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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1316 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

SWOW, Braddon, and I think they receive a better education. Thus, as I said at the outset, this decision has not ended alternative education in the ACT; it has, in fact, re-established it. The Government's aim to have a program on the south side starting from first term next year will further enhance it in the ACT.

Let me say a couple of things about the Ombudsman's report, Mr Speaker. The most important but least publicised point in the report is that the Ombudsman decided at the very outset that the decision to relocate SWOW was not contrary to the obligation in subsection 6(2) of the Schools Authority Act that the Schools Authority ensure that adequate provision is made for persons attending or seeking to attend schools. On this critical matter, the Ombudsman decided in favour of the Government and against the contentions of the Friends of the School Without Walls.

The Ombudsman's criticism was procedural only - although Ms Tucker makes a hell of a lot of it - that the department had formed a plan before consultation and that this plan had not been made known when the review was being undertaken. I think that is a bit of a sweeping statement, Mr Speaker, and it is somewhat deficient in some respects, because I think it is quite clear from the department that it was talking to parents at the school - in fact, it produced comments made by those parents of students - and a number of those comments indicated, usually, that people were not keen about going to Dickson and would prefer to stay where they were. If that was known during the review process, I think it does need to be said quite clearly that certainly a large number of people in the SWOW community were well aware of that. I think that point does need to be made.

Mr Speaker, against the background of the real problems which existed in the way the school was operating and the failure of alternative reform measures that had been attempted - not only by Mr Wood putting in the level 2 teacher to assist but also by such things as additional training which I think the department gave, and the department tried a number of other things as a result of concerns raised by various people, including the union - I am not surprised by, and nor do I apologise for, the fact that a range of options were canvassed and that some officers within the department may well have formed their own views of how to solve the problem of SWOW.

I think it would be entirely artificial and very naive for people to think that those views would not be formed. In fact, it may have really been derelict for the department not to have done so. Whether, in fact, the department could have done it better, of course, is always a question. That is why we can always learn from things like the Ombudsman's report. That is why there are certain matters within that report which I see need to be looked at, to be taken on board by the department and perhaps by other government departments. There are always things we need to learn, in terms of better procedures and better processes, and I make no bones about that. But, in terms of people having a view, I really think that is hardly surprising in all of the circumstances here, and it is certainly something that most at SWOW were not unaware of at all.

Members may see a range of correspondence about SWOW in which the authors canvassed different ideas. Some people spoke of closure, others of transfer and others of options for reform. All, however, had one thing in common: They recognised that there was a problem at SWOW and that something had to be done. The problems I have mentioned were deposed to in affidavits prepared for the Supreme Court proceedings.

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