Page 1833 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
was fond of quoting the term “blazer schools”, although he was modest enough to admit it was not an original line. But it summed up nicely his and possibly the Labor Party’s attitude. But I digress.
In the Canberra Times article, Dr Bourke went on to suggest that programs and initiatives that were announced last year, such as the government excellence and enterprise policy, were targeted at somehow beating the non-government schools. Surely a more appropriate statement might have been to reflect positively on the growth in the ACT education sector across all schools, public, Catholic and independent. Even the Canberra Times editorial a day later pulled him up, pointing out his interpretation of the numbers was, for a start, incorrect and, secondly, suggesting that Canberra’s position as Australia’s most affluent city was far more likely to influence the high level of non-government school enrolments than any government effort or lack thereof, as it went on to say.
Given the treatment that the ACT Catholic Education Office was given over development of the new Catholic college in Gungahlin, I can well believe the minister does not believe he has much, if any, responsibility to or for the Catholic or, indeed, the entire non-government education sector. Just as it was known that there needed to be a government secondary college in Gungahlin, it was also well known there was a shortage of places in Catholic secondary schools for families from the Gungahlin area. Catholic schools in the area on the north side already have high enrolments and the expansion of the suburbs in Gungahlin exacerbated this shortage.
For most of 2010 and 2011, the Catholic Education Office was in discussion with the ACT government to build a Catholic secondary college in the Gungahlin area. During those discussions, they were given firm indications that land would be set aside for a school in the area of Throsby. They were told they would receive a final decision by mid-2011. They did their due diligence and they tested community support. A community meeting in Gungahlin in November 2010 attracted over 300 people from the community. In fact, Mr Seselja, Mr Hanson and I also attended that meeting.
The Catholic Education Office was encouraged by Land and Property Services that the Throsby site would be made available to them by September 2011. Given that date, the Catholic Education Office advised parents that the new school would be able to receive students by 2013. Then parents no doubt made plans based on that knowledge. In fact, more than 500 intentions to enrol were submitted by parents at a second community gathering on 8 September 2011.
What were the government doing? “Prevaricating” is the polite description, and their explanations were plain obfuscation. Those two words, “prevarication” and “obfuscation”, are becoming synonymous with the modus operandi of this government. They did not submit the necessary applications for an environmental assessment in any timely manner. Because the proposed area included patches of yellow box and red gum, superb parrots, golden sun moth and striped legless lizard—all familiar thanks to environmental applications—the development required federal government approval. That requirement is well known.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video