Page 3721 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Do not forget that the Weetangera school, in its first years of operation, held children from Hawker and, while it seems logical to expect that it would be as easy for them to go one way as the other, this is not the case. Given the shape of the suburb of Weetangera, it does not work out like that. That underpass has some use, but it does not have unlimited use, and a very dangerous situation is going to be presented to many of those children who will seek to cross Springvale Drive at a location further south of the underpass. Please bear that in mind for the safety aspects.
I suppose I have to convince the Government members by talking costs. If you go ahead with your proposals, you are going to have to put - it is acknowledged - two demountables into Hawker school. I have said that maybe you can get by with one demountable, or maybe no demountables at all, at Weetangera school; so have a look at what that is going to cost you. I am sure that parents have taken you - some of you - out to the fields and shown you where those demountables will be at Hawker and the relatively limited amount of ground that is there. It is a nonsense decision to have to put demountables on the Hawker site in comparison with what is at Weetangera. It shows how the decisions are very badly based in respect of Hawker and Weetangera. The logic of the situation demands that both schools should stay open. Mr Speaker, I seek an extension of time. I do so on the basis that probably this will be the last speech to be made under today's private members' business. (Extension of time granted)
I want to make some mention of the hearing impaired unit. There are four children. That is not many; but they have an importance - I think we have all conceded that - over and above their number. The Government would claim that there has been an inspection of the area to which they are supposed to move at Hawker. I concede, from the information I have, that there has been an inspection; but, in fact, on my understanding that inspection was nothing more than a visual inspection. There has been no thorough acoustic inspection. The claims that the room supposedly to be allocated to the hearing impaired unit is satisfactory cannot be substantiated.
The parents urge that the Minister provide a proper acoustic study where all background noise is available for monitoring so that - - -
Mr Humphries: It has been acoustically tested, Bill.
MR WOOD: It has been acoustically tested?
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MR WOOD: I have been told otherwise.
Mr Humphries: Not by me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .