Page 2944 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
schools came back on line. It remained at whatever was there initially. That budget had never been altered, up or down, at any time through the school closure period. I was told that it was maintained. We realise that some of the money that would have gone to other schools did go to Cook and Lyons primary schools - some $35,000 out of the maintenance budget.
Mr Wood: After they reopened.
MR STEVENSON: Yes, after they were reopened.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.59), in reply: Madam Speaker, the debate has gone on for a couple of hours. I put the proposition that the two Ministers were culpable on, essentially, two grounds. Firstly, they understated the cost of reopening the schools. Secondly, they did not honour a commitment that the other schools would not carry some of the burden of opening these two. I have heard nothing that changes my view. It is all very well for the Ministers to say, "Well, two years down the stream, looking back over our shoulders, this happened and that happened, and something else happened". I do not believe that it changes one iota the basic premise that I put forward.
I think that neither of the Ministers has answered, for example, why they thought it necessary, if the figures were above board and accurate, to obscure $200,000 in their budget and transfer it to - to use the Minister's words at the time - "the general program". Since he was talking about the education program, we can assume, I think, that he was talking about the general education program, and $200,000 was siphoned off and obscured within the general program. Why did he do that? Why did the Chief Minister concur in that? Because they did not want the total figure to be known; that is why. In explaining it today, Mr Wood said, "That is probably hidden in the general maintenance vote somewhere and it has not been spent because we have not replaced the boiler, we have not replaced the carpet and we have not done this". The presumption is that it is still there - - -
Mr Lamont: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the Minister for Education said that it was "hidden" somewhere in the expenditure budget.
MR KAINE: That is what he said.
Mr Lamont: That is not what he said and I ask you to withdraw that.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, it is what he said, but, if Mr Lamont sees some accusation in it, I withdraw the word "hidden". "Obscured" is a better word. That is what the Minister said, not what I said. He said that it is probably there somewhere. Well, if it is there, it is not obvious; it is obscured; it is hidden. In the Minister's own words, it has not yet been spent. When we eventually fix the boiler and replace the carpet it will be spent, so you must add that to the $670,000, approximately, that has been spent already. What do you get? You come back very close to the original $890,000 that was quoted. Despite what the Minister has said and what the Chief Minister has said, neither of them has proved that the original figure of something of the order of $890,000 is not absolutely correct, yet never before has that figure been mentioned. They have always talked about - - -
Mr De Domenico: It was mentioned in Mr Wood's letter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .