Page 2346 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Preschool but I had to take the children by car to Taylor Preschool because of the zoning. The boundary ran down the middle of Mannheim Street, which meant that I was zoned for Taylor and had to take the children to that preschool by car, whereas the preschool at Village Creek was close by. My house was, literally, the closest to that school. That was quite an extraordinary planning anomaly, but I suppose we all learn to live with that sort of thing.
In fact, the disadvantage which we suffered as a result of having to do that is part of the access issue which has to be faced by all parents who are taking their children to preschools. In some cases they will have the opportunity of living next-door to the preschool, in which case they will be able to walk there, very conveniently. Others will require either a great constitution to walk long distances or the use of the family car to transport the children. But that is a fact of life. Even with the amalgamations that have taken place in the past - and let us not forget that the pattern of amalgamations is one which has been in existence for eight years, and there have been numerous preschool closures in that period - the communities which have been affected have still been well served by the provision of services.
I turn to the motion which has been moved by Mr Humphries. I do not wish to dwell on aspects which have been covered in the matter of public importance discussion. The first point there has been adequately dealt with. It was dealt with adequately in question time last week and it has been dealt with further in today's discussions.
In relation to the consultation process, which relates to the second paragraph of Mr Humphries' motion, I would like to comment briefly on the allegation attributed to Dr Thompson. I can only assume that either Dr Thompson has misled Mr Humphries or Mr Humphries has misled the house. But the remarks attributed to Dr Thompson did not, in fact, give a true indication of the situation.
It is my recollection that Mr Humphries said that Dr Thompson, when seeking an appointment with me, was told that he would not be able to get an appointment until "sometime next year". I was involved in the telephone conversation that took place with Dr Thompson, and quite clearly what Dr Thompson was advised was that the consultation process in relation to this issue and this policy was being undertaken between the Government and the Canberra Pre-School Society, which is the proper body with which we should be discussing this matter, the area preschool advisory committees and the Minister's schools consultative committee. So, at my level, that is the consultation that has taken place, and it is most appropriate that that be the continuing level of consultation to take place.
On the question of the proposal to meet Dr Thompson, he was advised of the meeting which took place last night with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .