Page 2622 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 8 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: I am glad you asked what I think it is because I am going to tell you what I think it is. I will start with the OECD document again. The reason I am referring to it again is because although I mentioned the name of the document several times yesterday it would appear that Mr Duby did not realise that I was actually referring to the name of the document. When I said, Surplus space in schools - An opportunity, he probably thought that I was seeking an opportunity. It talks about consultation on page 66, Mr Jensen - through the Chair. It says:
Such a process hinges on better and more widely disseminated information, in particular as regards the cost implications and relative advantages and disadvantages of various options.
So, what you should have done is said, "Okay, we've got a $2m problem, or a $6m problem, or a 4 per cent problem; we want to resolve this problem. What are the possible methods?". You should have put out an options paper as to what you perceived were the possible methods of resolving the problem, not, "We are going to close schools a la your bureaucracy". We all know that Dr Willmot has for a long time advocated the closure of schools and we have seen his influence on that when the previous schools closed. He has said such things in public and will probably continue to say things.
Let me say that wide consultation goes on in this form: you start by setting out options then asking people to comment on those options. Having received comments on those options, you then present a position paper that you are intending to run and see what people think of that. This is the consultation process. Then you make your implementation.
Mr Jensen: This is what we did.
MR MOORE: You did not. What you did was you said, "We are closing schools". There was no option at all.
Mr Collaery: We issued a discussion paper.
MR MOORE: I cannot believe what I hear. Mr Collaery says he issued an options paper. What I hear disgusts me to my quick because you certainly did not. You certainly did not. Mr Acting Speaker, when I think back to sitting around at Brockman Street and the high ideals that we had at that time and I look at the members opposite me, it makes me feel like spewing over Mr Collaery, Mr Jensen and Dr Kinloch.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Mr Collaery, would you like to reply?
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.19): How much time do I have, Mr Acting Speaker.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: About a minute.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .