Page 4383 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 21 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
point with pride, as we all should, to the very high retention rates in the ACT education system while at the same time you slash it at the roots, slash it at the primary school level which, all educational authorities advise us, is the most important stage of education and where the children's future is effectively determined.
The only response from this Government, well and truly on the defensive, as is demonstrated by their gradual and bloody retreat from closing 25 schools to closing four schools, is, "Oh, the Federal Labor Government in 1988 closed schools", as they did. The local branch of the Labor Party was critical of that at the time. If anything, that wrong decision by the Federal Labor Government in 1988 demonstrates why we need self-government, because Federal governments, of whatever persuasion, whether they be Liberal governments or Labor governments, are not elected to be responsive to the needs of the ACT community.
Mr Collaery: That is a ripper. We will hold you to that.
MR CONNOLLY: Federal governments are not elected to be responsive to the needs of the ACT community, I say again, to the amusement of members opposite. How three ACT members of the Federal Parliament are expected to change and influence decisions in the Federal Parliament escapes me. Self-government was introduced to this Territory because there was a need for an accountable government, accountable to the community of Canberra, that takes responsibility for decisions affecting Canberra. It is proper for us to criticise the decisions of a Government that was not elected to be responsible for the citizens of Canberra. It depends on support from two members who were elected on a no self-government ticket - three, in fact, as one is now a Liberal.
The point is that you cannot defend your wrong decision by pointing to a wrong decision taken by the Federal Labor Government. Members of the Opposition here have no responsibility for that decision.
Mr Speaker, these schools, we say, must stay open and we say that they can stay open. One of the most interesting things to emerge from the Hudson report is that he looked at two models. He looked at the Government's preferred model, closing seven schools, which he says will save $2.5m. He then looked at another option of alternative savings which closes four schools and saves $2.4m. What we ask is this: what would be the projected savings if you looked at those alternative saving strategies and did not close the four schools? How much money could be saved through effective efficiencies in the educational system, yet retaining obviously not as much but probably still a significant amount? What price do you pay for closing the four schools?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .