Page 3940 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The minister has put out there that the only responsible course for the government, when faced with the declining enrolments, was to close a lot of schools. That is the view that the minister has put out there. Either there was some dramatic shift between May 2005 and the budget—and I fail to see where that dramatic shift occurred; I would be very surprised if the minister were able to present us with some compelling data that showed a dramatic shift in forecasts during that time—or what the minister is saying is that the government previously was hiding its true intentions or was simply not up to it, was simply not up to the task that the minister has taken on himself. There are no other scenarios here. There are no other possible answers to this question. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.00): It is obvious that this topic is still alive and well and still a matter of great concern to large portions of our community, and we know that at the moment the communities are anxiously waiting for the result of the Purdon consultation on the future of closed school sites. This is another decision that the government will be making quite soon, and I am quite sure that will bring it under a lot of heat and fire from the community.
Today I was not given leave to make a statement in addition to the petition that I had tabled in relation to the Rivett school. It is insulting to a community that had public meetings, got together a petition, and then to have that petition tabled and basically to fall into a black hole, or is that what the government would have wanted? I want to briefly speak to that petition. Rivett, of course, was a school that was closed some years ago—erroneously, I have heard it said by people in the department, in terms of its location—and therefore the community has already seen the impact of the closure of a school, not to mention that it has gone into the next stage of becoming a community facility.
Purdon started doing a consultation on that school site and then abandoned it because it said basically this was a waste of time because this school site will be sold anyway. In response, the Rivett residents got together, had a meeting and said, “We do not want this sold. This is a really important community facility. A lot happens here that benefits our community now, and we want it to continue to happen. We also believe that the gym and the recreational facilities are going to be important for our children into the future.” They fear that they are being turned into just a dormitory suburb to add to the numbers at other schools.
These issues will not go away when the decisions are made by the government about the future of those school sites because people see those sites as theirs. They are willing to make compromises, but they want to hang onto them for their community facilities. They know that learning does not stop when you finish school and they want the opportunity for those schools to open again. That is what they do not want to close down.
To attend to the issue in question and to respond to Mr Barr’s amendment, I would have supported Mrs Dunne’s motion. What has happened, of course, is that we have now got something mealy-mouthed and you look pretty weird if you do not support it, but all it says is, “It is good we are spending money,” and so on. Of course it is good that we are spending money, but it is how the money is spent that is at issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .