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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1310 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Ombudsman also pointed out the misleading of the Assembly on this matter by the Minister. In her report she said:

During the examination of the files this office found evidence to suggest that the decision to relocate SWOW to Dickson College was made some time before a formal review of SWOW in June 1996. This evidence was not congruent with a public statement in June that the decision would be based on the findings of the review.

The public statement referred to by the Ombudsman is the one made by the Minister to the Assembly on 25 June. Even without this statement by the Ombudsman, what is quite clear is that there has been a general misleading of the community and members of the Assembly by this Government on this issue.

We have seen the illogical nature of the review process, which the Social Policy Committee identified; the farcical attempts to portray what is actually the closure of our only public alternative school as a refocus, and then as a relocation; and the self-righteous statements by the Minister and his damning statements about the School Without Walls community, which he continually made in this place under privilege. I will remind members of some of his comments. For example, he referred to the SWOW community as "Red Guards". The fact that the Red Guards have been responsible for murder and thuggery was well understood by the community, and the Minister's comments were extremely offensive to them. I have seen members of this place demand withdrawal of comments far less insulting. There was also the pathetic attempt to discredit the Social Policy Committee's report through untested claims of conflict of interest against Ms Reilly. All present a picture of either incompetence or deception.

This same Minister, on 25 February, in answer to a question of mine regarding Marlow Cottage, misled this Assembly by reading an Official Visitor's report which was laudatory about the cottage but which had been superseded by another report in which the Official Visitor expressed grave concerns about the situation at the cottage. When I asked him why he had misled the Assembly by reading out an outdated report, he mumbled something about how I would not like some of the suggestions that the Official Visitor had made in the second correspondence. That was hardly an acceptable reason for misleading; but I decided at that point that, rather than to go for a political solution in the house, I would instead pursue the issues with the Social Policy Committee, who were also very interested in the issue of children at risk in the ACT, and we announced our inquiry into this matter instead.

However, this latest evidence of this Minister's lack of regard for ethical behaviour cannot be overlooked. No wonder the community is cynical about politicians! I believe that the Minister must be held accountable for this farce of a process and his blatant disregard for the community and the Assembly. I note that the Ombudsman was considering whether to recommend that the whole relocation decision be revisited in view of the inadequate consultation, but decided that because the students were dispersed it would not be possible to revisit the decision.

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