Page 1850 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Schools have potential to do a lot more in terms of community development. They can, for instance, produce newsletters. Students, through their curriculum, can do historical studies and they can work with elderly and more isolated people in their communities. There is huge potential for local schools. Schools can be much more than places where we learn to read and write. I believe they should be. Consequently, the government’s plan to close 39 schools is something that must be done with very firm principles of community consultation. They must also go to experts and seek a social and cultural analysis.
While I believe consultation with communities is absolutely essential, most of our parents are not anthropologists; they are not sociologists; they are not people who have the history of their community at their fingertips. That is why I am saying we need to look a little bit further than the communities as well so that that consultation starts from a good information base. If the government proceed to make school closure decisions based on enrolment numbers, they are definitely selling their communities short.
The reason that I support Mrs Dunne’s bill is that it puts in place what I believe the community thought was the intent of the Education Act 2004. Shortly before the Education Bill was debated in 2004, a member of Kerrie Tucker’s staff raised the parents and citizens’ concerns that the consultation process on the possible closure of government schools was inadequate, as it was described in the Education Bill 2003.
While resisting the eventual inclusion of a six-month minimum consultation period, the response from ministerial and departmental staff was that six months was nowhere near as long as they would take in reality and, of course, the community would be consulted before such a decision was made. Mrs Dunne’s amendment to that act more clearly expresses the stated intention of the time. Since then we have had what I can only call the Ginninderra high school consultation farce.
Ms Gallagher: That is rubbish.
DR FOSKEY: I am sorry, I am expressing my view here. It is a view that is informed by members of the community. You are very welcome to have a different view. It is concerning that the ex-minister for education should interject. She knows that I have never criticised the decision that was made. I have criticised the way the decision was made. They are the terms in which I am speaking today.
I note that Mr Barr gave a commitment in his first question time as a minister that he would work with and consult school communities, particularly those that might be deemed at risk of closure, on the educational, financial and social impact of closing schools before the government takes any decision to close them. I can only assume then that the ACT government would have supported that bill.
Now we have got another bill on the table before us which might be better on some fronts. Given that the ACT government’s 2020 paper, which by the way was not made available to members of the Assembly before it was made available to the media, would seem to have made a number of decisions on the schools it is already committed to closing, I wonder how this commitment to authentic consultation, as it is defined in both bills before us, can possibly be realised.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .