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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 1391 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Initially the institute was attempting to tell us, as Mr Stefaniak would know, that the program at Ainslie and Campbell was worth $400,000. If that were the case, I would have to say, from an equity perspective in this place, that if we were spending $400,000 of taxpayers' money on a few kids at one of the big schools, almost all at Ainslie, we would have to think again. We would. We could not spend that amount of money on a small number of children whose parents either happen to be living in the Ainslie area or are in a position to get their children to Ainslie every morning. That rules out a large number of other children in Canberra.

We are, at the moment, negotiating a more reasonable outcome for the Ainslie and Campbell programs, and the college programs also. We are committed to continuing those programs, but at a level of funding that provides appropriate equity with the rest of our public education system. I am surprised that Mr Wood would think it was all right to have a system whereby some people in our public education system were treated not just a little bit differently but absolutely fundamentally differently from other children in our system. I do not think that is all right, and certainly this side of the house does not, although we believe that giving children an opportunity to study music in a program such as the Ainslie program, or the Campbell program, or introductory jazz or the college program, is something that we should continue; and we will, but not at a level which would create inequity in our system.

We are saying to children with disabilities that we have not got the dollars in our system to give them one-to-one teaching. How could we turn around then and say that others in our system can have that level of funding? I do not think that is appropriate.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we wrote to the institute the day before the budget. Those opposite say we should have consulted. I have to say that you do not consult beforehand on what is in the budget. You talk to people about what they might like in the budget. (Extension of time granted) You do not say to people, "This is what we are planning to put in the budget. Now we will have a little consultation period and then we will put it in". That is not the way budgets work, and those opposite know that very well.

Since the budget came down we have been spending a large amount of time with the institute, attempting to come up with a package of services that they provide to the ACT community at a price that is competitive with other suppliers, and consists of services that the people of Canberra want. We have committed to continuing the Ainslie and Campbell programs, and also the college programs.

We are also interested in ensuring that other services that the institute provides to the people of Canberra are continued to be provided at a reasonable price. I think the important thing here, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, is the accountability issue. Those opposite, Mr Wood particularly, seem to be quite happy to say, "Here is the money. We do not care what you spend it on and we really do not care what we get for it. We just love you. We just love you, institute. We do not want to know". That is not a sensible way to go, and from a member who did nothing as the Minister for the Arts it is a tiny bit rich. As I said, we have spent many hours with the institute since. Negotiations are progressing, as I understand it, very well, particularly with regard to the most important programs that exist.

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