Page 2582 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it said prior to the election. I do not know what people want to call that, but I believe most people feel they have been somewhat misled.
We have heard a lot about consultation. Mr Barr is constantly telling us, “I have been to X number of meetings. I have sat there and I have given the same answers. The education department has been there with me. Sometimes it has been wonderful and sometimes it has been hard.” What is the ultimate consultation that we have available to us in our democratic system? It is called an election. This government failed the test.
The government wants to take the high moral ground on this issue and say, “We are taking the hard decisions.” Why did it not tell the people of Canberra about the hard decisions it was going to take prior to the last election? That is the ultimate consultation. The government should have gone to the people and said, “This is our plan. We want to gut the public education system. We want to close 40 schools. What do you think?” The people could have made their decision on that basis.
If the government had done that it would be very hard for us to argue against it. If the government had taken this issue to the people at the last election and said, “We propose to close 40 schools”, we would have some respect for it. The government did not do that; it deliberately hid its plans. It deliberately sought to downplay any prospect of school closures. The government did that on one of the biggest and most important issues at the last election, and it failed the test. So when it seeks to take the high moral ground we need to look at it in context.
If the government were serious about this, if it wanted to make decisions for the long term and take the community with it that would not be done through a series of meetings where everyone knows what is going to happen. Everyone knows that they would tell the minister what they think and the minister would do what he planned to do anyway. The government could have taken this to the election but it did not. That is why we have moved this motion. That is why we want to take a proper and considered look at this issue. This government is desperate to ensure that we do not take a considered look at this issue. It is afraid that if it becomes stretched out too close to the next election it will pay for it in 2008.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (5.36): In a forthright manner Mr Stefaniak’s motion is designed to assist the Stanhope government to take a step back from its hasty decision to close in the order of 39 schools across the territory to the detriment of families—a decision that will, most importantly, impact significantly on childhood development in the ACT. Last Wednesday, 16 August, the government sought to breach convention and filibuster and waste time allocated for private members’ business. The Liberal opposition does not wish to neglect a topic of great interest to the electorate, as Mr Corbell sought to highlight in the matter of public importance last week. Mr Stefaniak’s motion, calling for a comprehensive inquiry into the future direction of the ACT’s education system, encompasses a sensible approach to investigating longer-term planning and a significant investment of resources into the education arena, especially for those students with a disability. I pick up on one facet of the motion—early childhood development and education.
The Liberal party does not walk away from debate, as Mr Corbell would have us all believe. Rather, the opposition is genuinely interested in engaging in forums that have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .