Page 4181 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are areas in education itself: The unknown amount owed by the Commonwealth for the children of diplomats; the amount of money that clearly has been set aside in the budget for the voluntary separation or redundancy packages of teachers. There must have been some money set aside. Then there is the Treasurer's Advance - that pot of some $12m for contingencies; or the Government might like to reconstruct their education budget taking into account the $2.9m raised in voluntary contributions in 1992-93, which represents 1.47 per cent of that year's education budget. This 1.47 per cent of the education budget in voluntary contributions has been steady for two consecutive years, so it is reasonable to assume that it is about the average annual takings. It could be argued that, as a 2 per cent education budget cut has been sought and parents are paying 1.47 per cent in voluntary contributions, the education budget is either bearing a disproportionate share of costs and cuts, totalling 3.47 per cent, or, thanks to the generosity of some but not all school families, a voluntary contribution of 1.47 per cent of the 2 per cent of cuts sought has been achieved already. I put those examples forward not in any sense that the Government should adopt them; they are simply suggestions that I put forward. They are certainly not directions; they are ideas that the Government might pursue. How you compensate for these teacher cuts is your choice.
I wish to conclude, Madam Speaker, by explaining why this amendment is being moved. The Liberal Party is committed to the highest quality education and to freedom of choice in education. Neither of these policies can be achieved by cutting 80 teachers from a system. For a Labor Government which parrots social justice platitudes at every opportunity, I find their action incomprehensible. It indicates a government either out of control of its financial situation or out of touch with its societal responsibilities. Either way, the Liberal Party does not support this minority Government's budget intentions in respect of these 80 teachers. I commend the amendment to the house so that, hopefully, the will of a majority of the Assembly can prevail against the proposal to reduce these 80 school based positions.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.12): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing this amendment and I want to say a number of things about it. The first thing is that I absolutely deplore the arrogance displayed by the Liberal Party in moving this amendment on the floor of the house. Madam Speaker, an amendment of this order surely should have been canvassed in some way with people who are expected to vote upon it; but, no, it is simply sprung upon the Government. No doubt the deal has been done with the Independents. I would like to know what that deal is. For our part, Madam Speaker, we had not seen this amendment until the moment that it was tabled in the Assembly, and I call that extraordinarily arrogant.
The second thing I want to say is a very serious point indeed, and I say it through you, Madam Speaker, to the Liberal Party. Do not ever do your own drafting. This amendment is an utter nonsense. Any way you look at it, Madam Speaker, it is simply not drafted in a way that lends itself to rational interpretation. I have been upstairs in a meeting with the Attorney-General and with all of our legal advisers, qualified legal advisers, including the Parliamentary Draftsman. Madam Speaker, we could not come to any agreement on what this amendment might mean.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .