❓ Question about school maintenance funding in the South West region. The Minister provides details of the allocated funds and criticizes opposing parties' statements on the issue, defending the government's record and commitment.
AnsweredQoN 619Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the school maintenance announcement on 8 August made by the minister and the Premier that the Government has allocated an extra $65 million over the next four years to fix our schools. Will the minister detail the State Government’s commitment to school maintenance in the south west over the next four years? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Bunbury for his question and acknowledge his strong advocacy for education in his area. The additional $65 million over the next four years - over and above that already budgeted for, which was in the vicinity of $60-odd million - is aimed at eliminating the backlog in maintenance in all government schools around Western Australia. Of that money, $2.6 million is additional to that already budgeted and will go to schools in the greater Bunbury area, including Leschenault and Vasse. It will not include the area in the member for Warren-Blackwood’s seat. It will affect the greater Bunbury region. The objective is simple: we recognised that we had a major problem with maintenance in government schools and we wanted to eliminate that problem. I am determined that we will. It is interesting, in the light of that, that comments have been made in the local Bunbury media by the member for Mitchell about the size of that problem. In the South West Times on 7 October 2004, the member for Mitchell stated about this initiative - The State Government has not spent any money on schools in three years, creating a $65 million dollar backlog . . . There has been, and there will be, major capital works money spent on schools in that area, and everybody knows it. Significant amounts of maintenance money have been spent on schools in those areas and everybody knows it. The member for Mitchell should be spouting the truth in his electorate. Credibility is an issue in politics, especially for the member for Mitchell, given his history and the sorts of things he has said in this Parliament. Credibility is a real issue for him. He should not make completely false statements in the local media. He knows that they are false. Everybody knows that they false. Having a member behaving like that damages every politician in Western Australia. The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for Bunbury for his question and acknowledge his strong advocacy for education in his area. The additional $65 million over the next four years - over and above that already budgeted for, which was in the vicinity of $60-odd million - is aimed at eliminating the backlog in maintenance in all government schools around Western Australia. Of that money, $2.6 million is additional to that already budgeted and will go to schools in the greater Bunbury area, including Leschenault and Vasse. It will not include the area in the member for Warren-Blackwood’s seat. It will affect the greater Bunbury region. The objective is simple: we recognised that we had a major problem with maintenance in government schools and we wanted to eliminate that problem. I am determined that we will. It is interesting, in the light of that, that comments have been made in the local Bunbury media by the member for Mitchell about the size of that problem. In the South West Times on 7 October 2004, the member for Mitchell stated about this initiative - The State Government has not spent any money on schools in three years, creating a $65 million dollar backlog . . . There has been, and there will be, major capital works money spent on schools in that area, and everybody knows it. Significant amounts of maintenance money have been spent on schools in those areas and everybody knows it. The member for Mitchell should be spouting the truth in his electorate. Credibility is an issue in politics, especially for the member for Mitchell, given his history and the sorts of things he has said in this Parliament. Credibility is a real issue for him. He should not make completely false statements in the local media. He knows that they are false. Everybody knows that they false. Having a member behaving like that damages every politician in Western Australia. The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
I thank the member for Bunbury for his question and acknowledge his strong advocacy for education in his area. The additional $65 million over the next four years - over and above that already budgeted for, which was in the vicinity of $60-odd million - is aimed at eliminating the backlog in maintenance in all government schools around Western Australia. Of that money, $2.6 million is additional to that already budgeted and will go to schools in the greater Bunbury area, including Leschenault and Vasse. It will not include the area in the member for Warren-Blackwood’s seat. It will affect the greater Bunbury region. The objective is simple: we recognised that we had a major problem with maintenance in government schools and we wanted to eliminate that problem. I am determined that we will. It is interesting, in the light of that, that comments have been made in the local Bunbury media by the member for Mitchell about the size of that problem. In the South West Times on 7 October 2004, the member for Mitchell stated about this initiative - The State Government has not spent any money on schools in three years, creating a $65 million dollar backlog . . . There has been, and there will be, major capital works money spent on schools in that area, and everybody knows it. Significant amounts of maintenance money have been spent on schools in those areas and everybody knows it. The member for Mitchell should be spouting the truth in his electorate. Credibility is an issue in politics, especially for the member for Mitchell, given his history and the sorts of things he has said in this Parliament. Credibility is a real issue for him. He should not make completely false statements in the local media. He knows that they are false. Everybody knows that they false. Having a member behaving like that damages every politician in Western Australia. The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for Bunbury for his question and acknowledge his strong advocacy for education in his area. The additional $65 million over the next four years - over and above that already budgeted for, which was in the vicinity of $60-odd million - is aimed at eliminating the backlog in maintenance in all government schools around Western Australia. Of that money, $2.6 million is additional to that already budgeted and will go to schools in the greater Bunbury area, including Leschenault and Vasse. It will not include the area in the member for Warren-Blackwood’s seat. It will affect the greater Bunbury region. The objective is simple: we recognised that we had a major problem with maintenance in government schools and we wanted to eliminate that problem. I am determined that we will. It is interesting, in the light of that, that comments have been made in the local Bunbury media by the member for Mitchell about the size of that problem. In the South West Times on 7 October 2004, the member for Mitchell stated about this initiative - The State Government has not spent any money on schools in three years, creating a $65 million dollar backlog . . . There has been, and there will be, major capital works money spent on schools in that area, and everybody knows it. Significant amounts of maintenance money have been spent on schools in those areas and everybody knows it. The member for Mitchell should be spouting the truth in his electorate. Credibility is an issue in politics, especially for the member for Mitchell, given his history and the sorts of things he has said in this Parliament. Credibility is a real issue for him. He should not make completely false statements in the local media. He knows that they are false. Everybody knows that they false. Having a member behaving like that damages every politician in Western Australia. The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
