Page 3479 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it would be surrendered back to the Government on the same terms on which it was given to the school.
The amount in question is also, I would argue, quite irrelevant. Mr Connolly says that, if we are giving away land supposedly worth between $300,000 and $500,000, we must be wasting money. As he well knows, land worth at least that much is given away for the development of schools elsewhere in the Territory, even in Tuggeranong. To say that it is not justified in Deakin but it is justified in some other parts of Canberra is just hogwash.
I find it distressing that the Opposition should raise these issues in this place and reopen, as the Chief Minister said, the old, hoary question of state aid. I think it is a deplorable development on the part of the Opposition, and one that shows how utterly desperate it is to win points for itself. The Opposition is doing nothing more than alarming and distracting people in the community about current issues in an attempt to win itself some votes at the next election. I have to ask: at what cost does it do that? At what cost does it win those votes? I can only note with some distress that the Opposition appears to be willing to stop at nothing to generate fear and anxiety in the community about this issue and others of equally important stature.
It is true that the debate so far has centred on the value of the land, and that is an unfortunate concentration. The first question we have to ask ourselves, of course, is what the land is really worth. I think that previous speakers, particularly Mr Kaine, have made it quite clear that we are talking about land which is not available for ordinary commercial purposes or for housing development but which has been zoned for community purposes. I believe that that particular zoning would not change, irrespective of what use was made of the land. It is also extremely unfortunate that the concentration on the part of those opposite should be on the arguments concerning the so-called silvertail image of a school like Canberra Girls Grammar.
Mr Connolly: We did not use the word, but it is appropriate.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Connolly points out that that word was not used but that was the clear implication. I think it is worth reminding those opposite that one cannot use such broad brush strokes in respect of schools like Canberra Girls Grammar.
I visited the school myself a few weeks ago and I have to say that, in talking to the teachers and students there, I came away with a very different impression of the socioeconomic background of the children that attend that school. There are a large number of single parents supporting children at that school. There are many, many parents that make very large sacrifices to send their children to those schools. We cannot make the assumption -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .