Page 4194 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Cornwell himself referred to this in his remarks. The dictionary definition of a condition is "a limiting or modifying circumstance". That is, indeed, what Mr Cornwell's amendment effectively does. It includes in the Appropriation Bill a condition which says to the Government, "You can spend the amount of money you have allocated to the Department of Education and Training; you can spend the amount of money you have allocated to government schooling; but what you cannot do is reduce teacher numbers as a result of your budgetary reductions".
During this debate I feel that it is necessary for me to reiterate the commitment I have made to the current ACT Labor Government and to the Chief Minister, Ms Follett, "guaranteeing passage of the Supply and Appropriation Bills". This I will do. I also want to refer to a statement I made in this Assembly - I am sure that other members might want to remind me of it - on 25 November 1992 which concluded with these words:
... I will be fulfilling the third of my pledges to the people of Canberra, taken before the election, by supporting the Government's Appropriation Bill 1992-93 without amendment.
Some of you will say that I am now breaking the commitment I have given by supporting the amendment moved by Mr Cornwell. Others will say that I had no right to give such a commitment to pass the Government's Appropriation Bill without amendment in the first place. Still others will say that I am justifying by semantics my position in supporting Mr Cornwell's amendment. I am open to that criticism and have taken it into account in arriving at my decision in support of Mr Cornwell's amendment. I believe that the Liberal Opposition has found a way to impose in the Appropriation Bill a condition that enables me to justify my decision, a way that neither my colleague Mr Moore nor I had considered possible. I congratulate the Opposition for their efforts.
As I have stated earlier, what the amendment will do is prevent the Government from cutting teaching positions as part of its budget strategy. It will not do a number of things. It will not alter the bottom line of the budget. It will not change the numbers in the budget. It will not dictate to the Government how the Assembly wants it to find the additional funds for teacher positions. That is, and remains, the Government's decision. It is important to remember that we are talking about a sum of $1.5m in a budget of $1.35 billion - a tiny proportion of the Government's funds.
There is no doubt, Madam Speaker, that my colleague Mr Moore and I have been in a dilemma since the tabling of the Government's budget on 14 September. On the one hand we have had our commitment to the Government to consider, and on the other hand we have had our commitment to public education to consider. I have already talked about our commitment to the Government as I see it. It is now appropriate for me to talk about our commitment to public education, and I would like to quote to you some passages from our policy document in relation to education. The first one says:
Short term economic considerations should give way to long term planning of education and school facilities. This means increased, not decreased, funding to education.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .