Page 3408 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: When did we say that we would oppose the motion?
MR MOORE: Mrs Carnell interjects, "When did we say that we would not support this motion?". I suggest that she refer back to Mr Cornwell, who no doubt remembers saying words to the effect of "because it is wimping out". We are delighted that they have changed their minds. When it comes to the amendment to the Appropriation Bill, I believe that there will be no point in our supporting anything the Liberals raise, because there is simply no way that they have the power to effectively amend the Appropriation Bill. If their amendment is to the effect that there cannot be a decrease in teacher numbers, then it will be in contravention of section 65 of the self-government Act, unless a change to that Act goes through. If the amendment proposes something along the lines of taking $3m from the Treasurer's Advance and adding it to the government schooling division, division 230, the Minister need not spend it or, under the Audit Act, the Chief Minister can move it back again. I will be very interested to see whether the Liberals can legally amend the Bill.
I think that the Liberal doublespeak is quite clear, but I am much more interested in dealing with Labor than in dealing with Liberal opportunism. This motion deals with not only 80 teacher positions but also 120 more teacher positions that have effectively been identified for the next couple of years. Mr Cornwell appropriately drew attention to the words of the Minister for Education on this matter. The forward projections indicate clearly major cuts to education next year and the year after that can easily be translated into 120 teacher positions on top of the 80 teacher positions.
Madam Speaker, you, Mr Wood and I know how difficult it is for teachers to make a decision to go out on strike. They are always incredibly reluctant to do so and do so only when they think there is going to be a major impact on their students. Their recent decision to go out on strike is not based on their own welfare or what would be of benefit to them. Unlike the Transport Workers Union or the firemen's union, which on occasions during the last couple of decades have gone out on strike over their own conditions, teachers are prepared to go out on strike because they recognise the impact that this cut to teacher numbers is going to have on the students. It does not affect them individually and does not affect their conditions.
Madam Speaker, it is important, from Ms Szuty's perspective as well as mine, for members to recognise that we have made a commitment about the Appropriation Bill. We will not move from that commitment, but we will do whatever we can to put pressure on the Government to realise what a ridiculous decision this is and to change their minds. There have been suggestions by the Minister that cutting positions will not damage education. First of all, that is nonsense. Secondly, if we can get efficiencies in education, we can improve educational outcomes for our children. After all, that is what the Labor Party attempted to present to the people in their platform - that they were looking for the highest possible outcomes in terms of education for their children and that was what they were going to deliver, because supposedly education was Labor's highest priority. But that has not been delivered in this budget.
The Labor Government and the Chief Minister continue to use the Grants Commission as an excuse. They are allowing the Grants Commission to set the priorities for this Government, and this Minister does not even recognise it. Even if you accept the Grants Commission's suggestions that we are significantly overfunded, 65 per cent of that can be accounted for in retention rates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .