Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (28 November) . . Page.. 3300..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
schools. We do not have the same responsibility in terms of the non-government schools and it is a matter of choice for the parents as to what they do there.
I am well aware of the case you mentioned in Sydney of a school being ordered to provide certain things for a little girl. That is of real concern for the non-government sector. It is certainly something that governments could look at in terms of how they fund or give assistance to non-government schools in the future. However, our basic responsibility is to ensure that we have the ability to take into our government schools any children who come there. Indeed, quite a number of students with disabilities are in government schools, probably because the facilities there are better than would be available to them in the non-government sector.
Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
MR MOORE: On 29 June Mr Osborne asked me a question about home-based palliative care. I did respond to him in writing. There being such a time delay, I table that response.
MR MOORE: During question time on 6 September I took a question on notice from Mr Stanhope with regard to an undertaking by Morgan and Banks. I wrote to Mr Stanhope, and I table that response.
MS TUCKER: I would like to make a personal explanation under standing order 46.
MR SPEAKER: Proceed.
MS TUCKER: This is for Mr Smyth's benefit. Mr Smyth has said again that in the last election campaign the Greens were promoting infill. It is very important that Mr Smyth, as well as the community and this parliament, understands that the Greens have a very clear idea of what infill is versus urban consolidation. We have made that quite clear. I will read our policy. It is important to get it on the record.
MR SPEAKER: Only if it is a personal explanation.
MS TUCKER: Absolutely, it is.
MR SPEAKER: I will be the judge of that.
MS TUCKER: Mr Smyth continues to say that I am supporting infill in open spaces, so I need to explain to the parliament what we actually say. Is that not a personal explanation?