SCHOOL FUNDING

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (14:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is the first time I have been called that in 11 years, so, Mr Speaker, I thank you. Can the Minister for Education and Child Development compare SA's funding of government schools to that of other states?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:55): I thank the member for Kaurna for his question. I know that, being a former teacher, he has always maintained a very strong interest in public education, particularly those schools in his electorate.

The most recent Report on Government Services indicates that nationally the average state government contribution per student fell by $299; however, South Australia defied this national trend. South Australia recorded the biggest increase to the average government spend, with an extra $782 a year. According to the latest Report on Government Services, students in our public schools now receive more funding than the national average for their education.

In other states, the average spend per student actually declined: by $578 in New South Wales, by $360 in Victoria, and by $454 in Western Australia. I think every parent in South Australia should look at these numbers and feel proud that South Australia is bucking this trend. The Report on Government Services—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The report on government services also shows that the high level of investment by the state government in preschool services is taking financial pressure off parents. By investing in the future of our state's children, we are encouraging high participation levels, with 86.3 per cent of our state's four year olds enrolled in government-funded preschools. This compares to the national figure of 58.9. South Australia also reported the lowest average charge for family day care in the country.

Mr Speaker, I note the opposition have attempted to back away from their plan to cut Public Service jobs, but I haven't heard anything from the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow spokesperson refuting his predecessor's plan to gut the education department.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Minister, the standing orders say that ministers are not to debate in their answers, so although it is a very fine point, could the minister return to the substance—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: —of the Dorothy?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The point of order that says it is out of order to interject. The Minister for Education has had to put up with persistent interjections from the member for Unley, and now the members opposite are behaving like a raucous mob rather than an opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I think it is most unfortunate that the opposition took advantage of my ruling, so I would ask them to be quiet and listen to the remainder of the minister's answer. Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Can I point out that something like 22,800 people—more than that—are employed by the education department under the Education Act, 6.6 per cent of people are employed under the Children's Services Act, and we also employ many other people, people who are speech pathologists, curriculum counsellors, psychologists—these are the so-called 'bureaucrats' they want to cut.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Speaker, point of order: the minister is defying your ruling. You have already cautioned her about debating. She has completed her statement on a clear debate point.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will be seated. That is not actually a point of order. The minister, upon resuming the answer, addressed the substance of the question. There is no point of order, and I take the same view as the commonwealth House of Representatives—that frivolous or vexatious points of order are an obstruction of the business of the house.

I think that was a frivolous and vexatious point of order from the deputy leader. I won't hesitate to remove members who obstruct the business of the house by taking frivolous or vexatious points of order. It is particularly a pity, since the member for Bragg has been on her best behaviour today until that point.