Page 3509 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a suggestion by the Auditor-General. It is strange that the Labor Government has been waving this report around. Bear in mind, however, that this came down simultaneously with the budget. It is highly unlikely that this information was known at the time of the budget being put together. Nevertheless, it is being used by the Government as another argument. Are you therefore planning to get rid of advanced skills teachers, and as many as possible? I pose the question and I hope that I may get an answer at some stage.
Mr Wood: I will give you a lecture about this later on.
MR CORNWELL: We also have Mr Wood, who is interjecting, giving us a very clear indication that these 80 are not the end by any manner of means; that there will be further cuts in years to come.
Mr Wood: No; you have been listening to Mr Moore.
MR CORNWELL: No; I am listening to you, Minister. At page 196 of the Estimates Committee transcript I said:
So we can assume that there may be further cuts in future years.
Mr Wood said:
If you have read the documents that is the case.
That is unequivocal.
Mr Wood: Yes, 4-point-something million dollars for each of the next two financial years.
MR CORNWELL: Translated into teachers, I would suggest, Madam Speaker. We then turn to the rather extraordinary statement made by the Chief Minister at question time today that, of the $17m, some $9.3m had already been allocated either for 1992-93 for people who had accepted some sort of voluntary separation or for 1993-94 for those who had indicated that they were going to accept. That left only $8m. She also responded that the question Mr Kaine asked about whether more was needed was hypothetical. It seems to me that again this is an example of the total confusion of the Government. They have no idea how much money they may need, because they have not targeted their voluntary separation scheme.
I asked how many requests for information - for information only - regarding the voluntary separation scheme the Government had received. Ms Follett said that she did not know, but it was a substantial number - whatever "substantial" means. She went on to defend her inability to provide the information by saying that providing the information would be a possible contempt of court. I must admit that that is an improvement and a bit of a variation on the usual argument put forward by the Government: "The privacy law does not allow it. We cannot say that because we cannot give you the names of people". The Government constantly hide behind things like the Privacy Act, and in this case "possible contempt", so that they can avoid answering the questions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .