❓ Mr Dean asks about changes to school fees. Mr Carpenter responds, highlighting the removal of compulsory fees for years 8-10, potential funding shortfalls, and criticising the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party's stance on fee payments.
AnsweredQoN 705Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister provide an update on the changes to the school fees and charges policy implemented by this Government? Mr CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
The Labor Party went to the election with a policy that school fees for years 8 to 10 would not be compulsory. In other words, members on this side had a different position from that taken by the former Government, which made the $235 fee compulsory. The Labor Party disagreed with that approach because it did not want people who were unable to pay the fee to face legal action or the prospect of having their household goods seized by a bailiff, their children humiliated and so on. Members on this side want equity. As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER replied: The Labor Party went to the election with a policy that school fees for years 8 to 10 would not be compulsory. In other words, members on this side had a different position from that taken by the former Government, which made the $235 fee compulsory. The Labor Party disagreed with that approach because it did not want people who were unable to pay the fee to face legal action or the prospect of having their household goods seized by a bailiff, their children humiliated and so on. Members on this side want equity. As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
The Labor Party went to the election with a policy that school fees for years 8 to 10 would not be compulsory. In other words, members on this side had a different position from that taken by the former Government, which made the $235 fee compulsory. The Labor Party disagreed with that approach because it did not want people who were unable to pay the fee to face legal action or the prospect of having their household goods seized by a bailiff, their children humiliated and so on. Members on this side want equity. As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER replied: The Labor Party went to the election with a policy that school fees for years 8 to 10 would not be compulsory. In other words, members on this side had a different position from that taken by the former Government, which made the $235 fee compulsory. The Labor Party disagreed with that approach because it did not want people who were unable to pay the fee to face legal action or the prospect of having their household goods seized by a bailiff, their children humiliated and so on. Members on this side want equity. As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
The Labor Party went to the election with a policy that school fees for years 8 to 10 would not be compulsory. In other words, members on this side had a different position from that taken by the former Government, which made the $235 fee compulsory. The Labor Party disagreed with that approach because it did not want people who were unable to pay the fee to face legal action or the prospect of having their household goods seized by a bailiff, their children humiliated and so on. Members on this side want equity. As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
As a result, on coming to office, the Labor Government removed the compulsion with regard to that $235 fee. As anticipated, there has been a reduction in fee collection levels. By the end of the year, that figure could be as high as 20 per cent. Obviously, if that occurs, the issue will need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been in the public domain - Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr Board interjected. Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: - telling Western Australian parents. The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
The SPEAKER: It is disorderly for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to read out a quote in the form of an interjection. If he wants to ask a further question, perhaps the time to do it is when the opportunity for the next question arises; then he will get a chance. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been telling Western Australian parents that they would have to have rocks in their heads to be contributing to their children’s education in that way. As I recall, he also said that if he were not a member of Parliament, he would not be paying the fees. It is unbelievable that a person in a public office as high as that of Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party could act in such an irresponsible way. It is interesting to note what the reaction has been. There has been virtually no change, only a small change, in the fee payment rates in many schools in regions across the State; in other words, the overwhelming majority of parents have continued to pay because they believe they should contribute. In the member’s electorate, however, there is a problem. In the electorate where the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party has been urging people not to pay, fee collection has slumped. He has a choice: he can decide to do the right thing and encourage parents to pay, or he can continue on his irresponsible path by telling people that they would have to have rocks in their heads and making statements such as the one in the Sunday Times , which states - “We have a situation where battlers are paying fees because they don’t know they are voluntary - Why would they not know? and middle-income earners who are not paying because they do know they are voluntary.” In other words, we have two possibilities: he is casting a slur on the battlers or on the so-called middle-income earners. The member should make up his mind. I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
I will address one further point. What is the member’s motivation? What is the basic concern? Can the Opposition and this member be concerned about the parents? No. That side of Parliament supported the compulsory fee regime that would have made it compulsory. Members opposite are not concerned about the parents. Are they concerned about the budgetary situation for schools? If the 20 per cent reduction in fee claims runs to the end of the year, we may face a shortfall of up to $2 million. After all, schools have done their darnedest to ensure fees are collected, I will not leave schools - even schools in the member’s electorate - in trouble. Are members opposite really concerned about the budgetary situation and that we somehow or other might have to find extra money? The first question of the day was very illuminating. Let us look at the fiscal experience of the Department of Education under the previous minister. Let us ask those in the department who was concerned then about the budgetary situation of the Department of Education. Perhaps through interjection the Leader of the Opposition might tell us how much of a budget overrun there was in education in 1999-2000. Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr Barnett: In five years we increased the budget for education by eight per cent a year. You cut the budget! For the first time in a decade, Labor cut the education budget! Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
Mr CARPENTER: The budget overrun in one year under that irresponsible minister, who has no capacity to manage a budget, was $98 million. The total fee collection from years 8, 9 and 10 for that component is about $9.5 million. I could provide free school for years 8, 9 and 10 for a decade if I behaved in the irresponsible way that man did as a minister. He has absolutely no credibility. He should not make statements on this issue, because I also have the budget overruns for every other year he was a minister. What a shocking manager of the finances of the department! The man who sits next to him, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, now has the opportunity to go to his electorate and do the right thing by the people in his electorate and by the children and parents in every other school in Western Australia and stop the irresponsible political game playing that brings no credit to him or his party.
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.