Page 2919 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 20 September 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
progressed, because, obviously, of the oppositionist position that oppositions will take or the desire of the community to engage in a vigorous and open discussion or debate.
To suggest that through 600 meetings which the minister and his department conducted to consult with this community there has not been a genuine effort at consultation or a general engagement in relation to the social, economic and other aspects of this particular proposal is sheer nonsense, and you know it. You cannot stand there with any credibility and suggest that a government that has sought to pursue a conversation with the community to the extent that this government and this minister have, has absolutely no credibility. In my eight years in this place, I know of not a single other example of a minister meeting on more than 60 occasions with a constituency in relation to any issue—let alone a department.
Mr Barr: It is about 80.
MR STANHOPE: The minister has had 80 separate meetings with school communities in relation to school closures. I have been here for eight years. I do not know of a single example—and I challenge anybody to raise it—of any other minister in this place meeting on 80 separate occasions with a constituency in relation to any issue. On top of that, the department has had an additional 500 meetings and the consultation has only been going for half of its determined length.
For anybody to stand in this place and say that this minister and this government are not genuine, are not open and do not seek to be accountable in relation to Towards 2020 and our educational hopes and the educational outcomes we seek—a genuine, open discussion around the implications for every child in the system—would be simply making a political point. It has no credibility and it deserves no credibility.
An enormous effort has gone into this particular proposal—to explain and maximise the educational opportunities it presents, to seek and embrace the feedback from parents and school communities in relation to how to better advantage their children, to provide better educational opportunities. That has been at the heart of the entire debate, which has now been going for three months and has three months yet to run.
That is the level and extent of the commitment to genuine consultation—backed up, of course, by our absolute commitment to ensure that, in this community, through our government education system, we provide what is essentially our fundamental philosophy and our driving force as a government: that no person in this community—most particularly no child in this community—does not have an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of society and to participate equally within society.
It is my belief and this government’s belief that that is best achieved through equality of access to quality education. That is what is driving this government. That is what is driving this process: an absolute determination by this government that every child in this community will have equality of access to the highest possible quality education we as a government can produce.
We cannot keep that promise or that undertaking in a system that is not operating optimally, that has a 30 per cent excess capacity. That excess capacity is costing the community, through the department of education and our funding of education, millions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .