Page 4418 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government to deal with those financial management problems. The officer was quite forthcoming. Indeed, Ms Biscoe, the head of the department, was also forthcoming in saying that, apart from two things, there were no other things that had been acted upon as a result of that report.
I put to those witnesses the very statement that their Minister had made concerning financial management, that is, that nothing had been done by the previous Government. Needless to say, Mr Berry intervened very quickly to prevent those officers from answering that question. That incident, Mr Speaker, is typical of the process that was endured by members of the Estimates Committee during that time - a process aptly described in the report as stonewalling.
I want very briefly, Mr Speaker, to go to another area - non-government education. I take very seriously indeed, perhaps more seriously than anything else appearing in this Estimates Committee report, the recommendation at paragraph 3.64 which urges the Government to speedily complete the review of recurrent funding and per capita grants to the non-government education sector and also to reinstate the funding for the three non-government schools pending appropriate consultation and negotiation on future support.
That recommendation was not made lightly by this committee. It was a matter of grave concern to all the members of the Estimates Committee and, Mr Speaker, it was one that was taken in contrast to our Government's original decision on non-government school funding in consultation with the non-government school community. That is the difference, Mr Speaker, between our approach and Labor's approach on that matter. The great consultative government did not actually get around to any consultation on this particular issue.
We were concerned enough to believe that because of the absence of that consultation there ought to be some reconsideration by this Government of their decision, at least while they are awaiting the result of the review that Mr Wood referred to in his evidence. It would seem to me imperative that there be some attempt to address those real concerns about funding, the appropriateness of funding categories, and so on, before a decision as drastic as this, affecting those non-government schools, is made and implemented.
They were, as we pointed out in the Estimates Committee, quite heavily affected by having a plan, a projected expenditure plan, for 1992 disrupted by the Government's own decision, which of course went against a promise they were relying upon, a promise by the Minister himself, with respect to continued funding at existing levels. I think, Mr Speaker, that the arguments there are quite compelling, and I sincerely hope that the Minister reconsiders his decision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .