Page 3411 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: It was Matthew who suggested it, was it not, if I remember correctly?
MR WOOD: Was that it? The Independents have taken a deliberately belated interest in education spending. I will give Ms Szuty credit. She has shown a continuing interest in high school development. I keep sending documents and papers to her, so she is well informed on that; but there has been a belated interest in the budget.
I spelt out the budget six months before the budget was presented. I was constantly harangued by the media about what was going to happen in the budget. As reported in the Canberra Times, on a couple of issues in particular, and on the television, I was fairly open about it. I made it quite clear that there were going to be significant reductions. The Canberra Times spelt out broadly how those reductions would be made. I was trying to encourage a debate. I wanted a debate, but I got no interest from members opposite. I think Mr Cornwell might have asked me a question. There was no interest in the budget.
Ms Szuty said, "The debate should take place at this time". You have seen the spectacle - I do not think it happens any more because they have woken up - of pensioners on the steps of Parliament House on budget day. You know the system. You know that the time to have debate on the budget - and Mr Moore was hinting at this today - is well ahead of the budget. If you want to influence it, that is the time to do so. I was running that debate and there was no interest from the Independents. Interest is being shown now only because someone got into a hole. Even in the week of the budget we had a day without an MPI. I did not get a question. There was a strange question from Mr Moore to Mr Connolly, but nothing on education. This motion is belated, and there is no question about that.
You should take a responsible approach to the budget and to education spending. By means of the ABC the other day I got a patronising lecture from Ms Szuty, who said that the Government had acted responsibly in its approach to the Estimates Committee. Thank you very much. I thought it was patronising - indeed, pompous. But I restrained myself from ringing up and putting in another statement. I will forget for the moment the question of responsibility and whether it is responsible to promote the idea that jewellery is part of the burden that taxpayers should carry for members of parliament. I will put that aside. Let me give Ms Szuty credit. I can criticise Ms Szuty, but I can also give her credit because I think in general she and Mr Moore take a responsible approach to wide issues in the ACT. They generally take a responsible approach, but they have not on this occasion. This is simply an issue we have to face. The Chief Minister has pointed that out. We cannot avoid it.
Both Independent speakers have said that we are running to the tune of the Grants Commission. I can tell you that I take no notice of the Grants Commission. But I have a problem. Paul Keating and John Dawkins did. I can ignore the Grants Commission, but I cannot ignore the fact that the Federal Government made available $78m less for the ACT and, in doing so, pointed out that a very significant component was education. So do not lecture me about taking any notice of the Grants Commission. I can happily put the commission aside, but we have to face up to the budget realities. I think members opposite understand. Perhaps they know better than I do that the Federal Labor Government takes a very harsh approach to the ACT as they bring us back
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .