Page 1851 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The timeframe will remain the same. For the information of Dr Foskey, she has the process almost right. We will have a two-stage process. The first will be on a regional basis. Let us take Tuggeranong as a relevant example. Schools that are either closed or that are to be closed will be discussed over time with the consultant and the community. The second phase will then kick in. Site-specific schools will be discussed and the community’s desires, wishes and needs will be made known to the government.
At this stage of the game we have put out five proposals, which is by no means the end of the process. If the community can come up with another proposal or mixture we would be delighted to hear about it. We have no preconceptions, bar a couple that I have already announced. For example, going back to the Tuggeranong analogy, the use of Mount Neighbour School will not be the subject of consultation about what it can be used for. The site will be the subject of consultation but not the school, because that school has been determined to be removed. Given articles in the newspaper today it is opportune for me to place on the record today something that will clarify issues concerning who can and cannot get access to these surplus school sites.
We have no preconceptions about how it would work—for example, whether all or part of a school should be removed and developed or put to open space, or whether it should be totally tenanted with community groups or a mixture of all those things. The best way to describe it would be for me to read the information that I have already given out to some people in the non-government school sector. The government has made a decision not to lease any closed public school to a non-government school. I ask members to bear with me for a couple of seconds. If the outcome of the evaluation process is that a school is to be sold, non-government school providers will, of course, be able to participate in that process.
That information has been conveyed to the people who approached the government to lease space at these schools. In the context of those schools to be closed and those that are closed, that is the information we have conveyed to those people, which is quite clear now. The process which is occurring is now open. I just wish to reaffirm and restate the government’s decision. In conclusion, we hope to have all community input in, digested and into government around the end of the year or, at the absolute most, very early next year. However, in the future we do not want a series of closed and vacant schools on premises scattered around Canberra any longer than we need to.
DR FOSKEY: I ask a supplementary question. When does the government plan to announce its determination on these sites? What would be the consequences of holding off finalisation and implementation of those changes until after the 2008 ACT election?
MR HARGREAVES: In response to the last part of Dr Foskey’s question, there is no connection between the election and this exercise. The consultation process will not occur one at a time; groups of consultations will occur at the same time. The government hopes that the information is available to it by the end of the year so that it can take its recommendations concerning these sites to cabinet towards the end of this year, or at around Christmas time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .