Page 3630 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, Ms Szuty is right when she says that the Grants Commission does not determine the ACT Government's priorities. Of course it does not. But what it does do is strongly influence them; and it does point out why and in what areas we are spending more money on particular services or, in some cases, less money on particular services than are other States. The Grants Commission, in this respect, is extremely clear. In the most recent edition of the Trends magazine one can see on page 10 a table which sets out the extent of expenditure variation from the national norm in each of the areas of ACT budget outlay. At the top of that list - for obvious reasons, because of what appears in the second column - is education. As at the day of publication of this document, education is $29.9m overspent by State standards. That is 13.5 per cent above the State expenditure. Health is $9.6m or 4.9 per cent overspent.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, education is an area where we need to be focusing very heavily. Education is more seriously overspent in dollar terms than any other part of the ACT budget. Thirty million dollars cannot be ignored. We cannot argue that this should somehow be put to one side, because the corollary of doing so is that we say that we therefore have to put the onus of cuts on health, public safety, services to welfare recipients, public transport or some other important area of the administration, and of course we cannot do that. Alternatively, it means that we must raise substantially more revenue than we are doing at the present time. The ACT, as this report indicates clearly, is already, by the State norm, about to raise more money than previously was the case. We are certainly going to overachieve in the area of expenditure as a result of this budget. Madam Speaker, the question becomes: What do we prioritise and what do we look at to make those sorts of rationalisations? The Independents' position, I would respectfully suggest, is not tenable. We cannot ignore the excesses in outlays by State standards. Even if we decide to adopt different priorities, if we decide to put more in certain areas, we cannot ignore the messages that are contained in the Grants Commission report.
The Labor Party's position at least acknowledges the reality of that fact, to some extent, although I might observe that the $3m or so cut which has been effected in this budget deals with only about 10 per cent of the Grants Commission's identified overexpenditure. But at least the ALP position acknowledges that there is a need to consider the question of how to rein in education spending. (Extension of time granted) The ALP rode into office on the back of the public school lobby. It promised, "We will save public education". The school community, with respect, was duped when it received that promise. It thought it was getting a champion of public education. Instead, it got a government which simply was prepared to cut in a different way to the previous Government. That is the essential difference - not that there was any greater commitment to public education, but that they were going to make cuts in a different way and, I would suggest, a much worse way.
The question that this debate gives rise to, the question which nobody has yet actually acknowledged, is a simple question: If you are going to make cuts to public education, what is the better way to achieve those cuts? Which is more important - school buildings or classroom teaching? My party is clear in that respect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .