Page 4012 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
guidelines for activities, services and facilities in government schools for which costs and fees can be charged. The bulk of these amendments concern non-government schools and the legislating of requirements for registering additional campuses, consistent with the requirements that presently exist for non-government schools.
In the short time available today, my office has contacted the Catholic Education Office about these amendments, which it had not seen. In the short time available for people in that office to examine them, they could not identify any great concerns, although they had some questions about the expectation that there would always be a pre-existing community at any place where they might consider expanding.
People in the Catholic Education Office expressed surprise that they were not aware that the amendments were in the pipeline. They then wondered why they are being introduced now. It has been suggested to me that there may be a non-government school or two with expansion plans that these amendments are intended to address.
It would seem that the Non-Government School Education Council was also not consulted on these amendments. If that is the case, you have to wonder why the council exists, as its purpose would seem to be precisely in order to act as a key advisory and consultative body.
I cannot see any reason why this government would sit on a piece of legislation for more than six months and then push through a whole raft of amendments at the last minute without showing the courtesy of giving stakeholders or the Assembly reasonable time to assess them. This looks like a government which always thinks it knows best—not the advisory body that has been set up to assist them with decisions and to represent important constituencies affected by those decisions, and not other members of the Assembly. In fact, I think we all know that no-one always knows best. I think we are suffering because the government is not prepared to acknowledge that.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.01): I rise in closing the debate to reiterate that, in relation to the provisions around charging for activities in government schools, having, as I say, reached an agreement with the P&C council following extensive consultation on that issue, we have withdrawn that proposal from this amendment bill. Equally, I reiterate that all we are seeking to do through this amendment is to ensure that the same rules apply for the extension of additional campuses as apply for the registration of new schools or of changing year levels.
There is nothing new in this. The previous act was silent on that point. All we are seeking to do is apply the same provisions that already exist. It is not particularly controversial, in so much as those requirements were already in the legislation. We are just seeking to replicate to ensure that there is no ambiguity at all in relation to that particular issue. That is all the government is seeking to do.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.02): If all the government wants to do is ensure that there is no ambiguity, this minister or his officials should be in touch with the Catholic Education Office and the Independent Schools Association and do them the courtesy that is required by civilised behaviour. We will come back here on Thursday and debate this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .