Page 726 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Minister has said that it causes him no problem. The motion, on its face value, causes him no problem at all. That is how this will be recorded and in a year's time or two years' time, when somebody looks back, they will not look at the tone and so forth; perhaps they will not even look at the explanations that Mr Wood has given. They will just point the finger at Labor and say, "You opposed wanting to act in the interests of educational fairness and equity". We saw the same sort of approach this morning, Madam Speaker, when I introduced a Bill.
Mr Connolly: You are voting for a motion that they want us to close schools here.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly interjects that I will be supporting a motion that says that they want them to close schools. The motion does not say that at all. That is how Mr Humphries is interpreting it. I am getting on the record that I disagree with that interpretation, and I do not see why the Government sees this motion as particularly threatening on face value. Having heard the speeches of Mr Cornwell and Mr Humphries, yes, I can see why you see those as threatening.
Let me now offer some supportive comments to the Government. It seems to me that the issue of the closure of Griffith Primary School goes way beyond what we have had in the last few minutes and in the last few months. What we had under Mr Humphries was a set-up that undermined schools and the way schools operated. Mr Humphries indicated clearly that he would put no blame on this Minister for letting the school bleed to death. He said that in one breath but then in another breath did put that blame on, and then took it upon himself to say that he ought not have any blame. Of course he deserves the blame because he was Minister at the time and was responsible for removing the principal from that school and putting it into a twinning situation. It was part of this whole process that he put into place to undermine the neighbourhood school.
If we follow Ms Szuty's advice and in the future we look at the number of schools, it will never be enough to look at the number of students in a school in any given year. We also need to look at the projections for the future and the impact they are likely to have, as far as we can judge, on the school and on the neighbourhood because huge planning issues come up. Mr Humphries may remember that they came up in the debate on the issue of closing the 25 schools that he wanted to close.
Madam Speaker, in supporting the motion I make it very clear that what I am supporting is the fact that the Labor Government has the flexibility to deal not with school closures but with the problem of school closures. The problem at Griffith - I think I must congratulate the Minister - has been handled with flexibility, educational fairness and equity. At the end of the process, realising what Mr Wood had to deal with, thanks to what Mr Humphries did, it has been. It seems to me that it would have been appropriate to have provided a principal to that school.
It seems to me that, if you are considering educational fairness and equity, that also means that Mr Wood should continue - he indicated that he met with parents only yesterday - to pursue equity and fairness in assessing whether or not to reopen that school. Just as closure is part of this motion, the spectre of reopening is also part of this motion. If there is a possibility of reopening the school, perhaps with years 1 and 2 or kindergarten and year 1 in the first year, and we can project a major building up of that school and a revitalisation of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .