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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 394 ..

MS CARNELL

very close to the national average. It implies that for the same student-staff ratio we have a higher cost structure. Why, Mr Speaker? It does come down to a large extent to work practices, to the way we operate.

The fact that we do have a large number of unfilled places in our school system is something that this Assembly has simply been unwilling to come to grips with. Just recently, Mr Speaker, you have heard Mr Berry asking the Minister questions about school closures, being very negative about any view that we should even be discussing such things. Where is the responsibility of this place? We are, I repeat, a minority government. Members in this Assembly have said time and time again, "Just remember, Government, you are in a minority. We want input into this budget process". Well, we are after input, Mr Speaker. We are keen to listen to input. But these are the realities. Our cost structures are too high. The answers are not simple.

Mr Speaker, the cost of vocational education and training in the ACT is 32 per cent higher than the national average. However, the employer satisfaction is below the national average. Do we believe that people coming out of vocational education and training in the ACT have better diplomas than people from other similar institutions around Australia? There is no indication of that at all, Mr Speaker. We have good institutions; but they are costing 32 per cent more. When Mr Stefaniak last year attempted - and, I have to say, did very well - to reduce some of those costs, what was the reaction from those opposite? I have to say, Mr Speaker, that it was very negative. There was no support whatsoever for addressing fundamental problems.

We live in a very special city. I, for one, am proud that we have the highest retention rates to Year 12 in the country; that we have a first-class teaching hospital; that we have an outstanding road system; and that we have the cleanest and greenest city in Australia. But, unless we find a way to pay for it, we are guaranteeing that the current level of services will have a limited life span. We do not want to end up with the "lowest common denominator" approach to service provision, and the only way we can safeguard the level of amenity in this city is to bring our budget into surplus. To continue to run up massive operating losses is to guarantee that ultimately we will face a financial crisis.

Mr Speaker, we need only look at what happened to other States that allowed this to happen to them, to look at the absolute trauma that it caused in Victoria when Labor governments allowed that State to end up with a massive debt that they could not pay off. We still see South Australia reeling from the same problem. Look at the Tasmanian economy, Mr Speaker. We are not in that position, but we do not want to get there. Unless this Assembly is willing to support the tough decisions, that is where we will end up. Mr Speaker, I am very happy to make those decisions. I am not in any way suggesting to anybody that I or this Government should abrogate our responsibility - quite the opposite. All we are suggesting is that, if this Assembly is serious about wanting input into government decisions, then it will support the tough decisions needed to be taken. If they do not like our tough decisions, Mr Speaker, they should put forward ones of their own.

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