Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2965 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

That is a considerable loss, and we need to look at better ways of doing things. When one looks at the total for Sport, Recreation and Racing, their component of net loss, I am advised, is in the vicinity of $115,000. So it costs us about $600,000 to run Birrigai.

The education programs are great, and we intend to keep them. Obviously, the teachers' salaries are going to be a significant cost, but that is fine. We need to look at how the administration of the centre is operating and how it can be done better. That has some impact on several of the current positions, including the cooks, and also the schools assistant and the bursar. Because they are administrative positions, they can be done by somebody else, and done better and at less cost to Education and to the system generally. That is an essential component of efficiencies at Birrigai.

Already people have indicated some problems in relation to the cost. Quite clearly, the cost is most reasonable, and I indicated that yesterday. As over 4,600 children have already enrolled for next year, that is obviously a consideration; but, with the efficiencies that have been made and the slight increases in costs, we will make some additional savings. So that is a good start and an important one. However, the benefits gained will be negated to a large degree, I fear, if Ms Tucker's motion is successful. It does interfere with the Government's budget. The Government has brought down a budget covering all areas. We all know that difficult times are facing the Territory. This Government was faced with a very big blow-out in borrowings. The Chief Minister has stated on a number of occasions the difficulties we face. As one commentator pointed out, the ACT had not reached the precipice but was starting to walk towards it, and this budget turned us around and started us walking back on the right track.

In every unit of the budget - and Education was a significant component of the budget - any motion such as this, with wording such as this, effectively tells the Government, "No, you cannot touch this within your program. You have to spend money within your program, but we do not want you to do X, Y and Z". As Mr Moore quite clearly stated, that affects the Government's way of running its budget. If this motion got up, the money we would have to spend, which we had hoped to save, would have to be found from somewhere else in the education budget. With education, like any other sector of government, that would mean that something else would have to bear the brunt of it. Savings would have to be made somewhere else; something else would have to be cut. There would have to be a trade-off in some other program. Some other useful activity that Education engages in would have to cease because of this motion. That is the effect of it. Mr Moore was quite right.

As I have indicated to Ms Tucker on many occasions, and as the Government has indicated generally in relation to Birrigai, the programs are going to continue; but, please, let the Education Department run them. Let it get on with the job, and do not put obstacles in its way that will effectively cost more money, which will have to be made up from somewhere else in the education budget. Indeed, I would say that in relation to any of the motions before the Assembly that call on the Government to ensure that certain things are not reduced or cut or whatever. It has the effect of ensuring that the Government is going to have to find those savings elsewhere within those programs.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .