Page 4145 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
tell whether the summary was based on three volumes of analysis or half an hour’s chat with the head of the department”. Given the minister’s firm assertion that the statements of reasons were the evidence, there are many in the community who would question what the analysis actually included.
A key finding of this report in terms of looking forward is for more comprehensive, supported community engagement and decision-making processes or else we risk similar community disillusion and loss of faith in government.
I wish to make a few comments on Ms Burch’s dissenting report. I have to say I was extremely disappointed by the tone Ms Burch has decided to take in her additional comments. I am quite astonished that Ms Burch could participate so thoughtfully and constructively in the inquiry for such a long time, agree to about three-quarters of the report’s recommendations, and firmly but respectfully disagree with others, only to provide a dissenting report of such a manic and contemptuous nature.
I must say it does sound like Ms Burch has been channelling the minister for education. It is disappointing that Ms Burch has described the report as “so lacking in substance” when a great deal of thought, hard work and research has gone into producing this report, not just by committee members but by the secretariat.
Ms Burch also agreed to the report and, as noted previously, the majority of the recommendations and could have at any stage raised her own recommendations and findings. Any imputations also reflect on Ms Burch’s own judgement. Ms Burch has made a number of statements about members of the committee which I need to address, as her recollection of events appears to be different from mine.
Ms Burch has stated in relation to recommendation 13 on reopening Hall and Tharwa schools that it was only in the final minutes of deliberations that this recommendation was included. In fact, on 7 August when the committee first discussed issues to include in the report, I raised this as a recommendation or point I would include in the report. I also noted this in our first report deliberation.
It is also a shame that Ms Burch did not bring her recommendation No 1 to the committee for consideration. The committee has all along recognised the efforts of the department of education, school principals, teachers and all those involved in assisting students’ transition, and it is highly likely the committee would have agreed to include this in the report.
I also seem to have a different recollection from Ms Burch regarding the proposed amendments to the Education Act. It is my recollection that a number of submissions and witnesses spoke in support of extending the time frame for consultation on school closures. My dissenting comments in support of the proposed amendments outline the importance of conducting a two-phase consultation process over 18 months. By conducting an initial consultation on the actual proposal, the community could provide input into the terms of the second phase and be better informed about the criteria being used to support the government’s agenda and be more confident in the veracity of the evidence used to support the agenda.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .