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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1317 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Those affidavits were, in turn, provided to the Ombudsman. It was strongly pressed upon her that the formation of views within the department had to be seen against the background of long-running problems in the school and the failed attempts to rectify them. She does not mention that in her report. (Extension of time granted) If the Ombudsman considers that, with such a history, those affidavits were irrelevant, that it is wrong for a department to form some plan, that departmental officers who have regular contact with SWOW either could or should form no views, or that they should pretend that they have not, if they have, then I would have to differ with the Ombudsman there.

As I have indicated, Mr Speaker, the Ombudsman has made a number of comments in relation to how things could be done better. Obviously, that is something we also take on board. Those comments are always welcome and important for good government. Also, Mr Speaker, I feel that, with all the evidence, it is difficult to say that the review process was not transparent. I think there is a considerable degree of transparency there, as can be indicated by the answers that parents and students gave to the review team when they were asking questions. Also, in the first week of the review, the option of transferring the school was discussed. It was even in the Canberra Times.

Mr Speaker, in terms of the substance of the criticism that the department had formed a view, whilst people can comment on that, it is obvious that I, as Minister, would have the ultimate decision. Nothing was a foregone conclusion with me, Mr Speaker. I think that is best exemplified by my refusal to accept a number of those recommendations - firstly, that the school should move at the start of term 4 and, secondly, that the abolition of Year 11 should proceed. I think the initial recommendation was that Year 11 students go to Year 12 but that new Year 11 students go to other colleges. I rejected that. Mr Speaker, in terms of the wishes of the School Without Walls people who actually saw me in relation to the name - and that was incorporated in Ms Tucker's report - that is also something that I and the Government accepted.

Mr Speaker, I can recall conversations in August and September with a number of people from SWOW actually saying, "We do not oppose relocation per se, but does it have to be Dickson?". A number of other sites were mentioned to me. I actually went away and had a look at some of those; but at the end of the day, Mr Speaker, I was convinced and remain convinced that the Dickson site, on balance, is the best possible site for these students and for the alternative education program. I think it can be said that that program up there is performing pretty well.

So, Mr Speaker, it should not be overlooked by this Assembly that this issue was discussed by me with parents, students and staff. It had been ventilated by SWOW with the department, the review, the Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, members of this Assembly and me. Also, last week, the Government brought down its response to Ms Tucker's report. There are a number of matters raised there which are very similar, I think, to matters raised in the Ombudsman's report. There are a number of indications that the Government has made there in terms of improvements it is making to its system.

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