Page 1625 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 19 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There were some comments about Gordon and Conder and 750 pupils. I believe that there is not one parent in the ACT who would not prefer to have their children attend a school with smaller class sizes. That is utopia, not reality. I do not know what Mr Lamont has given me, but it will be most interesting, I am sure. He has also put me off a little bit. I think Mr Cornwell stole a bit of the thunder by quoting from Rosemary Richards. Once again it goes to show that in a lot of ways we have a bipartisan problem. We need to be looking at reality. Ms Richards said a lot of things. She said, "Listen, the community has yet to understand or accept the ramifications of Ms Follett's warning re efficiency and restructuring". They were Ms Follett's words - efficiency and restructuring. Ms Richards was reported as saying that school closures are still an issue and a feasible option if that is what the community decides. I believe that that is a very intelligent argument. Look at what Ms Follett, Mr Wood and members opposite have said in the past about community consultation.
Perhaps I should finish, Madam Speaker, by repeating what I said earlier. Should other communities say to Mr Wood, "Listen, we really believe that we need to talk about closing our school", Mr Wood would be in a dilemma. What would he do? Would he accede to the community request and do so, or would he have something else foremost in his mind and say, "That might be what you want, but I cannot do that because Ms Follett and others have said that there shall be no school closures in this term"?
MS ELLIS (4.13): Madam Speaker, statistics, statistics, statistics. They are an important part of any debate, but they are pretty sterile when presented in isolation. What Mr Cornwell has told us really is that the way to save money and to solve this dilemma is to close schools. This is what he calls rationalisation. But let me pose this question: What do we really mean if we talk about rationalising school facilities and maximising the education dollar? Madam Speaker, the conservatives' view is very simplistic. You walk into a school, count the number of chairs occupied and unoccupied, come up with a huge 11,000-plus figure and then dispense with the use of the school, according to their assessment - the conservatives' assessment - of what is an underutilised facility. We saw the disastrous results of exactly that philosophy during the term of the Alliance Government. In simple terms, Madam Speaker, this is what Mr Cornwell is talking about. Not surprisingly, Mr Cornwell's philosophy shows no signs of lateral thought or social justice, let alone a bit of clever thinking. For Mr Cornwell and the Liberals opposite, schools are there simply to teach the occupants, the students, between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.30 pm daily. Let us see, Madam Speaker, whether we can broaden this debate. Let us see whether we can be a bit lateral in our thinking.
Madam Speaker, in broad terms the education dollar is spent by the community for the community. Mr Cornwell may not be aware of it, but school facilities do belong to the community and should be promoted and used accordingly. If we really want to seriously and usefully examine the so-called rationalisation of school facilities to the maximum benefit of the education dollar, let us look at it outwardly, not inwardly. Let us take those blinkers off. In fact, let us get risky and be a bit visionary. I wonder whether Mr Cornwell has really thought about the meaning of this matter of public importance. I frankly doubt it. The question that he has raised is how to limit the number of facilities in order to save money. His philosophy is simply wrong.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .