The Howard Government is running a deliberate and systematic campaign against public schools in Newcastle, The Greens have warned.

“While public schools battle to make do with inadequate resources, John Howard has opened the coffers to private schools across this region,” said Greens candidate for Newcastle, Annie Rooke-Frizell.

“Newcastle High School, the biggest public high school in Newcastle, receives $964,483 a year in Federal funds. If it were a wealthy private school, it would receive $1.3 million. If it were a religious school, it would receive up to $5.4 million.

“When the Howard Government came to power in 1996, Federal funding to private schools totalled $1.9 billion a year. In just 8 years this funding has more than doubled to $4.9 billion year, and by 2007 it will climb to $6 billion.

“This ruthless attack on our public schools has placed a time-bomb of inequality under our society. It is opening up an educational gap between the haves and have-nots.

“Families that can afford to send their kids to private schools are getting more taxpayer assistance, while those choosing public schools are being treated as second-class citizens.

“The Greens want to put a stop to this cynical attack on our hardworking public school teachers and our beleaguered public schools.

“We call on the Government to redirect the increases in private school funding towards public schools. This will allow smaller class sizes, higher salaries, resources for children with special needs and better buildings.

“The Greens also support an end to funding for the wealthiest private schools. This would redirect $1.5 billion into equity programs and Aboriginal education in public schools over the next four years,” said Ms Rooke-Frizell.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Howard Government is running a deliberate and systematic campaign against public schools in Lake Macquarie, The Greens have warned.

“While public schools battle to make do with inadequate resources, John Howard has opened the coffers to private schools across this region,” said Greens candidate for Shortland, Bob Phillips.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bob Phillips, Greens candidate for Shortland, said today:

Mark Latham’s proposed amendment to the US Free Trade Agreement, even if it were accepted by the Government, would still leave the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme open to attacks by US drug companies.

“The review process drawn up by the Howard Government allows US drug companies to question the decisions of the pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This Committee recommends which drugs should be included on the PBS list, and the prices that the Government should pay for them.

“If a drug manufacturer disagrees with an outcome of the review process it can take its complaint to another body set up under the FTA, where the dispute will be resolved with no consideration of the therapeutic qualities of the drug, or questions of public health. If the government does not accept the decision of this body, which ?can seek the advice of non-governmental persons and groups’, including drug company lobbyists, it can incur massive fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

“The best option for Australia is total rejection of the USFTA, not only because it threatens our PBS - regarded as the best in the world - but because our manufacturing industries, our environmental protection laws, our quarantine regulations, and Australian cultural productions are also endangered. Even the much trumpeted access of our rural exports to the US bristles with restrictions, while all Australian barriers to US agricultural exports will be removed.

“This year and in 2003 I have organised two public forums in Newcastle on the USFTA where economists, medical specialists and Professor David Henry, Professor of Pharmacology at Newcastle University, have spoken. They were unanimous in criticising the USFTA and the impact it would have on the PBS.

“The ALP must reject the USFTA and facilitate public debate on its shortcomings. How can they or the government rush to judgment on the Agreement when the Australian people have had no opportunity to examine the recommendations of a Senate Committee that has been taking submissions over several months?

How can they or the government rush to judgment on the Agreement when the Australian people have had no opportunity to examine the recommendations of a Senate Committee that has been taking submissions over several months? “When the Australian people realise how this Agreement endangers our national sovereignty and our future prosperity it will become an election liability for the Howard Government.”

Read the rest of this entry »