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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2992 ..

That the report be noted.

MR CORNWELL (10.40): I am disappointed with this report, Mr Speaker. Apart from, I believe, exceeding its terms of reference, I find it irresponsible in that, without providing costings, it makes 12 recommendations relating to government spending. This is something that has concerned me for some time. Committees bring down reports without any concern for how much it may cost the government and therefore the community, and I really think it is about time that we took this into account. May I say, Mr Speaker, that I make the same complaints in my own committee.

I find this report impractical because it wants to control what I see as lawful advertising and the sale of alcohol at public events. It even wants to restrict cars around schools. I find the report intrusive in that it takes away from parents their own responsibilities in relation to safer sex information and, of course, it makes the headline grabbing recommendation of the provision of condom vending machines in schools.

I also think the report is rather unrealistic. We have recommendations for the control of canteen food. My understanding is that many canteens already take a responsible attitude to the provision of food. I can only assume that the vegans are coming. The report also brings up something called a universal breakfast, which I presume will have to be available to all students, otherwise either those eating it or those not eating it will feel discriminated against. On the same grounds-that is, that some children go to school without an adequate breakfast-are we going to address lunch and perhaps dinner? I don't know. How many students don't have lunch? How many students don't have dinner? Is that the responsibility of schools; indeed, is it the responsibility of government; or is it perhaps the responsibility of parents?

After I had recovered from my initial surprise on reading some of these recommendations, I sat down and tried to analyse just what this was all about and I realised I had misunderstood the intent of this very detailed report. It is in fact a blueprint for a brave new world, where parents have very little say in their children's upbringing; where food, drink, sex education, physical fitness, safety and guiding philosophies are mapped out and provided to the child by a benevolent school system.

Naturally there might be a few difficulties, Mr Speaker, though these are not identified. One of them, however, would certainly be the reaction of adults to this approach-one could say even a Mother Grundyish approach. An example would be the restricted use of alcohol at all public events, which is outlined at recommendation 4.158(e). I wonder what old diggers on Anzac Day would think about all this?

Another example is the ban on cars being driven in and around school zones. Apart from the convenience of being able to drop off out-of-area children-and I suppose this ban could be interpreted as an attack on the non-government school sector-there is, of course, a safety aspect. Many parents prefer to drive their children to school. They are not game to allow them to walk or to ride to school on public transport because there are too many nasty people out there. They are concerned about the safety of their children, and I think that is a reasonable concern in this day and age. Certainly it is a justifiable concern because, even in the event that some of these nasties are apprehended, the courts seem to hand out very little punishment.

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