Page 1816 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of course, our schools have a more important role in Canberra than providing the base for our educated labour force. Reaction in the community to the closure of between 15 and 25 schools is not simply a reaction to a loss of educational value, as important as that is, of course; it is also a reaction by people of the ACT to the proposed loss of the neighbourhood school concept, the concept that has always been present in the ACT.
Residents of the ACT rightly believe that the school should play a major role in their local community. They believe, for instance, that their children are safer if they have to travel only a short distance to school rather than being forced to travel miles to a larger regional school. The residents also believe that their school is the centre of life for the community; it is a gathering place and a focus for community activities.
You only have to visit any of the suburbs in which schools have already been closed to know the impact that that has had on the whole life of the community. I live in Downer, where the school has been closed. The life of that community has been terribly altered by the fact that that school no longer exists. The shops are barely viable. The community activities that used to take place are much reduced. The whole of that neighbourhood has been altered by the fact that its school is no longer open. I should say - I notice that Mr Jensen is getting a bit edgy over there - that the closure of those schools in 1988 was undertaken over the protest of the local ACT branch of the Labor Party. We in no way condoned it.
Not only does Mr Humphries intend to devalue the education system by closing schools, but his planned sell-off of schools and their surrounding green areas threatens to deprive the community of the central recreation areas and indeed, in some suburbs, the only green space in those suburbs. One thing in this whole debate needs to be made abundantly clear. The closures talked about by Mr Humphries are not needed. The Minister is simply making random decisions with no clear goals - and we have seen that demonstrated again today - except to get as much money as possible in any way possible. He cannot tell us how much he wants to save, how much he thinks he might save, or indeed how he will make those savings.
The Minister's criteria, such as they are, are related to bricks and mortar, to enrolments, to costs. They are not, of course, related to anything educational. There is certainly nothing in the criteria about the well-being of the community's children and their families. In fact, Mr Humphries' criteria reflect totally wrong values. I would ask Mr Humphries: what about the quality programs in our schools, what about morale, what about the dedication of staff, what about the children's own achievements and their excitement at learning? Values like those have been simply thrown out of the window by this Minister and the Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .