Page 2870 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with complete fallacies in relation to our numbers and our costings. Treasury confirmed that we have given a year-by-year account of what each element of this policy will cost. Treasury confirmed that the cost of an additional 150 teachers in primary schools is $13 million per annum when the policy is fully implemented, and this is confirmed by the Liberal costings. Treasury wrongly assumed an immediate implementation of the policy to reach a four-year total of $40 million. No doubt, incorrect assumptions were given to them by the Treasurer’s office or others in order to cause mischief.
Treasury says that the cost of 35 high school teachers will be $3 million when fully implemented. The Liberal costing shows a cost of $3.3 million when fully implemented. Treasury assumes, once again incorrectly, as nothing in our documents said this, an almost immediate rollout in the second year in reaching their estimate of $10 million. Instead, the Liberal total of $7.5 million is based on 10 positions in 2009, 10 in 2010 and 15 in 2011. The same goes for teacher assistants.
With respect to the most embarrassing part of what the Chief Minister and Treasurer put forward, there were two elements which were totally and demonstrably wrong—wrong on any score. I challenge the minister, in his 10-minute contribution, to show us where we are wrong or to back what his Treasurer has said, and get it on the record that these figures are actually right.
The Treasurer, in his ill-fated press release, claimed, with respect to demountables, that it would take $30 million in capital to deliver this promise. Of course, there are a number of fundamental misconceptions in relation to what he said. The government actually told us how much it cost them to implement the capital side of lowering class sizes, because when they did it for one year it cost $1 million, but apparently, when we do it for three years, it is going to cost $30 million. So it costs $30 million when the Liberals do it but $1 million when the government do it. That does not add up at all. In fact, that part of it is totally wrong.
They also claimed in their analysis that 150 additional teachers would require 150 additional classrooms. What have we been hearing from this government for the past few years in relation to empty desks? Apparently, there is not one spare classroom, and we will need, according to the government, $30 million in capital to deliver, for three school years, for three age groups, what it cost the government $1 million to deliver for one year. That is wrong, and the minister should say so. He should distance himself from the erroneous assumptions there.
Of course, they are totally wrong on the cost of the HECS promise. They applied it to 150 teachers and we apply it to 20 positions. That was clear in our policy announcement. Once again, it was deliberately misconstrued by this government. Fundamentally, they have misconstrued this. The reason the minister was embarrassed to get up and did not want to go next was because he did not want to stand there and repeat these incorrect statements put out by his Treasurer. Fundamentally, he is embarrassed because what we have is a sound policy; it is what used to be a bipartisan policy. This minister, through a lack of ideas, has thrown out that bipartisan consensus and rejects the idea of smaller class sizes in our public schools. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .