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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1321 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

Mr Kaine: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Debate resumed.

MR HIRD: At that time, the ACT did not have a separate college system to cater for Years 11 and 12. Over time, the emphasis at SWOW changed as more high school students in the Years 8 to 10 category, most of them still under the age of 14 years and 9 months, compulsory schooling age, began to attend SWOW. The problem was that SWOW did not change either its teaching methods or its teaching program to cater for these more vulnerable students. As a result, students who were normally required to be at school attending classes found themselves able to attend classes in cafes, as the Minister indicated, and even not attend school at all.

Mr Speaker, when I visited the school on the morning of 28 November last year, I found a grand total of two students on the campus at that time. More came later. When I asked to visit the woodworking room, I had to fight my way through the cobwebs, as the class had not been used in the past 12 months, as I understand it. When I arrived at the metalwork room, the key could not be found, as it was so long since the facility had been used for that purpose. SWOW had become incapable of addressing the needs of, and was out of touch with, its students. The building was run down and, as Ms Reilly said, resources were lacking. I agree totally with her. The library was run down; the computer room was run down.

Ms Reilly: Why was the Minister not taking responsibility in providing decent resources?

MR HIRD: By interjection, Ms Reilly asks why the Minister did not take responsibility for these resources. He did, I put it to you. Despite the good intentions of my good friend Mr Wood on the other side, who attempted to address the issues in late 1994 and early 1995, the problems still existed when the department undertook its final review in June and July of 1996. The Department of Education had by law a duty of care to address these issues, and this Government accepted most of the recommendations put to it by the department. However, the Government did not accept all of them.

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