Page 3847 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposal; that was our commitment. It was a kind of rough justice; but it was, we believe, at least basically just, and that is what we decided to do. As history records, the Alliance Government was unable to proceed with the closure of a number of schools and, as a result, the amount that it expected to save, both in the last financial year and in the long term, from its government school sector was very greatly reduced. It follows that the projections for equivalent savings in the non-government sector, similarly, would have to have been reduced.
In terms of the commitments that I made to this Assembly on several occasions about the nature of the previous Government's approach to these matters, there is no question that, had it stayed in office, it would have been able to proceed with cuts of the order of anything like $2m to non-government education. That is simply not possible.
Mr Connolly: You had it in your forward estimates. You were caught out.
MR HUMPHRIES: Ms Follett and others sat in this place and heard me say time and time again that we would cut equally in the government and non-government sectors. It must follow that if we did not make those cuts in the government sector - we were not able to close the schools that we proposed originally to close - we could not make those savings in the non-government sector.
Mr Connolly: You were still trying.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, we were not still trying. We made a clear commitment in this place. You did not like that promise. You somehow prefer to think that we should have made non-government schools pay a bigger share. You certainly did not accept what we said, but you heard us say it. That was the basis on which we proceeded and on which we would have proceeded had we stayed in office beyond 6 June.
We have debated this issue extensively in the last few days. It is worth remembering that this Government has so far put up no sound justification for its actions. Basically it has said, "We have to make cuts. Non-government schools are getting funding that we do not consider to be appropriate; we are going to cut them". That is about it. There is no justification, no philosophy, no question of how one promotes a balance between government and non-government education in the Territory. None of that is present. They are just saying, "We can see some easy money for the Territory. We are going to grab it. We do not care how it affects the schools or the students concerned". That is a repugnant kind of philosophy with which to approach this delicate matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .