Page 3259 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At the heart of this issue is the desire to do so as quickly as they can so that their broken promise of the last election may be forgotten by the time of the next election. That is what we are talking about today. The rush is about the election. We hear Mr Barr and other members of the government consistently speaking about consultation, but there is no better consultation than an election. That is the ultimate consultation.
Mr Barr: Why vote for this bill then if you are happy to have that?
MR SESELJA: The point is that at the last election they could have consulted in a genuine way and given the community a chance not to vote for them on the basis of this policy, but they did not. They decided that they would have their consultation process after the election, that they would go through the motions, as required under the act, and then at the end of that they would make the decision that they were going to make anyway; that is, that they would make the decision that they did not have the courage to tell the people of the ACT about prior to the election, an election at which they received a majority, the first majority, which was based in part on the promise not to close schools. They are not keeping that promise and they have failed the ultimate test of consultation, which is one of being open and honest with the electorate and telling them what you are planning to do if they choose to elect you.
Mr Speaker, the moratorium goes to the rushing of this process. It has been a rushed process from the start. That is why Mrs Dunne has moved for a moratorium. Of course, it is a moratorium that was supported by the majority, I believe, of caucus. It certainly was not opposed by the majority. I think four or five supported it. There might have been an abstention; the Chief Minister might have abstained. We will give him the benefit of the doubt. Certainly, several members of caucus actually supported the moratorium.
In relation to the review of all decisions to close schools, I think there is one very good reason that the government do not want to support that. I have heard their arguments, but there is one very important reason. They would have to justify each closure and that would actually bring them to account for this hasty decision that they have made whereby, essentially, they have just cast an eye over a map of the ACT, looked at the enrolments, had a vague cut-off point and said, “These are the schools that are going to close.”
There has been no rigorous analysis. There has been no cost-benefit analysis, as we have heard, nor will there be. If they have to justify the decision, they might have to make arguments as to why they have to close each school, rather than talking in broad terms as to why they are going to close schools, and they would be held to account much more directly for their decisions. But it has been a hasty decision and we know why it has been hasty. It has been hasty purely for political purposes. If there were a genuine commitment to reforming the education system in the ACT, if there were a genuine commitment to policy development which had positive outcomes for the people of the ACT in relation to public education, surely they would not be rushing the process. Surely the new minister would not come in and be looking to close schools just a couple of months into the job. If you were serious about it, you would actually take your time, you would think about it and you would put out a reasoned argument rather than the cobbled-together policy that is 2020.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .