Page 2512 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
P&C council, wanted. In the lead-up to its election in 2001 the Stanhope Labor Party explicitly supported the P&C’s proposal for an 18-month consultation period. Eighteen months was chosen because it allows time for real consultation with the school community without undermining the present enrolments. The initial Education Bill, when presented by Minister Gallagher in 2003, had no specific consultation timeline, and only required that school communities be adequately consulted. At the same time the guidelines for closing or amalgamating the schools that were in place under the previous government, were withdrawn.
Finally, following intense negotiation between the government, crossbench, P&C and other interest groups, a six-month time frame was put into the legislation. That decision was accompanied by comments from government representatives at those meetings that there was no need to specify a time, because it would probably take much longer to do it properly—which is, of course, what the government would do. The six months’ statutory consultation period we now have was simply the outcome of some fairly complex negotiations that were considered acceptable by the parties if more comprehensive guidelines around closure or amalgamation were subsequently developed.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.01): I speak in support of my colleague’s motion. I am amazed to have been afforded that opportunity on this occasion by various Labor members—Mr Gentleman and Ms MacDonald, in particular—who have been strident on this issue when in the clutches of factional politics but profoundly silent on this motion. Indeed, I hoped, Mr Speaker, that you may have given us the benefit of your views on this matter. I know you hold passionately the importance of education in your electorate, and would understand the critical role we play here in protecting the interests of those who elect us, rather than be bound by policies possibly dictated from the top. Whilst this debate is moving towards a finish, and the opportunities are reducing, I still would love to hear what government members have to say in relation to this motion which should be familiar to so many of them.
In addressing the need to extend the consultation and decision period on school closures until the end of March 2007, the government’s Towards 2020 proposal, and the underlying basis for it, must be reconsidered. As a member for the Molonglo electorate, the need to extend the consultation process, and particularly delay the closure of schools until at least December 2007, is particularly evident to me. All of the schools in the Molonglo electorate, indeed the electorate I share with Mr Barr, that have been ear-marked for closure—Curtin South preschool, Melrose and Chifley preschools, Rivett primary and preschool, Weston Creek primary and Weston preschool—are scheduled to be closed at the end of this year. Obviously the imminent closure of these schools is the most pressing issue.
Mr Barr: Two of those are not in your electorate, but never mind.
MR MULCAHY: Well, if we want to split hairs about Chifley, okay, it is across the boundary of the electorate. But you will find that a large number of children from Molonglo are in that school, by virtue of the fact that the road is so close to the boundary of the electorate. So we can argue about semantics if you like. I am sure it will mean a lot to the parents to tell them that technically they are on one side or the other of Hindmarsh.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .