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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2229 ..

Mr Wood: But I will not fly with you.

MR HUMPHRIES: You will not fly with me. Mr Wood, I am sure that when the helicopter arrives and its maiden flight is about to occur there will be lots of interest in seats, so your place will be quickly snaffled up by somebody else.

Mr Wood made the small point that the concept, when originally announced by me when in government, did not include the New South Wales Government, and that is true. At that time it was the intention of the Government to establish a service on a different basis, a less elaborate basis, and to provide it with the use of volunteers and a helicopter donated at that point by Dick Smith, and with other facilities. It was to be on a very different basis from the one now being talked about. I make it clear that we would have to go back to that concept if the New South Wales Government did not come to the party on what is being proposed.

I maintain that the New South Wales option is the best one to pursue because it does result in a significant contribution by the New South Wales Government, which is only appropriate because their citizens get the bulk of the benefit of such a service, and a more professional service from the outset. It means full-time paid paramedics, full-time access to doctors, professional pilots - that is pilots who are paid to do that job rather than volunteering - and a properly maintained and serviced helicopter available to meet the needs of the people of this region. I am hanging out for that option because I think it is the best option. I acknowledge that if it is not the option we ultimately achieve we will have to go to something else. I hope members will share the view that it is better to go for that level of service at the outset, rather than something which might not meet our needs appropriately.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Part 17 - Department of Education and Training

Proposed expenditure - Government Schooling, $230,468,800 (comprising net cost of outputs, $230,092,800; and payments on behalf of Territory, $376,000)

MR MOORE (5.23): I wish to make a few comments. My concern is still the one that I raised early in the piece, and it has to do with the growing disparity between government schooling and non-government schooling. It is not to do so much with the actions taken by the Minister here or the Government in their budget but, rather, what I perceive as the actions that need to be taken. I have made it very clear that I consider any cuts to the education budget to be reprehensible; I made that very clear in my election platform. Reprehensible conduct means that I would no longer be able to support somebody in government.

There is an additional element that now applies to the education funding. The reason behind the approach I have taken is that I think it is critical that we do not see government education going backwards compared to non-government education. I believe it is critical because it is the single most significant factor in social justice, in terms of giving the young people an equal go in society and an equal chance to have the tools with which they can manage and advance within society. If the private school sector improves to

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