Page 4894 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The speech today by Mr Stevenson demonstrated to me all that is potentially unhelpful in the continuation of a divisive community debate on non-government funding. Mr Stevenson, I thought, aptly indicated why we need to be very cautious with this inquiry, its nature and scope, and whether it invites comments from all of those elements in the community who are for and against non-government schools. The Rally sees that it should support the motion as it stands; but it is for the government of the day to decide the form of the inquiry and who sits on it.
This issue is seen by the ideological protagonists as an election issue, and I very much regret that. I think our community has moved far enough along in this debate not to want to see the DOGS phoenix rise again. I am very concerned to hear Mr Stevenson's speech, the acclamations of support, and the extreme demagoguery of Mr Stevenson on the issue. It is a worry that we are corporately giving Mr Stevenson another issue to campaign on. An inquiry in this Territory is long overdue, and it should be held. But we have a 100-year-old party such as the Labor Party making an election pledge and walking away from it.
The Rally will be moving a substantive amendment to the Appropriation Bill. We have other views about where this matter should be resolved finally for the Territory. We have great fears about the exposes that are going to come out of this inquiry about the so-called assets of the rich schools - the playing fields, the alleged privileged position - and the counter-arguments from the other side. We feel unhappy and apprehensive about where the inquiry will go and the wounds it will open over the Christmas-election period. We are supporting the motion because there must be a form of inquiry. The timing of it, in our view, is unfortunate. Unless the Government gives in and commits itself to restoring the funding prior to the inquiry - - -
Mrs Grassby: No way.
MR COLLAERY: Mrs Grassby says, "No way". I am disappointed to hear that, because that might take a lot of the heat out of what will be an unfortunate debate during the Christmas season of peace and goodwill. I promise you, after hearing Mr Stevenson, that you are letting us in corporately for a very heavy debate.
We propose to move a substantive amendment to the Appropriation Bill which will set another basis for a final resolution of these concerns in the Territory. Whilst we will support this motion, we are going to speak on the Appropriation Bill about the better sense of following the Rally's idea of allowing the non-government school sector once and for all to litigate the issue and secure a final politician-free basis for budget decisions in that schedule to the Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .