Page 2707 - Week 09 - Thursday, 9 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I cannot say precisely what the longest distance would be in all those possible patterns. The way in which the question has been worded is somewhat loose, and it is possible that some children will be travelling, through choice, considerably longer distances than is envisaged for them. I cannot predict in all cases where the children will go or what they will do. I used to travel 15 kilometres to get to school when I went to school in Sydney, and that would be - - -
Mr Wood: You might have had transport. I wonder if you will be providing transport for people.
MR HUMPHRIES: I walked part of that distance.
I understand that the vast majority of the distances necessary for children to travel in these circumstances are still within the range of two kilometres for primary school students, and five kilometres for high school students. Those are the parameters in which schools have been provided for the most part up until now - not inevitably, but for the most part. Those are broadly the guidelines that will be applicable in this situation under these new arrangements as well.
Some children will be further than two kilometres from their school. In those cases, of course, the Government has to seriously consider providing buses. Until it is clear what the enrolments are like and issues of that kind have been resolved, it is impossible to say just what bus routes will be provided and when.
Belconnen Remand Centre
MR KAINE: Mr Stevenson asked a question yesterday in connection with a public servant in the Belconnen Remand Centre, Mr Peter Chivers, and, not being in full possession of the facts, I undertook to ascertain those facts. I would like to answer his question now. It had to do with whether or not Mr Chivers had been demoted from his position. I should note that in my letter to Mr Stevenson of 31 July this year I explained to him that the head of administration has statutory powers for initiating disciplinary action against public servants. In fact he is the only person that has such power in the ACT administration.
Mr Harris has investigated the matter of Mr Chivers and the response that was given through a Minister to some earlier questions, and he has satisfied himself that there was no intention on Mr Chivers' part to mislead the Assembly, his Minister or anybody else, and therefore no disciplinary action has been taken against Mr Chivers. I also explained in my letter that the relevant authority in such circumstances is the Commonwealth guidelines on official conduct and that these guidelines take into account parliamentary traditions and conventions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .