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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2902 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

decision to relocate SWOW to Dickson was made before the review of SWOW in June 1996, and who also said that this evidence was not congruent with a public statement made by the Minister when he said the decision would be based on the findings of the review, if this is what Mr Stefaniak or this Government calls flexible and responsive consultation, I ask: Responsive to what? Is it the Minister's whim or the department's cost-cutting initiatives? What is it responsive to?

The second recommendation was about resourcing and the status of the board of the so-called relocated or refocused SWOW. I remember that we had a lot of difficulty in getting from the Government whether or not this was a relocation or a closure. I remember asking at question time at least once - I think it was twice - whether it was a closure or a relocation, and there was not a straight answer. Pretty obviously, it was a closure. Once again, in the response the Minister referred to the minority report, suggesting that the same level of resourcing should be given as was given to other schools, even though the two special off-line programs had folded due to resource pressures. Reference was made once to the duty of care issues with respect to younger students, once again not acknowledging that the department themselves had been responsible for referring these younger students to the School Without Walls.

I believe that this has indeed been a sad day for Canberra. I believe that there is a place for alternative education programs, and I am not convinced that that is what is actually happening. There is a sort of program happening at Dickson. I am interested in watching it. I am not going to be totally critical of it, because I do not have information to make me feel very concerned. However, I am concerned because I know that some of those students who were at the School Without Walls are not at that program. They do not feel there is a place for them in Canberra. In my inquiry at the moment into services for young people at risk it is very clear from the submissions that in this community there are groups of young people whom we desperately need to keep in the education system for the sake of their whole lives and for the sake of our society. We see the implications for society when these kids get lost. In fact, the school is the last anchor for a number of them, so it is a really important issue. I would like to know that there is a real commitment from this Government - I am not convinced that there is - to accommodating the needs of those sorts of young people. I think there may well be resource implications; but I believe it would be money well spent, because the costs are much greater in the long run if you do not keep these young people in the system and in society in a positive and supportive environment.

I hope that some lessons will be learnt from this whole process. I am appalled at the way the minority report was used, that it existed at all and that untested allegations were made about Ms Reilly. The whole thing was political from the beginning. I think you need to keep that in mind on the Government side of the house when you act in such a self-righteous and appalled way when Mr Berry apparently behaves inappropriately as chair of a committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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