Page 4182 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, Mr Cornwell, in introducing the amendment, offered no explanation whatsoever. I would like now to offer some interpretations that have been offered by qualified legal persons. The first thing, Madam Speaker, is that the amendment probably also applies to non-government schools. If members read it and read the Appropriation Bill they will know that the Appropriation Bill appropriates money for non-government schools, and non-government schools employ teachers. Of course, the Executive has no power whatsoever over how many of those teachers non-government schools employ; nevertheless, this motion has the clear intention of controlling those numbers as well. It is a nonsense.
A further meaning of it could be that the Government is not to make any adjustment in the teaching formula in the light of demographic change, and that is clearly a nonsense. It is well known that in most of our schools the enrolments are falling, and under the existing formula that also means that the number of teachers would be reduced. The number of teachers who are paid are paid under the appropriation which is contained within this Bill. Is it the intention of the Opposition that we ought to pay more teachers than the current teaching formula states?
Mrs Carnell: It does not say that.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, this is not my interpretation; it is the interpretation of legally qualified people. A further problem with it, Madam Speaker, is that it simply specifies no point in time. What teachers? When? Do I count them on the day they go on holidays?
Members interjected.
MADAM SPEAKER: You will have your opportunity to explain in a moment.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, does it mean full-time teachers or part-time teachers? Can we use any combination of those? Can we use expensive teachers, cheap teachers, beginning teachers? What do you mean?
Mr Wood: We can use quite a variety of teachers, Chief Minister; believe me.
MS FOLLETT: And I think we will be. What do you mean? Madam Speaker, the amendment is quite clearly a nonsense. It also mentions teaching hours. What does that mean? Does it mean contact hours? Does it mean that six children getting one hour's teaching is the same as 60 children getting 10 minutes' teaching? I do not know. Who can tell? Mr Kaine is having a sly little giggle to himself, and I have no surprise whatsoever at that.
Madam Speaker, the amendment is a nonsense. As I said, Madam Speaker, the lesson for the members opposite is: Do not do your own drafting. Get the parliamentary draftspeople to do it. They would have done it for you, no problems, and you might have ended up with something that could be interpreted as having some meaning. Unfortunately, the amendment that is before us has so many possible meanings that it is incapable of rational interpretation. Whilst I understand that members' hearts may be in the right places, unfortunately their work here has not, in my view, interpreted that intention in any sort of a legislative sense that is capable of being implemented. Madam Speaker, we will be opposing the motion, and I would urge other members to oppose it too. I think you risk looking absolute dills if you support something that clearly is meaningless.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .