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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1318 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I have, in the course of my address, referred to a number of matters which were contained in affidavits. Those matters are documents before the court. However, what I intend to table in relation to that is extracts from affidavits sworn. Whilst I am quite entitled to table full affidavits, with people's names in them, I have taken great care to see that names are removed and that people are referred to by letters so that who they are is not apparent. But I think the matters I have referred to, which are referred to in these extracts and which are certainly referred to in the documents which are before the court, indicate that action had to be taken. I table those extracts, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, in terms of any procedures that can be improved, I have flagged that. I have discussed that. The Government has addressed that not only today but also in its response to Ms Tucker's committee's report. But I also stress a point that I raised on a number of occasions last year and, I think, earlier this year. That is, Mr Speaker, that I certainly - and I think other people too - have had a number of discussions, since this review and prior to any final decisions being made, with a large number of people involved at SWOW and, as a result of those discussions, changes were made to the recommendations of the review. I think that is something that cannot be overlooked. That is important in terms of real consultation.

It is quite clear when one looks at all the facts here that what I am at pains to emphasise is that, for the sake of the students, the very real problems that had existed for some time at SWOW were not something about which either I as Minister or the Government had the luxury of entertaining endless consultations with some people who were never going to be reconciled to the fact that the best interests of those students lay elsewhere than in keeping the existing program in the existing buildings at Braddon. Neither was I prepared to take punts on options which may not have worked after we looked at them, which did not really have legs.

What I think the Government has done and what I have done as Minister, Mr Speaker, is to re-establish a real alternative education program at Dickson. As with any decision I take which improves education, it is a decision which I feel is a good one. I feel that, in the years to come, it will be seen to be a good one. I am certainly hopeful that the program on the south side, to start next year, will also prove to be a good decision and a good program by which more kids who need to access this type of education can do so.

MS REILLY (4.51): Mr Speaker, the Ombudsman's report has definitely clarified a number of issues which were raised by the Social Policy Committee's consultations and report last year. We were very concerned about the method used for consultations about the closure of SWOW. In fact, you could almost describe the method of consultation as quite peculiar. I do not think you would find that methodology in any book on effective public consultation. The SWOW community was forced to go through this farce of consultation in June last year, and concerns about this process were raised again and again in the Social Policy Committee's hearings.

During the course of the Social Policy Committee inquiry last year, we spoke to many different groups who had connections with SWOW. Apart from speaking of the importance of the SWOW community, the importance of the school and those related issues, they also spoke of the quick consultation by the Education Department's review.

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