Page 2718 - Week 09 - Thursday, 9 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the thrust of the report is quite wrong and ought to be withdrawn promptly. I expect to see Mr Moore rise to his feet at the end of my comments, if he has any guts.
The second comment is in respect of this so-called minority report by Mr Ellis. My understanding of a minority report is a report given by a person who dissents from the majority report. Mr Ellis was present at the time the committee met on the final occasion to approve the final version of the report. Incidentally, that raises another point; when Mr Moore says that the figures are wrong, and impugns that, he is obviously impugning all the people who sat there on that final day of that meeting and discussed the contents of that report and accepted the contents of that report. But put that to one side.
Mr Ellis, as one of the members of the task force, was present on that occasion. He did not dissent from any of the recommendations made by that report. He took part in discussion and debate on what those recommendations should be. Mr Ellis was asked whether he consented with those recommendations and to my knowledge he agreed. After the report had gone through the process of being printed and prepared, Mr Ellis subsequently approached Mrs Murray, the chairman of the committee, and said that he wished to put in other remarks, other comments. She explained it was too late to incorporate those in the body of the document because it was at such an advanced stage of printing. That is my understanding. She then took the report separately and supplied it to me separately. That is not a minority report. Mr Moore's terminology is wrong and he is quite out of order.
I want to get back to some of the substance of what was debated during the course of that debate. I think that Mr Moore's attack unfortunately seems to ignore the fact that there are people in the community who are more willing than he is to accept that the situation is bad in respect of the provision of services in education in the Territory and that things have to be improved. Particularly important is the fact that there has been an acceptance on the part of the preschool community that the Government is entitled to take action in this area to consolidate the number of preschools in the Territory and to save money by the closure of some preschools. The Canberra Pre-School Society has written to the Government indicating that it is prepared to consider the closure of preschools.
Mr Moore: Under what circumstances and with what qualifications?
MR HUMPHRIES: I am happy to table the letter from the Canberra Pre-School Society at the end of this debate, assuming that the society is prepared to agree to that; that is the only qualification that I put on it. It said in that document that it is prepared to accept the closure of up to six preschools.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .