Page 3718 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
when votes were taken on which schools were to close, much of the important information surrounding Weetangera school had not been clearly established.
Let me start with an issue I raised yesterday - and I will not dwell on it because it did get an airing then. This is the Federal Government's promise not to close Weetangera Primary School in the next five years. Mr Kaine's bluster yesterday cannot obscure the fact that the parents at Weetangera have the same right that Mr Kaine has conceded to parents at St Peter's school, that right being that this Government should fulfil the pre-self-government commitment by the Commonwealth.
Yesterday Mr Kaine avoided answering why he would accept one commitment and reject another. The reasons, of course, come down to the fact that this Government is dishonourable. Indeed, it cannot even hold to the criteria that it established and the adequate responses to those criteria that the Weetangera community gave some months ago.
When Mr Humphries established his plan to close schools, one of his criteria was that those schools which had been involved in previous consolidations would be given special consideration. But it seems that the planners and the Minister forgot that some 50 children had transferred from Page Primary School from an earlier closure, plus there were an additional four children from a hearing impaired unit, which had also been transferred. They were overlooked. So, there had been considerable disruption to children and to families as a result of earlier closures. But the Government said, "Let us forget the criteria that had been established. Let us repudiate those criteria and let us, nevertheless, close Weetangera school".
It should be noted in passing that Weetangera school is relatively close - it is actually quite convenient - to a significant proportion of those Page students. If they are to go to Hawker, as required by this Government, the path that they have to follow is much more difficult. I might also mention that a policy document of the department concerning the transfer of financial assets raises the question of the number of students - 50 children is the standard from which benefits can flow. The document seems to accept that 50 provides a basis in a consolidated school as children move across, and that this should be supported; yet it is rejected now.
To show the foolishness of the Government's decision I want to make a comparison between Weetangera and Hawker schools, pointing out, as I do, that the ALP maintains that both schools should stay open and that we do not want to mark one school against the other. They are not in competition. They are working together. Let us show the nonsense of some of the decisions that have been made. I want to refer to the size of those two schools and, consequently, to the capacity of them to hold students.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .