Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Allbids online auctions - awesome bargains everyday

Private school laws introduced 2 days before Closures announced

By nyssa76 - 17 December 2006 34

Last Tuesday, according to the ABC website, the ACT Govt rejigged current laws required to create private schools within the ACT.

Tharwa parents had attempted to start a private version of the school, however, under these new laws it is almost impossible as Barr can veto the school application. Before it was the ACTDET who could veto but had a large criteria to address.

Please note that it was made known 3 days after the school closures and not before or when the school closures announcements were made.

It’s obvious the parents of Tharwa want their school open and are willing to pay to keep it open. So what’s wrong with the ACT Govt? Or are they worried the 25 or so students who attend will make a negative impact on the enrolments for Gordon or Charles Conder Primary?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
34 Responses to
Private school laws introduced 2 days before Closures announced
1
cranky 3:38 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Can Barr explain how this benefits the ACT? Prima facia it is an act of pure bastardry.

Report this comment

2
Big Al 3:48 pm
17 Dec 06
#

I haven’t had a lot of time for the Save Our Schools lobby but I have to admit – this latest twist is a bit rich and seems entirely designed to stop the community from proving the Standope government wrong on the issue of small school sustainability – after all its pretty hard for Carr to sell the Governments toss-fest about dwindling numbers and unsustainability when a bunch of mums and dads out in Tharwa make a viable go of independent education.

Report this comment

3
Thumper 3:53 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Does this Tharwa vendetta have anything to do with Val Jeffery’s criticism of Stanhope after the 2003 fires?

Absolutely disgraceful. This government has gone beyond arrogance and appear to do anythign they want with impunity. The public no longer seems to matter to them one iota.

Disgraceful.

Report this comment

4
Big Al 4:25 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Thumper, it’s interetsing that you raise the vendetta issue. I’ve heard that from a number of sources. It wouldn’t surprise me. For all the grandstanding and shit, Standope has basically given up on worrying about what the electorate thinks.

Report this comment

5
swissbignose 5:21 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Am I missing something?

Just because someone has the right to veto, doesn’t mean that they will veto.

Report this comment

6
cranky 6:12 pm
17 Dec 06
#

When politicians (mis)use their power to change laws, enabling them to veto a proposal which could pose a political embarassment, we don’t really have to question whether the veto will be used. Unbelievable arrogance!

Report this comment

7
nyssa76 6:24 pm
17 Dec 06
#

If this law wasn’t in effect, I’m sure that other smaller schools would have also tried.

It’s a bloody joke and Barr & Co should be bloody ashamed of themselves.

Report this comment

8
KaneO 6:47 pm
17 Dec 06
#

It’s a shame we have no guns, and no grassy knolls.
Even our book repository has been sold. ;->

That’s a joke. I don’t support political change thru acts of violence, regardless of whether its Al-Q or Bush doing it.

Report this comment

9
shauno 7:36 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Unless its a guy like Hitler then of course from our pint of view it would be ok to assinate him. However if you were a German at the time of Hitlers rain then of course you would get the same reaction from people in the 3rd reich as you would wanting to assisinate stanhope.

This is all just hypothetical stuff read Jeffrey Robinson so you can see that your statement ” I don’t support political change thru acts of violence, regardless of whether its Al-Q or Bush doing it.” I generally agree but history has shown that its some times necessary.

Report this comment

10
johnboy 8:37 pm
17 Dec 06
#

As long as we get to vote in 2008 we can’t complain.

That we would have got to vote in 2007 if Brendan Smyth wasn’t a gutless fool is something we all need to bear in mind.

Report this comment

11
Woody Mann-Caruso 9:39 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Oh noes. You mean a member of the legislature and the executive – somebody who, unlike public servants, is directly accountable to the public through the election process – now has a veto power over matters that lie completely within his portfolio responsibilities, instead of passing the buck to his department? It was much better when there were complicated criteria to be considered by nameless, faceless civil servants who answered to nobody.

Report this comment

12
Woody Mann-Caruso 9:43 pm
17 Dec 06
#

And there’s a big difference between deposing the head of a sovereign state upon which you have declared war and using violence as a means of overthrowing your domestic democratically-elected government.

Report this comment

13
miz 9:54 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Yet they get indignant when the Feds veto local legislation! Hypocrites.
I agree with Thumper that the timing of this is indicative of a vendetta.

Report this comment

14
nyssa76 9:54 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Woody, it was underhanded.

Face it.

Why rejig the law at all? Barr knew people would try to keep the schools open as a private version.

It’s called cutting people off at the knees.

It’s obvious that this Govt doesn’t give a shit about the parents and students, not to mention teachers, of the ACT.

Report this comment

15
miz 9:57 pm
17 Dec 06
#

Their shamelessness knows no bounds.

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site