Page 1862 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
do we provide education. It will not be about where should we spend this money. It will not be about the new schools. It will be about individual consultation processes, and nothing will change.
In three years time we will not have a public education system that parents will want to send their children to as the first point of beginning their education. It simply will not be the case, because our schools need this change. They need to be modernised, and we need to push forward with a program that supports that in consultation with the community, as outlined by the minister.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.25), in reply: Before I launch into my speech, I put one thing on the record and correct the record. A number of weeks ago when I announced that I was going to move further amendments to the Education Act I put out a press release that my amendments today, which were essentially an adjunct, a schedule, to the Education Bill had been a disallowable instrument under the previous Education Act. Some very eagle-eyed people in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel contacted me to say that I had made a mistake in my media release and, in fact, it was not a disallowable instrument in the previous legislation; it was a notifiable instrument. I put on the record that I made a mistake. I thank the staff of OPC for being so on the ball and point out to them that it is the service that I have always come to expect from OPC.
We are having a cognate debate today on this matter really because it boils down to the fact that the Stanhope government and successive ministers for education have been brought kicking and screaming to make some concessions on consultation. I put on the record today that most of what Ms Gallagher has said is interesting and worth debate, but it was not an appropriate place to have the debate today.
Today we are debating two bills, the Education Amendment Bill and the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). These two bills are about consultation. If we want to talk about Mr Barr’s towards 2020 plan, we can do that in the budget reply tomorrow and at various other stages. That is where that principally should be.
But we have to put it on the record here that these responses in my bill are not brought about by the moves of the current minister to have a debate about the future of public education; they have been brought about by the complete misleading of this community by the previous minister. We saw the long litany of untruths peddled by the Stanhope government. We had the famous statement: “‘The government will not be closing schools,’ a spokesman said.” At no stage did any spokesman for the government, any other spokesman for the minister, the minister herself or the Chief Minister ever come out and say, “Our spokesman really overstepped the mark when he said that. It is not true. We are keeping our options open.”
At no stage was this person quoted as saying, “We do not envisage closing any schools. We do not have any current plans for schools.” What he said was: “The government will not be closing schools.” And that position was never gainsaid by any minister in this place. It is quite clear that the government intended to say one thing before we went to the last election and then go off and do something else.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .