Page 2245 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
same day outlining how the projections were assisting “in planning for and managing” growth in public schools didn’t mention it either. It’s not escaped Steve Doszpot’s attentions, however.
The Opposition education spokesman accused the government of an “outrageous manipulation of data”—
I emphasise that:
to allow it to evade criticism over allowing schools to enrol more students than their mainstream capacity.
The ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Association were concerned about it. The Australian Education Union was also very concerned about it. Returning to the editorial, it goes on to state:
The ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations, meanwhile, has said the change “appears to be a very cynical move” while the Australian Education Union is seeking a briefing from Mr Rattenbury.
They also felt that it was inappropriate to make it look like space for children with special needs should be so callously used to try to underline a shortcoming in their planning process. I return to the editorial.
At the heart of this contretemps is the reality that more and more schools are struggling to deal with expanding enrolments. This is not an unusual occurrence in countries of rapid population growth, as Australia is.
Perversely, overcrowding in Canberra is occurring more often in established suburbs than in the newer suburbs—a result of Labor’s urban infill policies. Garran Primary, for example, is currently at 98.7 per cent of capacity—defined by the Education Directorate as “the total number of students that a school can hold before any additional infrastructure works is required”.
I turn to the crux of the problem. I will use Garran Primary School as a very good example of this whole misunderstanding this minister seems to have. I have not heard Mr Rattenbury describe the effects of densification in the Garran area on Garran Primary School. The information that came to me came from parents, from the principal, from people—sorry, it came from parents, basically; the school body, the P&C and the school board who were concerned about what was happening in their neighbourhood. Complete complexes of townhouses were being built where previously single dwelling houses existed.
It does not matter how much you tinker with the priority enrolment areas that Mr Rattenbury refers to. That will not have any impact on the number of people within the area because they are already in the area. It is part of the government’s policies to push this densification in all of our inner suburbs.
The same problem is going to occur in Red Hill should the government’s plans go ahead with the densification around the Red Hill shops. Red Hill Primary is just across the way. If you put another 500 to 1,000 people into that area, as currently are the plans, there are going to be huge problems.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video