Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 3051 ..

MRS CARNELL: Thank you very much. I think Calvary obviously knows more about the demolition on Acton than we do as well. The reality is that there are no more plans for the demolition on Acton than this Assembly already knows. Certainly, this Government would love to go ahead with the demolition on Acton, as we would have 12 months ago. The reality is that we are now progressing with the land swap involving Acton and the Kingston foreshore. We are progressing with negotiations with the Commonwealth on that land swap. At this stage, you are quite right; I do not believe that the Commonwealth does have any particular use for the site, but I understand that it is one of the sites that are being looked at from the perspective of the National Museum, and I am confident the Commonwealth is looking at it for a number of other purposes as well.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Education, Mr Stefaniak. I note that the Government loves to demolish things. I note the Minister's steadfast refusal to rule out recommendation 4 of the review of SWOW, which goes like this:

That all teaching staff positions be spilled and the vacancies advertised to ensure that the new direction for SWOW is recognised and staffed.

Would you tell us, Mr Stefaniak, what educational standards were applied to measure SWOW's work? Whom did you consult with? Did this consultative Government consult with some independent educators? Did you consult with the Australian Education Union? Did you consult with the Parents and Citizens Association? Did you consult with the wider community? What part of the consultant's report evaluated their work? How did you come to this conclusion and this resolute refusal to rule out recommendation 4 of the review of SWOW?

Mr Hird: This is the three-minute answer.

MR STEFANIAK: It is more like a three-minute question, Mr Hird. It is interesting, Mr Berry. No, I will not repeat it. I have mentioned some individual consultation I was involved in. I have also spoken to a number of other people, including the union and the department. If you look at the report you will see the consultation process involved in relation to SWOW. The review panel included a teacher who had taught at some stage at SWOW and was experienced in alternative education.

Mr Berry: That is one.

MR STEFANIAK: That is right, Mr Berry. A member of the panel certainly had a lot of experience in relation to alternative education. Members of that panel, Mr Berry, visited SWOW on three occasions, and this is the consultation. They met the three teaching staff members as a group. They attended a group meeting of approximately 16 students. Also, 21 students were interviewed individually, mostly in person but

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .