Page 1823 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: She is insulted because I called her a Marxist.
Ms Follett: I am not insulted at all by being called a Marxist, but I do object to the irrelevance of these comments, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Please stick to the point, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, I would have expected the Leader of the Opposition to "Marx" my words! Certainly, we are trying to make more comprehensible the need to increase services, increase revenue and attend to concerns in society.
One of the other myths that has been spoken about is the overemphasis on the ideological exploitation of this issue. We have seen frothing at the mouth sessions all over town. The roo from Reid has been jumping up and down and popping up all round the Bush Capital, and certainly this has presented that potoroo with a tremendous opportunity.
But let me put forward a couple of issues. I quote from Mr Kaine's speech yesterday on the Priorities Review Board. At page 4 of his speech he stated unequivocally, "The Government has invited comment on the need to restructure the school system". He went on to say - and I want everyone on the other side to hear this - "In releasing for public comment our suggested criteria for a consolidation program".
The trouble with the Opposition is that one cannot even make a suggestion before one gets shot down. Its members look for a stage, they look for a stunt at every turn because of the decrepit nature of their operation at the moment. Certainly, Rosemary Richards of the Teachers Federation has recognised that there may be a need for school closures. The trade union movement is taking a far more responsible approach on this issue. But not the Opposition members; no, all we get from them are cheap shots.
On the question of whether anyone has been constructive on this issue, let me tell you what the Government has done recently. As soon as Frances Perkins produced some of her financial data, we examined it. Mr Moore gave an idea of what was being looked at, but clearly he has not had detailed discussions with those people. The Government has. The Government has had extensive discussions with them - with our finance experts, our accounting people, and all the rest. Certainly, the basis of those suggestions is a calculation based, for the record, on the cost of a child in a small school, compared with a marginal cost of the child in a larger school. For Mr Wood's benefit, the methodology is net present value analysis.
The real issue in this debate is to get constructive issues forward so the Government can know what decisions the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .