Page 4153 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore's assault - and I presume Ms Szuty's when she speaks - is obviously of more concern to the Government. Mr Moore says that a Labor government should have a basic commitment to public education. We endorse that. Mr Moore says that he acknowledges that there are financial difficulties in the ACT. He even acknowledged, I heard in his remarks this afternoon, that there is scope for efficiencies within the public education system. He said that he acknowledges that the Auditor-General has indicated that there are major problems and that they can be addressed, he said, by efficiencies. Mr Moore attacks the strategy of the Labor Government, which he says is to continue to cut education. I think I heard the phrase "slash and burn" used - or it may have been used by a Liberal, but Mr Moore seemed to nod enthusiastically at that.
Mr Moore criticises slicing fritz, continuing to spend less money every year. He said that the Labor Government should not slavishly follow the advice of bean counters; they should prioritise and they should treat education as they treat some other areas and have some marginal increases in expenditure. Madam Speaker, it is a pity that before Mr Moore wrote that speech he did not actually do a little bit of homework. When you look at what we are debating, which is the budget, and when you look at what the budget shows for expenditure, you find that the Government has done exactly what Mr Moore urged it to do. We have not sliced the piece of fritz on the education budget, Mr Moore. We have in fact shoved a bit of fritz on. The recurrent expenditure for government schooling last year was some $195,072,000. This year, in Mr Wood's so-called slash and burn budget that is slavishly following bean counting advice to reduce expenditure, it is $203,569,000. Madam Speaker, the rhetoric from Mr Moore displays a fundamental lack of basic research.
While across the board we have sought to reduce expenditure by about 2 per cent, there have been some programs that have taken some dramatic cuts. I point to my programs of city services, where we have been constantly striving for reform and I think have hit the jackpot with a 19 per cent saving; public transport, with a 4 per cent saving; and corporate development for DUS, with a 10 per cent saving. We have increased expenditure in other areas. We have increased expenditure on community services by some 10 per cent. I am sure that Mr Moore and Ms Szuty would say that that is a sensible thing to do in difficult economic times. Recurrent expenditure on health has increased by 2 per cent.
Mr Moore said, "You, Labor Government, should show your commitment to your priorities, and you should deal with education as you have dealt with health. You should perhaps find a little bit more". Mr Moore did not read his budget papers, because what we have done is in fact to increase recurrent expenditure on public education by 4 per cent and on non-government schooling by some $3m, or almost 5 per cent.
Madam Speaker, this talk of cutting and slashing and reducing expenditure in education is ill researched, ill considered nonsense. Mr Moore did not actually look to see how this year's expenditure compared to last year's expenditure. That is not to say that the Government is not committed to a program of creating greater efficiency. The education budget, like any other budget, cannot just grow like Topsy. Every dollar has to be carefully targeted. We have to look for what Mr Moore said we should look for, which is efficiencies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .