Page 4185 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This minister has presided over a policy disaster. Now, at the end of the whole process, he has decided that he needs to cover his tracks by investing $100,000 in advertising to cover the fact that, firstly, the government lied about the fact that they would not close schools and, secondly, that they lied about consulting with people. The government has continued not to pay any attention to the needs of people. I ask you, Mr Speaker: does this make Minister Barr the Dr Goebbels of the Stanhope government? I suspect that it does, and that is why this minister should be censured.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Industrial Relations) (3.26): Surprise, surprise! First of all, I acknowledge that it is a rite of passage for a minister to be censured by this mob. Seemingly you have not made it in this place until you have been the subject of a ridiculous censure motion moved by the Liberal opposition.
Let us begin where Mrs Dunne left off, at Kambah high school. I did not get the opportunity to finish my answer to Mr Gentleman. But it is interesting that George Palavestra, the principal of Kambah high school, does not agree with Mrs Dunne. I have met with Mr Palavestra on a number of occasions regarding education provision in Tuggeranong. He says that the facilities at Kambah are at the end of their life cycle and that he is “very enthused” about the wonderful facilities planned for the new school. He says the opportunities for students in Tuggeranong as a result of this decision “far outweigh the disadvantages in the long term” and that he is “very, very optimistic”. That is what the principal of Kambah high had to say.
At the beginning of this debate I was accused of putting forward a fait accompli. I go out and consult over six months, undertake more than 100 school visits, participate personally in more than 200 meetings, with officers of my department participating in a further 500 meetings, take extensive community feedback, modify the proposal based upon that—
Dr Foskey: You have not told us on what basis.
MR BARR: community feedback and we are accused—
Ms Porter: Of listening.
MR BARR: Indeed. The accusation here is that effectively we have listened to the community. Yes, we have. I confess. For the benefit of Dr Foskey, I listened to the community and I responded and modified the proposal accordingly.
Mr Stanhope: Shock, horror!
MR BARR: Shock, horror! Throughout this debate you guys said it was a fait accompli. We have responded to the community. There are countless examples of that in the consultation report. Mrs Dunne wants to know where the idea for the P-2 model came from. In consultation, the Canberra Preschool Society and the primary principals association suggested that the best model for early childhood would be P-2. We
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .