Page 3530 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
their remaining open. So, it was the Tourism Commission's decision not to retain those two offices. They made it, I am quite certain, on the best advice available to them. But, to sum up: No, the Government itself did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
MR JENSEN: I have a supplementary question, Mr Acting Speaker. In that case, in relation to the operations in the ACT, has there been a reduction in the front office operations of the Tourism Commission's staff in the Jolimont Centre in the ACT?
MS FOLLETT: Again, Mr Acting Speaker, in relation to the Jolimont Centre, I have followed the course that was set by the previous Government. It has been Tourism Commission policy to reduce the costs of their overheads, including the high cost of operating in the Jolimont Centre. They are reducing their operation there; but a Tourism Commission presence will be retained in the Jolimont Centre, I am advised, and I think that is a very good thing. I think that is a good decision.
Nevertheless, it is true to say that there will be people moving out of the Jolimont Centre into less expensive accommodation. I think that that is a very worthwhile part of the Tourism Commission's streamlining process; a process which will see them exert their major effort in marketing the ACT. I think that is the appropriate way for them to proceed. Reducing their overheads in the way that they have been doing for some time now is a great help in achieving their marketing objectives.
School Funding
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to the Minister for Education. It concerns a statement made to the Assembly by Mr Wood in October of last year, when he said:
Let me start with an issue I raised yesterday ... This is the Federal Government's promise not to close Weetangera Primary School in the next five years. Mr Kaine's bluster yesterday cannot obscure the fact that ... this Government should fulfil the pre-self-government commitment by the Commonwealth.
I refer also to the commitment by the then Federal Education Minister to the three non-government schools which the Labor Party has now abandoned. Can the Minister explain to the Assembly why a pre-self-government commitment to a non-government school is worth less than a pre-self-government commitment to a government school? How does the Minister explain these appalling double standards to the non-government schools community?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .