Page 727 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
heart of Griffith through that process, and the Minister can see his way clear to supporting that in the interests of educational fairness and equity, then, Madam Speaker, he should do so, and he should be able to operate within that flexible position. That is why, Madam Speaker, in supporting this motion, in fact I am supporting a position that Mr Wood has taken.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.27): On the face of it, as Mr Michael Moore has said, the motion may be interpreted to mean one thing, but we got the interpretation of what it means from the Liberals opposite. Despite what the motion says and despite the way it has been crafted, we just heard Mr Humphries get up and talk about a self-justification of the vandalism that was committed on the school system in the ACT by the Alliance Government and for which he was responsible. There is no excuse for that. That was a philosophical position that - - -
Mr Humphries: You have done it yourself. You have now closed a school. There are circumstances where it has to happen.
MR BERRY: The philosophical position of the Liberals is clear. Do not try to hide it. We understand and expect that you would take that position in relation to the public school system, and we would expect the same of Mr Cornwell. Of course they would prefer a different sort of public education system. Of course they would prefer the market in most cases to provide for education. The problem for the Liberals is that the marketplace has failed when it comes to issues of social justice to the community. That is why you require - - -
Mr Humphries: That is an interesting statement.
MR BERRY: The marketplace has failed; otherwise there would be no public system. We see, behind this motion, the Liberals trying in a churlish way to justify past mistakes. Mr Humphries is a classic when it comes to churlish speeches, because he went on to criticise the better points of what happened in relation to the school which is the subject of interest in this matter. The parents made the decision. It was not a decision that all of the parents liked but those parents recognised the inevitability of the decision and made it. I can understand that some of the parents would have been angry, having been forced to a decision which was inevitable; nevertheless, they were given the opportunity to make that decision - something which never happened under the Liberals. Mr Humphries argues that we should be decisive. Who would want to be decisive like him?
Mr Humphries: What would you have done if they had not made that decision?
MR BERRY: You had 25 schools. Who would want to be decisive like Mr Humphries and say, "We are going to close 25 schools"? If that is the sort of decisive action that he is talking about, I want no part of it. Whilst it would have been unpleasant for some of those parents to have to come to that decision, I accept that; I accept that there is an element of pain which you would prefer not to happen. But it happened. It was inevitable, and the parents made the decision. I think that is the most important part about this whole process. It was a fair decision because they came to it themselves; they did not have it imposed. There was no necessity to have it imposed on them because it was clear to them what the outcome must be. I think it is part and parcel of our compassionate approach to dealing with education. That establishes the clear contrast, the stark contrast, between us and the Liberals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .