❓ Mr Day questions the Education Minister about the impact of voluntary school fees on the budget. The Minister deflects, criticising the previous government's financial management and defending the decision to make fees voluntary.
AnsweredQoN 728Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to his commitment following his decision to make some high school fees voluntary that if there was a significant decline in the payment of fees, the Government would have to consider making adjustments to school budgets. (1) Was the minister advised by the Department of Education prior to the decision to make school fees voluntary that it would result in a significant decline in contributions made by parents? (2) Given the expected budget shortfall, to which the minister has now admitted, will he guarantee that he will not cut programs or overrun his budget to meet the shortfall? (3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(1) Was the minister advised by the Department of Education prior to the decision to make school fees voluntary that it would result in a significant decline in contributions made by parents? (2) Given the expected budget shortfall, to which the minister has now admitted, will he guarantee that he will not cut programs or overrun his budget to meet the shortfall? (3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(2) Given the expected budget shortfall, to which the minister has now admitted, will he guarantee that he will not cut programs or overrun his budget to meet the shortfall? (3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(1) Was the minister advised by the Department of Education prior to the decision to make school fees voluntary that it would result in a significant decline in contributions made by parents? (2) Given the expected budget shortfall, to which the minister has now admitted, will he guarantee that he will not cut programs or overrun his budget to meet the shortfall? (3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(2) Given the expected budget shortfall, to which the minister has now admitted, will he guarantee that he will not cut programs or overrun his budget to meet the shortfall? (3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(3) If so, will the minister tell us from where the extra money will come? Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mrs Edwardes: It is a good question. Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: It is a good question. I especially thank the member for the part of the question about overrunning the budget. I could have a field day on this topic. The budgetary records of the previous Government show a level of ineptitude in budgetary management that is so gross as to be mind-boggling. Yesterday I asked the now Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection how much his education budget was overrun by in 1999-2000. I do not think he responded, but I also do not think he disagreed that it was something like $98 million. That was in a single year! Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr Barnett: That was the year we built a series of high schools. What is wrong with building high schools in Labor electorates? Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: This Government’s ministers go through a proper process of budgeting. We must explain where all our money is going. We are responsible for the way we spend the money in our budgets. We cannot simply spend an extra $100 million in a single year. Perhaps the now Leader of the Opposition could tell us by way of interjection the size of his budget overrun in 1998-99. Off the top of my head, I think it was around $95 million. How could that happen? No wonder the unfortunate former Premier had to contend with The West Australian reporter Anne Burns holding up proof of the budget situation during the televised debate in the election campaign. She tried to point out to the seemingly uncomprehending Premier and Treasurer that his Government was running a budget deficit. It did not surprise me that the then Premier could not understand, because I recall that very early on in his term of office, he stood in this place - with all his financial expertise gained from running his yachting business - and read the wrong budget speech. It was unprecedented! He did not even realise what he was reading. That Premier never understood budgets. After it was pointed out to him that he had been reading the wrong budget speech, he dragged the then Under Treasurer - who was perfectly innocent - in front of the media and made him accept responsibility. The former Premier and Treasurer did know enough about budgets to know when he was not reading a budget speech, and the former Minister for Education’s budgets each year ran over by more than $90 million! It may be that I must find an extra $1 million or $2 million more than was budgeted for to make sure that schools do not suffer the kind of outcomes that the member for Darling Range is talking about. Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr Day: What about the advice from the Department of Education? Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Mr CARPENTER: I have not got to that. That was part (1) of the question and I am still on part (2). If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
If we have to find $2 million, I will do it. In my first year as the new minister, I had everyone in the department presenting me with their programs. I then had to find out for myself that the former minister had left me with the charming legacy of $60 million worth of unfunded commitments. I may have to find a couple of million dollars more; however, last year I had to find $60 million to make up for programs that the previous minister had signed off on. I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
I will now refer to part (1) of the question. It was pointed out to me that if we made a component of years 8, 9 and 10 school fees non-compulsory, we would not have to drag single mothers up before the court and demand that they pay fees when they were not able to. We would not have to humiliate their children in classrooms and put families into situations in which they had to face all sorts of intolerable pressures. People who represent the western suburbs may not understand those pressures, but I understand them. I refuse to be the education minister who allows that scenario to take place. That matter was pointed out to me by officials from the education department who may have been used to the old days when it did not matter how much money was spent, as happened in the area of health. Back then, a budget deficit of up to hundreds of millions of dollars was created and then something was flogged. That is what used to happen in Western Australia. Billions of dollars worth of assets were flogged and the State’s asset base was run down until there was nothing left to sell. The hundreds of millions of dollars of financial ineptitude of an unimaginable scale was covered up by the buffoons who were running the Government over the past eight years - the same incompetent buffoons who could not even read a budget speech. I was alerted to the possibility that we might have some shortfalls in fees by not only the people in the education department, but also the principals’ association. I accepted that we might have a budget shortfall. I was prepared to fill in the budget hole if that was the cost of avoiding a situation in which single-income parents on $35 000 or $40 000, who were unable to access our more generous benefit scheme compared with that put in place by the previous Government, faced the prospect of those people being dragged up before the courts, having the bailiff sent around to their house, or their children being humiliated by school principals publishing a list of the people who had not paid fees, which was on the agenda of the previous Government. I do not want schools to suffer and I will accept the consequences.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.