Page 4173 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Jensen: And Lyons and North Curtin.
MR WOOD: Just be a bit patient. I am saying it as it is. It recommended the closure of Lyons and North Curtin primary schools if South Curtin school is reopened. It is the Government's intention to reopen South Curtin, although I think that is becoming less and less likely. The planning authority supported the partial closure of Kaleen, Hackett, Griffith and Weetangera schools, if coupled with kindergarten to year 3 schools. They would not be total closures. It would support the closure of Chapman school in 1995.
The authority rejected a number of suggested closures; but, along with some suggested partial closures that I have mentioned, the Government has decided, as in all planning matters, it seems, to override the very sound advice. That is the record, and I want it acknowledged.
Bear in mind that the authority was not required to consider the commitment previously given and repudiated by this Government that Weetangera, Cook and Hackett primary schools should remain open for at least five years from 1988. As to Higgins school, which is still proposed for closure, the recommendation was to reject closure. I have mentioned Weetangera. There the recommendation was to retain kindergarten to grade 3 but provide bussing. The authority suggested that Cook school be closed but that bussing be provided. The recommendation for Hackett school was: retain kindergarten to grade 3, and bussing is essential. North Curtin and Lyons ought to be closed if South Curtin reopens. In relation to Rivett school it rejected the notion of closure. If the Government has to close a school - I emphasise that word "if" - it suggested that in 1995 the Chapman school might be considered for closure.
So the parents of students at some of these schools are reasonably asking: why did the Government not accept the advice of the planners? Why is Higgins now listed for closure? Why did the Government decide to close Rivett school instead of Chapman? Was it because it could not send the children of Chapman down the hill to Rivett? It seems a strange decision to have been taken, especially when you look at the excellent buildings that make up the framework of the Rivett school.
I have some reservations about the report of the Interim Territory Planning Authority. I do not know whether it is because of the terms of reference, as it were, that the authority was given. It categorised its decisions into three areas. The first priority was safety and access to the school; the second was the level of disruption to the students and the distance from the school; and the lowest level of priority was surplus capacity. It is the ALP's view that no school should close. I believe also that the planning authority should have made a wider examination.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .