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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1669 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

There are a few other factors which Mr Berry neglected to take into consideration in his question. CIT is now in the third year of rearrangements that have been put in place to make it more efficient. And, Mr Berry, yes there are cuts and there have been cuts, and this is the third year of them. Might I say that in the last financial year the CIT had some 3,500,000 contact hours. This year, in this particular budget, the aim is to have an additional 100,000 contact hours, and that actually takes it up to 3.6 million.

The CIT is managing very well within the regime of greater efficiency. Yes, Mr Berry, as I have said at estimates committees in the past, that does mean there are cuts, and the CIT is managing those cuts very well. The main point here, Mr Berry, is accountability to the community. There is no point in government spending more money than it needs to. If we did that, we would be back with the $344 million deficit this government inherited.

I also told you, Mr Berry, that I, as minister, and the government are monitoring very closely how the CIT performs under this new regime. It is for that reason, Mr Berry, that the government put in an extra $600,000 for the enterprise bargaining agreement of CIT teachers-something, Mr Berry, that went down very well. Quite clearly it would be irresponsible, with the regime we have put in place for CIT, for this government not to bolster it to that extent. In fact, if you take that into account, the cut is less than $3.1 million.

Mr Berry: This is ridiculous. How do you reconcile these figures? That is what the question was. What bizarre formula-

MR SPEAKER: Sit down, you have no right to stand up.

MR STEFANIAK: Well, Mr Berry, short of giving you a detailed lecture in accrual accounting, I just hark back to the one you have already had. It was a waste of time. I thought you might have understood it after the last estimates committee meeting. Quite clearly, in simple language, Mr Berry, the further efficiencies at CIT relate to the third year. There is no rocket science in this. The actual difference is, in fact, an additional $600,000 put in for the CIT teachers' EBA. That is the only difference to what, in fact, was in the draft budget and indeed in forward estimates of years gone by. I repeat: this is the third year of the regime the government has put in place for CIT-a regime, I might say, CIT is handling very well and I commend the director and the staff of the CIT for the effort they are making.

MR BERRY: No thanks for the non-answer. Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, do you stand by the threat on page 246 of Budget Paper No 4 that there will be no injections this year, bearing in mind that there were $5.4 million worth of extra injections last year, and will you guarantee that the budget cut to the CIT, as a result, will not exceed $3.1 million? Again, I ask you: how does this fit into this bizarre formula for building social capital?

MR STEFANIAK: Perhaps I will read out to you page 246 because-

Mr Berry: Not the whole page.

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