Page 2184 - Week 07 - Thursday, 6 June 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One can only assume that an angel has somehow appeared to Ms Follett to advise her of the community's views on these other schools. Obviously, if that was the case, it was a misinformed angel, because now it appears that some of those schools also want to be considered for reopening. Nonetheless, Cook and Lyons received some kind of guarantee. However, that was qualified. Cook and Lyons would have guarantees of staying open only for the next five years.
That raises a very interesting question. Has the Labor Party finally acknowledged that schools like Cook and Lyons do face an uncertain future? If so, will they tell us why? Is it the same reason that the Alliance put forward for closure of those two schools, and others, over the last 18 months? Is that the reason? Is it because of the declining school-age population base? Is it because the schools are too small to be viable? Could the community of Canberra be entitled to share the reasons why the Labor Party has now decided that no guarantee should be given for Cook and Lyons beyond five years? I might remind the Assembly, Mr Speaker, that the promise before was that no school would be closed unless it agreed. Clearly, at the end of five years, as far as Cook and Lyons are concerned, all bets are off.
The other question, of course, is what will happen in 1996 when, as will inevitably be the case, I assure you, the guarantee expires and the people with children at those schools still decline to allow those schools to close? And, take my word for it, they will decline. Once again, Mr Speaker, we do not know what Labor's position is because we do not understand the basis on which Labor has made these announcements; nor do we understand the basis on which Labor will pay for those announcements.
Mr Berry: You have never been much good at figures, so I am not surprised.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am glad words spring to Mr Berry's lips. Mr Speaker, the same can be said about the future of hospital redevelopment. Labor's position over the last seven days has been about as straightforward as a plate of pasta. Labor will put, we are told, a moratorium on the closure of Royal Canberra Hospital North. Hospital redevelopment overall would be reconsidered, we were told originally, a week ago. Within days the line transmogrified into, "We will put a temporary moratorium on the hospital redevelopment process". That, of course, Mr Speaker, begs the question, "If it is temporary, why put one on at all?". What is the point of a temporary moratorium? If you know that it is temporary, why not proceed? Why not provide the jobs? Why not provide the certainty? Why not get on with the business of refurbishing and enhancing our ACT public hospital system?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .