Page 2307 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
shop goes. It is a fundamental issue of principle. You allocate education resources to deliver the best education outcomes. If there is a positive externality to the lolly shop provider and the corner store, that is fine, but I do not think that you should be making that an explicit determinant of the location of an education facility. That appears to be a bridge too far in terms of the provision of government service. I note that we are certainly not requiring it in other areas of service provision. We do not choose to locate other facilities with a view specifically to their impact on local business.
I repeat—before I get verballed by those on the other side—that I am not suggesting that there are not externalities, that there are not benefits from the local shop being located next to the school. Clearly, there are, but I just do not believe it can be a determining factor in government policy provision in this area. Taking that to its logical conclusion, effectively there would almost be a requirement that we have to create a level playing field and that we have to locate a school next to every corner store to ensure that there is even competition in the provision of education services. It is the government’s view that, as a matter of principle, this should not be explicitly required in this legislation. Again, I repeat that I am not suggesting that there are not externalities and positive externalities that accrue to local business by being located close to a school. But not every local business will be or should be located next to a school.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.55): The second of the government’s amendments limits the scope of the consideration and the ACT Greens will not be supporting it. No one factor determines whether or not a school should be closed. They all contribute to the picture and facilitate a better understanding the minister must have. No-one is suggesting that this factor alone should determine the outcome. We have a number of diverse communities within the broader community. We should have the foresight to allow for all manner of community circumstances and not preclude ourselves from what may be relevant information.
No-one is suggesting that if you have a poorly performing school with relatively few students that requires an unreasonable allocation of funds to achieve the desired education standard the fact that the school closure would have a negative impact on the local corner store would prevent the government from closing the school. You would be looking at all the information before you. I refer the minister to the committee report and again emphasise the need to take into account the full spectrum of factors and recognise the contribution that schools make to our community, to their neighbourhoods. That is why we will not be supporting this amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.56): The Canberra Liberals had not intended to comment much on the government’s amendments, but this one is a standout. I congratulate Mr Barr on being consistent. He has consistently said from the beginning of the Towards 2020 process that his job was not to prop up local business, as he put it. I recall the night of the very first consultation meeting when he was asked directly by Hall residents—
Mr Barr: Would I keep the school open but save the school.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video