Page 3108 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.07): Madam Speaker, I want to raise one criticism of the report, and I ask members to put this criticism into context. I am picking out one matter that concerns me; I am not going to go through and say, "This is fine; this is acceptable to me", and so on. So members should bear in mind that it is one issue. I have read the document tonight and I will go through it more carefully with departmental people. I have noted the comments and I believe that it is appropriate that I attend to some of the matters that are raised. Indeed, as I reflect upon the agencies under my control, there is much more praise than there is criticism of how they have gone about their business.
I draw your attention to page 35, from paragraph 3.116 onwards, on primary school size. I want to express some concern about the manner in which this has been treated. In three sentences there is a debate, such as it is, about the size of primary schools. Then we have two recommendations. I think members would agree that that is simply an inadequate way to deal with a quite substantial debate. I have not had time tonight to read the Estimates Committee transcript. I recall that the matter was raised, but it was not raised in great detail, or in any significant detail at all. In fact, it appears that it was not raised in sufficient detail to rate a mention in the next section, "Overview by Agency".
There is a substantial debate to be had about the size of primary schools, and we have had a very extended debate in the ACT on the size of small primary schools. There are many in this Assembly, and I am one of them, who argue that a small number of students does not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the quality of that school. I have also argued, on the basis of some research, that, within limits, a large number of students in a school does not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the quality of that school. If there are members of this Assembly who are concerned about the size of those schools at Gordon and Conder, I do not think this is the place to say it.
Mr Cornwell: You know that there are members who are concerned, Minister.
MR WOOD: Mr Cornwell, I acknowledge that there are concerns, but to make recommendations without any substantive debate or without looking at the evidence and running through the research is not a proper way to deal with the problem. I can only suggest to those people who have an interest in this - I acknowledge it and I would welcome a debate - that they approach the Social Policy Committee, which is the relevant committee, and ask them at some stage to roster an examination of school sites. Any recommendations that may be forthcoming from that could be put down on paper with some confidence. I do draw members' attention to these two recommendations. They simply cannot be substantiated by anything in this text or in the Estimates Committee hearings. I ask members to note my concern about the way that debate has developed.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.12): I want to make only brief responses to the specific recommendations in the Estimates Committee report. At the outset, I must observe that most of the acrimony that has been generated in the debate tonight focuses on that last meeting. I was not a member of the committee, but it does seem unfortunate that the bulk of the work of the committee and the bulk of the positive suggestions for better housekeeping,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .