Page 4380 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 21 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
opposite themselves attempted to rationalise resources in the school system when in government, and undoubtedly will do so again whenever they next return to the government benches.
Change in any education system is a fact of life and when that change occurs it is important for governments, and I would hope oppositions, to stand together in the view that they should limit damage and trauma to the lives of students affected by those changes. That view has gone out the window for those opposite. It is their intent to use children in this debate to gain the most political advantage. I suspect that, were children to be used, for example, in demonstrations, to be heavily politicised about the debate, they would not think twice. They would be quite happy for that to occur. They do not really care. I care, and I think it is unfortunate that this debate cannot be settled quickly and finally and, notwithstanding the decisions, be they right or wrong, provide a clear indication to people that we should get on at this point with those decisions and try to make the best environment for those children to proceed to obtain an education next year. That is my hope and I would hope that the Opposition is not totally impervious to such a plea.
I will sit down, saying only that this debate is in a real sense over. The debate, I think, for the vast majority of the school community, has finished. I would hope that in this place we acknowledge that and move on to other issues. It is important that, for the sake of members of the education community, particularly children, we acknowledge the need to plan for the future and look to the future rather than to the past.
MR CONNOLLY (11.59): What breathtaking cynicism from the Minister for Education to come into this place and piously hope that the Opposition will put this debate behind them; that we will not, in his words, exploit children in this issue; that we will not, in his words, cause bitterness and division in the community. If the Opposition had not fought this fight tooth and nail from day one we would be shutting down 25 schools, because that is what he wanted to do. If the Opposition had not been going out into the community, fighting this issue on every platform and at every opportunity, we would have had no debate on the school closure proposals. What was Mr Humphries' original position? His original position was: there will be no debate over the schools that will close; there will be a debate only over criteria. Well, we saw that that did not happen.
What were the words Mr Collaery used? The constructive tension within the Government party rooms certainly saw to that. There was constructive tension between these hairy chested Liberals - the Thatcherite approach, "We have to show we are tough and close 25 schools" - and the Residents Rally, friends of the community standing by their principle that no school will close. And what is the result? Seven
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .