❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the estimated costs and timelines associated with increasing the compulsory school leaving age to include years 11 and 12. The Minister's response avoids direct answers, focusing on the broader benefits and urgency of the proposal.
AnsweredQoN 431Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s announcement that he plans to increase the compulsory school years by 2008 to include years 11 and 12. (1) What is the estimated cost of providing extra classrooms and other physical resources to accommodate the significant increase in the school population at years 11 and 12? (2) Given that there are only five years until the commencement of the 2008 school year, when does the minister expect the capital works program to begin? (3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(1) What is the estimated cost of providing extra classrooms and other physical resources to accommodate the significant increase in the school population at years 11 and 12? (2) Given that there are only five years until the commencement of the 2008 school year, when does the minister expect the capital works program to begin? (3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(2) Given that there are only five years until the commencement of the 2008 school year, when does the minister expect the capital works program to begin? (3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(1) What is the estimated cost of providing extra classrooms and other physical resources to accommodate the significant increase in the school population at years 11 and 12? (2) Given that there are only five years until the commencement of the 2008 school year, when does the minister expect the capital works program to begin? (3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(2) Given that there are only five years until the commencement of the 2008 school year, when does the minister expect the capital works program to begin? (3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(3) What is the estimated cost of designing and preparing the curriculum for the additional students in years 11 and 12? (4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(4) When does the minister expect work to begin on the preparation of the curriculum? (5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(5) How many additional teachers will be required to teach the extra students and what will be the recurrent cost of employing the teachers? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
(1)-(5) I am very grateful to the member for the question because it allows me to expand upon the virtues of the proposition I have put. I will deal with the details of the question. The member said that it is only five years until 2008. It is because it is only five years hence that I thought the issue should be raised for public debate now so that people have the opportunity to talk about the pros and cons of my proposition of raising the school leaving age from 15 years - as it currently is - to 17 years. I know the member for Churchlands has an interest in education and probably supports the concept, although one can never tell these days. By the time 2008 comes around, all that sort of detail will be well and truly nailed down. However, the member omitted to say that I believe the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years as an interim measure. My preference is that it should be raised by 2005, although 2006 is a more practical date. I believe that the age to which people are retained in compulsory education and training - as opposed to the school leaving age - could be raised to 16 years now. I do not accept any argument that it cannot be done. It can be done. If the Parliament had the will, we could do it. We could get out and do it tomorrow. I was invited to talk on the subject on the ABC. We must not sit around for years arguing about how much it will cost and whether we can stitch together the perfect package. If we do that, it will never happen. Every other Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development country has, as far as I am aware, a leaving age in advance of ours. In fact, it is 17 or 18 years in many countries. A lot of developing nations are looking at raising their school leaving age from 12 or 13 years to 16 years. I ask the rhetorical question: how much will it cost if we do not do it? How much does it cost us today because no Government in the past has done it? Why must we have 30 per cent youth unemployment? Why must we have so much juvenile crime? Why are 30 000 young people aged between 15 and 20 years not in education, training or full-time employment? As the member has some academic background and research skills, I invite her to look at the papers prepared on this issue by a range of researchers, most prominently by the Düsseldorp Skills Forum, which estimates that the lack of education is costing Australia in advance of $1 billion a year in lost productivity. Today is 25 February 2003. I give the member a guarantee that if she is still in the Parliament in 2006-08, she will receive all the information she requires well before then to assuage any concerns she has. We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
We have a choice to make in Western Australia. Do we want to stand still as a community and let the rest of the world go past us and, in relative terms, go backwards? Alternatively, do we want to get ahead of the rest of the nation - which is going there anyway - and establish the future for Western Australia? As I said in my remarks, it is our responsibility - even for members of the Opposition and Independent members who have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever - to come to grips with the issues. As I said, they must be prepared to take the responsibility for creating the future for young people in this State. That is our responsibility. The member for Churchlands should go away with this question in her mind: what does it cost us now because we have not done it and what will it cost us in the future if we do not do it? It will cost us a helluva lot more.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.