I thank the member for Bunbury for his question and acknowledge his strong advocacy for education in his area. The additional $65 million over the next four years - over and above that already budgeted for, which was in the vicinity of $60-odd million - is aimed at eliminating the backlog in maintenance in all government schools around Western Australia. Of that money, $2.6 million is additional to that already budgeted and will go to schools in the greater Bunbury area, including Leschenault and Vasse. It will not include the area in the member for Warren-Blackwood’s seat. It will affect the greater Bunbury region. The objective is simple: we recognised that we had a major problem with maintenance in government schools and we wanted to eliminate that problem. I am determined that we will. It is interesting, in the light of that, that comments have been made in the local Bunbury media by the member for Mitchell about the size of that problem. In the South West Times on 7 October 2004, the member for Mitchell stated about this initiative - The State Government has not spent any money on schools in three years, creating a $65 million dollar backlog . . . There has been, and there will be, major capital works money spent on schools in that area, and everybody knows it. Significant amounts of maintenance money have been spent on schools in those areas and everybody knows it. The member for Mitchell should be spouting the truth in his electorate. Credibility is an issue in politics, especially for the member for Mitchell, given his history and the sorts of things he has said in this Parliament. Credibility is a real issue for him. He should not make completely false statements in the local media. He knows that they are false. Everybody knows that they false. Having a member behaving like that damages every politician in Western Australia. The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
The member for Darling Range, on the other hand, is a genuinely honest character. It is interesting that the Liberal Party’s position statement, which was released in July this year, states - Under Labor . . . the maintenance backlog has more than doubled, to a staggering $73 million. It goes on to say - Addressing the current backlog will be an educational priority under a Coalition Government . . . It then states that the coalition will spend $20 million over four years to address the problem. He identifies the $73 million and falsely asserts that it has doubled under this Government. I will get to that in a minute. He then says the coalition will spend $20 million, an amount that would not even address the growth in the backlog. When this Government said that not only would it spend the money that is already in the forward estimates to reduce that amount, but it would also put in an additional $65 million to eliminate it, the coalition was caught out. As it stands, the coalition’s policy states that it will slash maintenance by $45 million. We are putting in an additional $65 million. The coalition is saying that it will put in an additional $20 million. Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day interjected. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: Has the member changed his mind? Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Read yesterday’s paper. Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: I did, and I read that the member for Darling Range said that he did not know the size of the surplus. The surplus was announced in May - or thereabouts - and the coalition’s policy position was released in July. The member for Darling Range has a bit of a problem. According to figures provided by the Department of Education and Training, in early 2001 a building conditions assessment report put the backlog in maintenance in Western Australia’s school at about $88 million. If it was $88 million, it has now gone to $73 million. I think it must have improved; it was not halved. It did not double - it must have improved under this Government. It is quite interesting to look at the history of this issue. In 1998, the member for Churchlands asked a very telling question of the then education minister, the member for Cottesloe. She asked - What would it cost to eliminate the current backlog in the school maintenance program this year? The year was 1998. The reply from the then minister was $53 million. The next question was - What amount is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget for recurrent maintenance spending? The answer was $15.8 million. The member for Churchlands then asked what amount was specifically set aside for the budget for maintenance. The answer given was $45.6 million. The member for Churchlands then asked - When is it anticipated that the maintenance backlog will be eliminated? At this stage the coalition had been in power for five years. The minister replied - Successive Labor Governments allowed school buildings to run down to an unacceptable level due to inadequate and irregular allocations of maintenance funding. This resulted in a large maintenance backlog. The Coalition has allocated significant funding to address this situation. Not in that budget it did not. He continues - The effort is ongoing and it is hoped to be completed by 2001. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the backlog was $88 million by 2001. That left us with a very significant backlog, which we are now dealing with. Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr J.H.D. Day: Have you got any proof of that? Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER: It is from the then minister’s figures. The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
The issue is this: we recognise - I said this to the member for Darling Range - that there was an embarrassingly large problem in school maintenance that must be addressed. As a result of good budget management, we have got ourselves into a position in which we can address the problem, unlike the performance of the previous Government the budget mismanagement of which left it unable to address the situation. As for the member for Mitchell’s assertion about who is spending money on what, nothing hurts the Opposition more than staring truth in the face, especially with its record. I have a graphic demonstration of the comparative records of the previous Government and this Government. The Opposition was useless. I am holding the comparative figures for expenditure on school maintenance. This graph represents the last four years of the Court Government, bearing in mind it starts at $50 million. The blue represents the Liberal Party’s time in government, while the red represents the Gallop Government and our forward estimates. We have increased our maintenance budget every single year over and above anything the Liberals spent. That is the graphic representation. In fact, I believe it represents the comparative performances of the two Governments across government. They were inept, incompetent, poor financial managers. They got away with it to a large extent until the last period before the last election. On the other hand, this State now has a Government that, as much as those opposite hate it, manages the State’s finances very well and delivers results. I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
I want to thank the member for Churchlands for her assistance in exposing the incompetence of the previous Government and the dishonesty of the statements that are emanating from that side of the Parliament now.
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.