Page 1863 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One of the minister’s officials, when the Education Act came into effect back in January last year, sat in my office and, when I specifically asked him about these guidelines, as they existed, and whether they would be incorporated into the new legislation, he said they probably would be at some stage but there was no hurry because we were not closing schools. That lie was perpetuated in my office by the minister’s staff. That was the same piece of information that was given to the Parents and Citizens Association when they asked exactly the same question because they were concerned about the lack of guidelines on consultation.
While we are on the subject of the Parents and Citizens Association, I read into Hansard a copy of a letter that I received this morning which was addressed to Mr Barr on these amendments that we are discussing today. It says:
On behalf of the P&C Council, I am writing as a matter of urgency in relation to your proposed amendments to Section 20 of the Education Act 2004 relating to school closures and amalgamations.
There is a general discussion about how the P&C council had met with Mr Berry and had seen the amendments. It goes on:
I wish to clearly state that these amendments are not acceptable to the P&C Council. We strongly oppose any amendments that would further weaken existing community consultation processes. The amendments do not give adequate clarity to the community about the consultation processes to be followed.
One of the concerns we have with the proposed amendments is the assumption that there must already be a proposal for closure on the table before school communities are consulted. Council’s strong view is that any consultation process should begin by alerting school communities to “a problem” … or any other pre-determined criterion, and then give them an opportunity to consider ways of addressing the problem and proposed solutions. It is often the case that those most affected are in the best position to come up with innovative solutions that will meet their specific needs and circumstances.
As Mr Stefaniak has already pointed out, these guidelines have already stood the test. They have done that in the case of the Mount Rogers proposal. They were used in relation to Rivett and Duffy. That did not proceed but there was a process. It was clear and open and people understood the process. When people decided to walk away from that process, it was done with good grace.
The Parents and Citizens Association goes on at great length to tell the minister—and the minister knows this, but I should share it with the Assembly at large—its concerns about the proposal as put forward by Mr Barr. I conclude the quote with the conclusion that the parents and citizens council makes in regard to the general process of consultation:
… P&C Council supports, as a minimum, the consultation guidelines on school closures proposed by Vicki Dunne MLA in the Education Amendment Bill 2005. These guidelines were developed after previous discussions of school closures led to widespread dissatisfaction with government proposal and were agreed after extensive consultation with all stakeholders, and represent best practice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .