Page 4199 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
he became the minister, he took on the promises, the statements, that his government made, categorically ruling them out in the next term, categorically ruling them out in Ms Gallagher’s time in politics, and saying that they would be done only with the support of the community.
This has been a monumental misleading of the people of Canberra. The Labor Party went to the election and promised that there would not be school closures. They promised it, and yet this minister has now presided and will preside over a fundamental breaking of that promise, a fundamental breach of the trust that the people of Canberra placed in this government when they voted for them at the last election. Many of these people whose schools will be closing soon would have voted for this government, and in part they would have voted for them on the basis of their education policy and on the basis of their promise not to close schools.
That promise has been fundamentally breached and it is a monumental breach of trust with the people of Canberra—and this minister has presided over it. It was his predecessor who made the promise but it is he who is now presiding over the breaking of that promise and the breach of faith with the people of Canberra. That is the most important reason, Mr Speaker, why this motion should be supported.
We also have had what has been such a poorly-thought-out process. The idea that Dickson College was ever listed for closure is, quite frankly, laughable. It should never have been anywhere near a list of schools that were possibly going to close.
DR FOSKEY: You have got to have an ambit claim.
MR SESELJA: Well, if part of this was an ambit claim Dickson College would be the clearest example of that ambit claim. Mr Speaker, you have attended the rallies at Dickson College; you have seen the levels of support there. We have seen the enrolments at Dickson College. It just should not have entered the mind of a minister that Dickson College should be one of the schools to close. It is wonderful that the government have now come to their senses and said—
Mr Gentleman: It is not going to close.
MR SESELJA: I understand that, Mr Gentleman, but you should listen. I am saying that it should never have been on the list. It simply should never have been anywhere near a list of schools proposed to be closed. The case did not add up. It points to the lack of thought that went into this proposal and the rushed nature of this proposal. Quite simply, this was cobbled together so that the government could close the schools prior to the end of this year. And we know why they wanted to close the schools prior to the end of this year: so that the breach of their election promise, as spelt out by Ms Gallagher’s adviser, could be forgotten, could be, hopefully, put as far away from the 2008 election as possible. That is why they cobbled it together. They got the Costello report, which said that they had to make millions of dollars in savings and the way to do that was to close a bunch of schools. That is what happened and why there was no thought to it. That is why we had a new minister, who barely had time to get into the portfolio, announcing the proposed closure of 39 schools.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .