Page 3255 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This bill, which I will support, would put into effect the presumed good process that we had thought would occur when school closures and reorganisations were on the table. It articulates a consultation process which reflects the agreements of the Labor Party, the crossbench and the P&C made prior to the 2004 election. It will put into place a protocol which would ensure school communities are not simply consulted over proposed changes or told about proposed changes to their schools or the education system but that they become partners in the dialogue.
The government is keen to remind us that it is following the legislative consultation process that we agreed to earlier this year. That would be a really good point to make if this were a high school debate. However, a lot more hangs on this than just winning a debate. The legislation requires six months consultation, and six months consultation is all that will happen.
Consultation is not defined. Everyone knows—maybe everyone does not know—about the ladder of consultation. In community development we learn about the ladder of consultation, which starts off with a paper that people are asked to provide written comments on and ends up with something more that we would like to see, which is a dialogue or partnership model of consultation. We are right down at the bottom of the ladder with this one.
It is always worth remembering that there are other governments that take this process of consultation more seriously. Perhaps they have learned that communities who are involved in outcomes own those outcomes and that there is more likelihood that the implementation will be followed through.
Let us face it: we are talking about schools. There are a lot of players here. There is not just the government; there are the teachers. I believe the teachers have been told to shut up and keep out of this process. There are also the parents and the children. There are a lot of people involved here.
The preschool society has argued that it is quite prepared to work with the government’s general 2020 policy, but it simply cannot deal constructively or effectively with the plan to close so many preschools from the start of next year. That timing is a real problem to the preschools. I am sure that has been rehearsed with Mr Barr. I hope that he has worked a way around it because it is a real problem. I am not putting it up as a straw man. It is a real problem. If the government does not deal with that one, then I would not have much hope for the rest of its decisions.
I was pleased to hear from Mr Corbell about actual research which would be taken into account in a thorough cost-benefit analysis. It is serendipitous that it has turned up now, but it certainly suits the government’s agenda. That is why we are hearing about it. Nonetheless, whether it suits the government’s agenda or whether it suited the agenda I would obviously be choosing does not matter because it is hard data. That is what we need and that is what we lack in this debate.
My original motion sought, as this legislation does, an opportunity to provide data such as that. I am not sure whether the particular official was talking about schools—and I am not sure until I read it how well it applies to this debate—but it is really interesting and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .