Page 3403 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In seeking to make the necessary adjustment, the Government has looked very long and hard at reducing the costs of all programs, whilst protecting the services to the community. All but one or two programs have been required to make reductions in their costs year by year and again this year. The Government's decision this year to look at where the savings could be made in education - and in health, incidentally - recognises the gravity of our funding situation. It is all very well for Ms Szuty to make light of that matter. She is not in government. The Government has to take it seriously.
Our decision also recognises that we have previously required, and we still require, substantial savings to be made in other areas which could also be regarded as vital to the community - for example, policing, emergency services, public transport and so on. The education budget, which constitutes about a fifth of the budget, simply cannot be quarantined in today's circumstances. In looking at the possibilities for making savings in education, the Government has choices to make. But I say again that I believe that we cannot ignore the need to make those savings.
In recent years the Grants Commission's report has highlighted the substantial differences between the Territory's education costs and those of the States. We must live with the fact that budgetary adjustments have to be made to cater for the Commonwealth's $25m transitional funding for education, which will be phased out over the next four years. We cannot ignore that. It is a fact. As I say, we had choices to make.
The Liberals' choice in previous years was abundantly clear. It was to close schools, and they set out with a target of 25 schools. This would undoubtedly have massively reduced services to the community. There is no way that anyone could sustain a pretence that closing all of those schools could retain the same standard of service to our community. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, you have only to recall the outcry from the community, who understood that issue all too well, to recognise the truth of what I say. There is also the option of reducing the costs of overheads and the costs of administration. This has been done. It has been done year by year, and it is being done again this year. In fact, in this year's budget, less than half of the savings required of the education program could be said to be school based. The figure is around $1.5m, less than half. In other words, the Government has kept to a minimum the savings required through schools, and it is a minimum that after very close and careful consideration we believe the schools can afford. We have been very careful, for instance, to differentiate between the different school sectors. We have done that to ensure that the savings are sustainable and are equitable.
As announced in the budget, a longer-term education plan is to be developed during the year and this will provide a planning base for the period 1994 to 1998. This plan is aimed at providing ongoing efficiencies within the program while still maintaining the quality teaching services. It will also provide the budgetary framework for the department over the forward years. The development of this strategy will, as Ms Szuty suggests correctly, be undertaken in wide consultation with school communities, with unions and with other major interest groups. It will also take account of the findings of the Auditor-General's performance audit of the government schooling program. I again draw that auditor's report to the attention of members. It is not something that can be overlooked.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .