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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4593 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, another issue of concern to the committee was the uncertainty about the resourcing of SWOW. If the refocus of SWOW is actually to mean that it becomes an off-line program of Dickson, then its future is indeed shaky. In the department's own submission it has stated that two such programs had folded recently due to lack of resources and teacher burnout. Initially it was proposed that Years 11 and 12 would not be part of the refocused SWOW. However, the department appears to have changed its mind on that, and the committee is pleased about this decision, although we have, as well, included it as a recommendation.

There were 27 submissions received and a number of public hearings were held, including one at the school premises. I would like to thank the school for inviting the committee to the school for that hearing, because it gave us an opportunity to listen to a large number of students who I do not think would have addressed the committee if we had been in the committee room here.

Regrettably, before these hearings began, Mr Hird alleged that Ms Reilly had a conflict of interest and withdrew from the committee. This allegation was never tested in the Assembly. Mr Hird then rejoined the committee for the last hearing, while still maintaining the allegation of conflict of interest. This was a rather unusual process and not one that was easy to work with. Despite all of this, I am very pleased to say that this was a very thorough inquiry and that this is an important report for educational options now and into the future for the ACT.

I do not believe that Mr Hird's dissenting report addresses the substantive issues of this inquiry. I also reject his assertion that the committee did not address the terms of reference of this inquiry. It was not explained in his report how he believed the terms of reference were not addressed. If he is referring to the aspect of the inquiry which was to look at the broader implications for alternative education in the ACT from the refocus of SWOW, I will make it quite clear again - it has been made clear before - that it was never the committee's intention to undertake a broad inquiry into various models of alternative education. Obviously, in the short timeframe available to the committee, this would not have been possible. I would like to conclude by thanking everyone who participated in the inquiry, my colleagues on the committee, and especially the committee secretary, Judith Henderson, who, as always, worked extremely hard in assisting the committee.

MS REILLY (11.54): Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note who is here and who is not. I also would like to comment on the report that is before the Assembly at the moment. I would like the Assembly to note that this report is the result of many hours of careful deliberation and many submissions. We received 27 submissions in relation to this report, the same number of submissions that we received on the inquiry we have going on in relation to the Commonwealth-State Disability Agreement - another important issue for this community. I think the number of submissions indicates the level of concern within the community about this proposed school closure. If the community was not so concerned we would not have the number of submissions and the number of people putting their time into looking at this inquiry. In relation to that, I wish to thank Judith Henderson, the secretary of the committee, and also the Education Department and all those who put in submissions, because everyone put in a lot of work in this inquiry. Let us acknowledge everybody's work in this, rather than yelling out unnecessary comments.

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