Page 2288 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
demonstrating and visibly upset outside their schools is not something that we should see again.
A major concern through 2006 was the lack of consultation before the decision was taken. This bill requires the government to raise the issue with the school community before any decision is made. They must make an attempt to address any issues with the school’s performance and consider alternatives to closure or amalgamation. I mentioned in my tabling speech in 2008 that in 2006 school communities were left pretty bitter that important and well-researched alternative administration models and other models were seemingly dismissed out of hand.
The bill clearly sets out the importance of considering the educational, social, environmental and economic impacts of any possible closure or amalgamation. There is a long list and at the top it says what must be included in this process. I am not sure what the Liberals do not get about the word “must” but we will move on.
In 2008, when I tabled the bill, I undertook to work on the changes, continue consultation and seek feedback before finalising debate on the bill. Indeed much consultation has taken place and I have kept both the Liberal and Labor parties up to date on the development of amendments to this bill. I will be moving these amendments a little later, in the detail stage. The bill, together with amendments, will go a long way towards ensuring due process is followed in relation to proposed closure or amalgamation of schools in the future.
The Assembly committee inquiry considered the bill and sought views on how effective it would be in achieving the objective of improving consultation, ensuring the processes would be open, equitable, respectful and transparent. The committee had some concerns with the extended timetable that the bill proposed. We were originally proposing 18 months. We have sought advice on this and, in line with the committee’s recommendation, we will be seeking in our additional amendments to limit to 12 months the total period involved in any amalgamation or closure.
Overall the committee found that there was support for the amendments proposed, in particular the need for consultation on changes of this magnitude to be taken to the people as election policy rather than have them imposed on the community, as they were after the election in 2006. I think all in the community recognised that, irrespective of what you think of the outcomes, whatever your views on the respective merits of each of the closure decisions, the process that was undertaken to arrive at the outcomes was less than optimal. This bill seeks to address that and ensure that there is a proper process so that even if people disagree with the outcome they can logically and clearly, having had the opportunity to put a different position, understand why the decision has been taken.
Several school communities felt in 2006 that their efforts to present a range of viable alternatives in relation to their proposed school closure fell on deaf ears and appeared to be dismissed. The Assembly inquiry report states on page 3, section 1.15, that at the public hearing a representative from the Flynn Primary School Parents and Citizens Association identified the inquiry as the first opportunity to tell Flynn’s story after two years of trying to challenge the school’s closure. The inquiry report on page 24,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video