage or compromise the public school education system, we will add to the threats to the equality of opportunity in our community that are already too present. We must provide access to the benefits and opportunities of life for children from low income families, and that access is through the state education system. If we do not provide that access, we will threaten the cohesion of our society. That is the second great role of our public education system, because it educates people from all stratas of society, religious persuasions and cultural views, and it promotes a degree of unity and cohesion in our society. If each social class had its own school system, the quality of life in the community would be affected negatively, because the tolerance that is promoted, at its best, in our state school system would be lost. Many examples of intolerance exist in our state school system, and many things should be done to reduce victimisation and bullying and to encourage acceptance, but without a public school system, the opportunity for doing that across the community would be compromised severely. The social context to this debate is the increasing competition in our community and the increasing threats to equality of opportunity. Income distribution is one example: The top 20 per cent of income earners in this country earn 13 times more than the bottom 20 per cent of income earners. The daily experience in the labour market is that some people can avail themselves of full time jobs, with all of the benefits that accrue from those jobs, while others are restricted to part time or casual work, or to a job here and a job there. Current economic developments and the operations of the labour market will lead to an increasing division in the community. Jobs for unskilled people will become increasingly scarce, and people who do not pick up skills will have an insecure future in the labour market. Therefore, education is now more important for equality of opportunity and for those people who would previously have filled unskilled jobs than it was in the past. In the context of this threat to equality, the Minister for Lands has told the House that we must encourage those people in the middle, who believe the system owes them and who have the capacity to educate and provide housing for their children, to reassess their philosophies. He wants to get the middle classes out of the public education system. He believes, apparently sincerely, that people who can afford private education but send their children to state schools are bludging off the system. They are not bludging off the system. Their contribution to and their