Page 3212 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: Did you ask them also what were their smallest classes? Would you answer that?
MR MOORE: We also had the situation - - -
Mr Wood: No, you will not answer that.
MR MOORE: One of the schools had a class of 36 and one of the schools had a class of 35. The Minister for Education ought to be ruffled, and the reason he ought to be ruffled is that he has enough qualifications to know the significance of the class size compared with educational outcomes. He knows that; he knows that that is the single most important factor in education. He knows that it is, and that single most important function in education is quite clearly going to be affected by these budget cuts. These budget cuts are going to increase our class sizes. They are going to ensure that educational outcomes go downhill. They are going to ensure that our children are in a worse position for the future. Protecting Canberra's future? Huh!
On the other side, because I like to look at both sides, I see a very positive move by the Minister for Education in the way he has handled the $12m for the Kurrajong Hotel. The money is done on a loan-style basis - I think that is a fair description. By doing that, we can expect a significant improvement in education of older students into the hospitality industry, which I expect will continue to flourish in the ACT.
It is very interesting that the Liberal Opposition has decided that it is going to oppose this budget. There was an interjection earlier - - -
Mr Humphries: No, an element of the budget.
MR MOORE: Parts of the budget. It is very interesting because earlier there were some interjections that Mr Kaine would not have done that if he had been leading this team. I would suggest that the reason is this - - -
Mr Kaine: I did not say that. When did I say that?
MR MOORE: No; the interjection that you would not have done it came from somebody else, not from you. It may have been just cross-chamber chatter. This budget is not so different from every other budget we have had since the beginning of self-government. The reality is that budgets in the ACT were set originally by some Federal public servants. All that has happened with successive governments is that they have fiddled around the edges. There has been no attempt whatsoever to set priorities and to readjust these funds accordingly. We do not see major changes or any major shifts in priorities; it is simply a matter of "Keep the rudder as it is; let the ship sail on the way it is; let us have as little change as possible".
One would wonder whether, as Ms Szuty put it, it is just a question of the Grants Commission directing how our budget should go and a response from this Government. That often seems to be the way priorities are set - just a little more of the same, instead of rearranging it. A good example, Madam Speaker, is your own budget, the Legislative Assembly budget, which was given to us in 1989 by a set of bureaucrats. That budget was put together by a set of Federal bureaucrats and then handed over to us. What changes have we seen to that budget?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .