Page 2329 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is inevitable that in that situation, unless more money is going to be injected into the system, there has to be some rationalisation in those areas in which the school population is contracting.
So it was in this context that the ACT budget for 1989 had to be framed. We have to face the reality of life, and in that context funds available for recurrent expenditure were constrained by three important elements, Dr Kinloch. As much as you might like to have preschools with five children in them, I would submit to you that you have to face the harsh realities of cost.
You have to face the harsh requirement of the Government and the Department of Education to meet the needs of the people who live in the suburbs of Tuggeranong - the outer suburbs, the frontier suburbs of our city - as well as provide for those who live in the more comfortable and established suburb you know so well.
These constraints that exercised the mind of the Government were, first of all, the Commonwealth Government's position in relation to recurrent expenditure generally for States and territories. There was a general cutback, a general reduction, of 4.4 per cent in Commonwealth funding to the States. We were part of that process.
Secondly, as much as it hurts me to say it, I must admit that the Commonwealth Government failed to honour an undertaking which it had given in relation to maintaining the real level of expenditure in the ACT for a fixed period and, in the process of doing that, withheld from our Government $22.7m which was rightfully ours and which should have been ours, available for the budget. The absence of it imposed constraints upon the Government's programs.
Finally, of course, we have the constraints of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the commitment of the Commonwealth Government to ensure that no longer will the citizens of the ACT enjoy advantages over the other States in relation to expenditure. It is in this area that the Grants Commission perceived overexpenditure, and I will go to that now. So the Grants Commission did perceive that expenditure on preschooling in the ACT is in excess of the standard provision in other parts of Australia.
We, the Government, happen to believe that the excess provision for preschooling is justified, and certainly it is our intention to do all in our power to reverse the view of the Grants Commission in future. Early next year the next round of submissions to the Grants Commission will commence, and we will be placing particular emphasis on that.
However, the reality is that the budget savings are required in the education sector. All aspects of the Department of Education were scrutinised, as were other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .