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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1332 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is quite clear that the Ombudsman was not happy that that was a fair process or procedure. She was damning about that fact. It was critical to her whole report that the detail of planning was for only one option, yet you continued to say all options were being given weighting. Therefore, we had the School Without Walls community, some people who were very articulate and strong - academics from Canberra University, some of the parents, other people, past students who were very articulate on the issues - and the more vulnerable group of students who also put a lot of their heart and soul into talking about these issues and who were treated with utter contempt, it turns out, because the decision was made before they were put through all that. I can tell you that it was distressing for some of them to talk about their stories and the feeling that they have about the school.

I am offended by Mr Kaine's attempt to put people down by calling people emotional and people with strong feelings. For women, it is emotional; for men, it is strong feelings. I have strong feelings about this and I am not ashamed of it. Mr Kaine, I do not think that is necessarily a put-down at all. I accept the fact that I have strong feelings. I wonder whether the Ombudsman seemed to be emotional too.

Mr Stefaniak raised the point that the Ombudsman did not take the history into account. Of course she did not. She did not need to. It was not her brief. She was looking at the procedures. She was looking at the consultation processes. That is what the complaint was about. Mr Stefaniak even said that the proposal was canvassed in the Canberra Times. The Canberra Times article saying that there was going to be a move to the school was the first thing that set the alarm bells going and totally upset the school community, but then that was pulled back from.

Mr Kaine also said that it was inappropriate for us to put this censure motion up because the Ombudsman had made recommendations and we had to sit back and wait to see what the Government would do with them. The Ombudsman did not only make recommendations. The Ombudsman made very strong statements saying that the administrative procedures in the department were bad, that record keeping was not good and that there was a misleading of the community and the Assembly on this matter. They are very clear statements. What happens to the credibility of this place if once again we sit back and we say, "Oh, someone was a bit bad, but we will give them a chance to do the right thing. Mr Stefaniak misled before, but then we had an inquiry instead."? Where is the credibility of this place? This is not acceptable behaviour. I am sorry if you really believe that it is. It is no wonder that people are so cynical about how politicians conduct their activities.

The Social Policy Committee did address the issues that have been raised in this debate. I am sorry that I have not seen as much attention given in other debates in this place to what the Social Policy Committee recommended. The issues that we were concerned about seem to have got more attention here than they have in any other debates.

Mr Kaine said this motion would leave a sour taste in the mouths of a few people here but achieve nothing else. I think it has left a sour taste in the mouths of a lot of people in the community, Mr Kaine. That is why I raised this motion. I believe it is extremely important that the people in the community see that most members of this place do not find it acceptable that such poor processes have been carried out in our community.

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