Page 3219 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When you go to this year's budget, what does it tell you? Their actual expenditure last year was $263m. How did we get from $238m to $263m? How come this big gap, this huge gap? It is not explained in your outcome statement for last year, Minister. Suddenly, from last year's figures to this, your achievement has gone up from $238m to $263m. If you spend more than you appropriated you get rewarded because that becomes your new budget base for this year. Not only does he ask for the $263m that he actually spent last year, which has never been explained to this Assembly; he asks for $268m. Where on earth is the reduction? They talk about a 2 per cent reduction. If you took a 2 per cent reduction and you revert to the originally appropriated amount last year of $232m, your budget this year ought to be $227m. But in fact it is $268m. So do not give me this nonsense about making budgetary cuts.
Let us move on to education. The same myth is perpetuated in education. The total amount appropriated for the education budget last year - four different programs - was $293m.
Mr Lamont: It is easy to see who should be the Leader of the Opposition.
MR KAINE: Mr Lamont might like to listen because he might learn something. They appropriated $293m and they actually spent $302m according to this year's budget. So they actually spent $9m more than they were appropriated. That is not what we were told at the end of the year either, when we got the end of the year accounting. They actually spent $302m, according to their own budget, and what are we appropriating this year? It is $329m. So we have gone from $293m to $329m. We know that $12m of that is a loan for the Hotel Kurrajong. Take that off. It is still $317m as opposed to $293m last year. Where is the cut? It is a massive increase. The only one who has been cut is good old John Turner with his urban services, and he has been chopped by nearly $50m. That is the only place where the cuts have taken place. So where is this myth? The teachers union need to have a look at these figures because they are being told, "We have to cut 80 teachers because we are making cuts in education". In fact there is a massive increase in expenditure in education.
Mr Wood: Will you tell them that? You tell them that.
MR KAINE: I will. But you had better explain it, Minister, because you are coming in here and telling us that you are making cuts. That is the second great myth associated with this budget. First of all, it was tough, and, secondly, we have cut expenditure in health and education. Neither of those statements is true. They are building this mythology, and nobody seems to be prepared to challenge them.
The third myth is that we are creating jobs. We have heard this creating jobs business ever since 1989. The Chief Minister said, in 1989, "By giving impetus to the private sector and especially small business we will broaden the range of employment". That was in 1989. She is still saying that. But where are the jobs, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this budget? There are nearly 1,000 fewer jobs in this budget. There are 500-odd coming out of the public sector and 400 at least disappearing because of a reduction in the capital works budget. They are the Government's own figures, not mine. That is nearly 1,000 fewer jobs. The Leader of the Opposition dealt with this earlier. Not a single job is created by this budget. There will be nearly 1,000 fewer jobs, and they talk about a budget creating jobs. That is the third great myth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .