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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 873 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I also draw attention to some issues that Mr Stefaniak mentioned. He kept referring to a capacity of 7,000, and the enrolments being much lower than that. Therefore, we still go back to this utilisation argument, which brings me to a point that I raised earlier in the debate; that this is deja vu. Exactly the same logic drives this Government as drove it in 1990-91 when it moved to close 25 schools. That was the plan in the first place. I think it shrank to six or seven. One was reopened by Labor later on. The same rationale driving it now drove it then. That is very clear from the approach that the Minister has taken in public forums, and, indeed, in his utterances here today.

Mr Osborne seemed to agree with my motion, but did not like me very much.

Mr Osborne: I never like you very much.

MR BERRY: I did not come here to be loved. I came here to look after community infrastructure, and I am committed to that cause. I am pleased that he is going to support the motion, but I think it was disingenuous of him to say that he was not offered this motion. This motion was offered to Mr Osborne in the corridor on the first floor and he did not even want to look at it. I heard Mr Rugendyke say that we have to consult with him at the earliest moment. Well, if Mr Rugendyke wants to play by the same rules, we might consider it. If he had consulted us about the circus issue, I would have said to him, "Dave, do not do this; you will get burnt". Then he may not have done it. In any event, we make our own decisions about how we deal with these issues.

I think somebody mentioned that we gave the motion to Ms Tucker at a different time from that at which we gave it to the Independent members. Well, I do not think that is quite true. Ms Tucker was advised of what we were doing, but the motion was not printed until the day it was given to all of you at about the same time and on the same trip, so do not let us get carried away with distortions of history.

Mr Osborne, we probably will not agree on very many things, and we certainly will not be asking you whether we can do things or not. Perhaps that is an arrangement you have with the Chief Minister; but it is not something that will occur with Labor, because we disagree on so many things. We will decide when we will announce our own particular policies in respect of a whole range of matters. Sometimes you will disagree with us. It would have been refreshing if, in this debate, you had stuck with issues of principle rather than personal likes and dislikes of personalities around the place; but that is life.

Mr Speaker, I heard Mr Humphries raising some historic events, going back to 1989. They were not of much interest in the context of this debate. The motion is quite clear. The issues that he raised pale into insignificance when compared with his own performance in relation to education. It was appalling, and it is no less the case currently. The contemporary performance of the Government is not much different from what it has always been in relation to these matters. It is a very dry, conservative and economic rationalist government which is using the same old formulas that it has used in the past.

I heard Mr Moore say in relation to the budget that there had been no cuts to the preschool budget. Well, it is reported today that there has been a cut from $11.57m to $10.93m this year. Somebody over there made the point that enrolments would fall, but the fact of the matter is that there has been a cut in the preschool budget.

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