Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1312 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The figures in the Government's response to the Social Policy Committee report are obviously incorrect. It is clear that they should be explaining where more like 34 students have gone over the period, not 12. In the computer print-out of the department for week 1, term 2, the department was acknowledging 24 full-time students, not the 12 claimed in the response. Is this another attempt to mislead in order to justify the sorry mess?

There also seem to be contradictions in information about the student profile. The Minister has continually referred to the changing profile, stating that high school students vastly outnumber college-age students. However, the figures show that, between 1984 and 1994, there were 501 high school students and 478 college students, representing a 51 : 49 per cent spread. Figures for 1995-96 maintained this ratio, with 58 high school students and 54 college students. How does this represent a change in profile?

I have found it interesting that I have been vigorously lobbied to move this censure motion today, rather than on Thursday, because it makes it difficult for the Minister to have this cloud over his head for two days; it is an unfair cause of anxiety. I have listened to these arguments and, in the interests of preserving what are seen to be important protocols in this place, have decided to put the motion now. However, I would point out to members that the Minister has been responsible for causing a great deal of anxiety in the School Without Walls community over an extended time through his critically flawed consultation process - and it is not just the School Without Walls community saying that it is flawed, and not just the Social Policy Committee, but it is now the Ombudsman as well.

According to the Ombudsman, the Minister has also misled the SWOW community. From her report, it is quite obvious that he has misled the Assembly as well. I remind members that not so long ago he clearly misrepresented the Official Visitor's view on Marlow Cottage. While members may argue that this is not what this motion is about, I argue that this history must be taken into account when members make up their minds whether or not to support this censure motion. What is at stake here today is the credibility of this Assembly and the integrity of members here. If we allow such misconduct to go unchallenged, then we deserve the mistrust and cynicism of the community.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (4.30): Mr Speaker, firstly, let me comment on just a few points that Ms Reilly - Ms Tucker makes.

Ms McRae: She is wearing green, but Ms Reilly is no Green.

MR STEFANIAK: Is she wearing green? Yes, she is.

In relation to the Marlow Cottage matter, I think you are wrong there in terms of misleading, Ms Tucker. You are correct, though, in saying that that really does not have anything to do with this question before the Assembly. There have probably been a lot of untruths and misrepresentations made in relation to this matter; but I do not really think there have been too many from this side of the house in relation to it. What I think we need to do, Mr Speaker, is focus the SWOW debate on some real issues.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .