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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1324 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It would seem to me that in the end this Minister had a task to do; that had he not done it this Assembly would have taken him to task for failing to protect the students in that school, for failing to ensure an appropriate education program and for failing to ensure the professional conduct of the teachers there. We would have had a responsibility to have taken him to task. Mr Speaker, the Social Policy Committee has already dressed down this Minister for his lack of consultation and it has been reinforced by the Ombudsman. As far as I am concerned, it does not need a further censure of this Minister. Therefore, I will be opposing this motion.

MS McRAE (5.15): I have great respect for what Mr Moore is saying. He probably felt that there was quite a deal of support from this side of the house for the closure of SWOW because we too knew of some of the problems and understood that perhaps the time had come. However, I think he is moving a little peremptorily to support the Minister, for two reasons. One is that this affidavit, ghastly as it may be and truthful as it may be, is not tested. There are other affidavits that affirm a whole series of other things. It is grossly unfair to base an argument on an affidavit that is untested. This stuff should not be here. I understand why it is here, but it is untested and there is counterevidence and we are not in a position to base our judgment on that. Even if this affidavit might tally with a few stories we knew about beforehand, it is not good enough. That is one reason why that whole argument should be put aside.

The other point to make is that, yes, the Minister had this sort of information before him, Mr Moore, but the Minister had a whole range of other information before him as well. One of the most telling facts is that students who were under age were still being enrolled at SWOW as late as June. If all of this indicated that it was crisis time, if all of this indicated that it was time to close up shop, if all of this was enough for action, how come students were still being accepted there? There are some inconsistencies which make one very uncomfortable. On top of that, Mr Moore and all other members - I am addressing my remarks to you, Mr Moore, because you have pointed out that you do listen to debate and do not make up your mind too quickly - may I just add another factor. The other information before the Minister that would have caused anybody else to say, "I had better tread carefully" was the fact that questions were being asked in the house and members of the SWOW community were regularly coming to talk to us all. There was a very high level of concern about what was going on. There was a very high level of press coverage. There was a very high level of Assembly coverage.

Under those circumstances, knowing that, knowing that there was a motion on the books saying that this school should not close until proper consultation had taken place, knowing that an inquiry was about to come on, knowing that everybody was being lobbied and everybody had a position, how dare they then go into consultation with their minds made up! That is the context of what was going on. This Minister does not act in a vacuum. He acts with the guidance, concurrence and overviewing of us, who are the representatives of the community. The community was saying, "We do not like what is happening at SWOW". The community was telling us. The community was talking about the review. The community was talking about what people were being told at SWOW. The community was also as concerned as Mr Moore about all the things that were happening at SWOW. I do not deny any of that; but we have to be very careful not to take one set of evidence, one context, and embellish the picture.

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