Page 2939 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not really think that another $100,000 puts it within the order of a half a million dollars, as I said - nevertheless, we will accept it - because it comes to $600,000. It was only later, when Mrs Nolan had to ask a supplementary question, when she asked about the third part of the question relating to Treasury, that Ms Follett responded to that point. It was much more, Ms Follett, than just getting your views as to whether you had consulted Treasury. This, I believe, is relevant, Madam Speaker, because it does show the situation we are in - the ducking and weaving that is going on in this Government on this whole question. I have to say that it really does not come as a surprise.
If we look at the correspondence that Mr Kaine has already referred to, dated 15 June, it talks about a figure of $890,000, whereas the question on 21 June refers to a figure of $600,000. What happened between the 15th and the 21st, a matter of six days? Maybe the correspondence did not get there, but I find that rather difficult to imagine because it only has to move across several offices.
The real issue of this, Madam Speaker, was that the full cost, the $890,000, needed to be covered up. The reason it needed to be covered up was that the flak was already flying on the cost of reopening, particularly on the per pupil basis. We can see that there were costs, and there were complaints made in the media, of $4,800 per student, when the average for 1990-91 was, in fact, $4,380 per student in any other primary school in the ACT. At Lyons and Cook it was $4,800, and that was because there were only 125 students registered at that point. That was on the opening of those schools. We know now that the figures have risen; but it was significant at the time that it was $4,800, or $500 more than in any other school on a per student basis. It was a bit too sensitive for the Government, and we can understand it. At $890,000, Madam Speaker, the cost per pupil on 125 pupils would have gone over $7,000, and that had to be held up; it had to be hidden. It was far too significant a figure to be ignored. (Extension of time granted)
Madam Speaker, the fact is that we are addressing this as a question of the integrity of Ministers and of governments. We are all aware that the problems of governments and their attempts to hide things are becoming a little too common in the country at the moment. We had a situation in Western Australia just reported on. No, do not shrug your shoulders; we know that it is a Labor Government that is involved. The fact of the matter is that these things are happening far too frequently. It is therefore important that we get to the bottom of these things. Short of leaks occurring, Mr Connolly, there is no way that any opposition can find out just what is happening, unless we can be assured that we are dealing with a government of integrity. I am certainly not convinced, Madam Speaker, that that is the case at the moment in the ACT. Hence I support the censure against the Chief Minister and the Minister for Education because it is important that any opposition seek to keep governments on their toes and keep governments honest, not only to this parliament but also to the community that we all represent.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.43): Madam Speaker, we have really been wasting our time this afternoon on this censure motion because Mr Wood, in his statement after question time, made the facts abundantly clear. Those facts need to be quickly reiterated. There was a preliminary estimate of the cost of the schools, that $800,000-odd figure.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .