Page 2515 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 23 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
position we have heard from the Liberal Party in this debate is that they do not actually have a problem with school closures; they just have a problem with these school closures. The question I have to put to the opposition and to those that support this motion today is: when do you support the need to reform our public education system?
At the moment, 30 per cent of our public education system is underutilised, 30 per cent of the capacity is not being used. When do you decide that enough is enough? Is it when it is 40 per cent of the public education system that is not being used? Is it 50 per cent? Is it 60 per cent? When do you believe that schools have to close because the system is grossly underutilised? At the moment, only 70 per cent of our public education system is being utilised. Thirty per cent of it sits empty now. Are you going to wait until it is 40 per cent empty, are you going to wait until it is 50 per cent empty or are you going to wait until it is 60 per cent empty before you start taking some decisions to keep the system viable, to keep it alive and, to do more than keep it alive—to allow it to thrive?
That is the challenge that this government has grasped. We have said that having 30 per cent of it not being used, 30 per cent underutilised, approximately 17,000 to 18,000 places not being used, is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. That is not viable. How can we have a system whereby 30 per cent of it is not used but we continue to fund it, we continue to resource it in terms of infrastructure, we continue to have to maintain it? How do we justify that to taxpayers? How do we justify to taxpayers that we fund infrastructure which is underutilised to the level of 30 per cent of the entire system? That is the issue that has to be addressed in this debate.
Mr Speaker, the argument from those opposite is that the time frame is inadequate. Of course, that is an argument about consultation rather than an argument about the issues. It is always much easier in these debates to focus on the process when you know that it is harder to tackle the issue, which is what you would do. How would you respond to this public policy challenge? It is much easier to focus on the process and say that the consultation was not good enough, that the government has not spoken to certain people or that there are issues with detail around the edges. You focus on the periphery. You do not focus on the substantive issue. We know what the substantive issue is. The substantive issue is that 30 per cent of our system is not utilised, is not used. As I say, when do you say that enough is enough? Is that when it is 40 per cent underutilised or when it is 50 per cent underutilised? That is the issue.
Those opposite and those in favour of this motion focus on process. Let’s go to the process issue. The law says what is the consultation period and the law says that it is six months, a minimum of six months. Six months is a significant period. I would put to those opposite that for people who are fundamentally opposed to this decision no period would be long enough. If the government had come out and said that it was a year, the criticism would have been that it needs to be a year and half or two years. At the end of the day, the consultation process will never be good enough for those who are fundamentally opposed to the decision.
We know that there are school communities that want a decision made now. Mr Barr is being told regularly by school communities to give them certainty, tell them what is going to happen. They want to know now. He has to say to them, “I cannot tell you now because the minimum requirement is six months. I cannot tell you until the earliest possible date, which is in December.” That time frame was agreed to by all members of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .