Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Buying or selling? Get the right advice

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, or connect with
34 Responses to
Private school laws introduced 2 days before Closures announced
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
nyssa76 9:21 am 22 Dec 06

OV, no it wasn’t to clarify re: new campus/new school.

It was already well known in ACTDET that a new campus was not subject to the same “conditions” as the original campus had met all requirements. The rejigging was to make the “new campus” jump through all the hoops and thus duplicate unncessary paperwork. All Non-Govt schools are subject to Govt approval – its a given – but new campuses are an addendum to an existing approved Non-Govt school i.e. Mackillop College.

Yes there was a need to check for OH&S etc but it didn’t have to meet all the criteria i.e. curriculum, staffing as it had previously met those conditions with the 1st campus’ original application.

Regular registration of those schools requires a WHOLE school approach – both campuses working together.

OneVoice 12:19 am 22 Dec 06

Fair cop media baron, it was Nyssa that got it all wrong. Apologies to all innocent parties.

Nyssa, I can tell you that all parties, including the Govt, the CEO and the AIS and the P&C understood that any private school expansion was subject to Ministerial approval- new school, or new campus. A campus was always understood to be a school. The recent change was to clarify that matter.

No one can tell it any other way, and you shouldn’t.

nyssa76 11:05 pm 19 Dec 06

OV, having worked with that section of the Act, and reading the changes, it stipulates the creation of ANOTHER campus of an existing Non-Govt school.

In this case, Tharwa was attempting to take up Blue Gum’s offer to create a Southside campus. They already have 2 in the Northside.

The Minister can now veto the application more easily than before.

FYI, last year there was an application for another Non-Govt school in Tuggers near Covenant College. Other schools in the area could and did argue why because there are so many. It was of a different religious denomination.

Tharwa wouldn’t even dent the numbers in Gordon or Charles Conder, the parents were willing to pay, the current Tharwa site is heritage listed and will just sit there, no impact analysis was ever released and the changes were underhanded.

Fact checking….been there done that, worked with that area to boot.

Don’t blame JB, it is my thread.

johnboy 10:59 pm 19 Dec 06

Fact Check OV???

Where the bloody hell have i failed to check a fact in this story?

Read the byline before bringing me into it.

OneVoice 10:39 pm 19 Dec 06

Hands up! OK, I’m a public ed supporter. This thread is built on JB’s (and others) failure to check the facts. The change to the Education Act went so far as to define a new’campus’ of a non-gov school, as a new school. Nothing more; no new powers for the Ed Minister, no change when it comes to the Govt’s authority over the establishment of ‘new’ non-gov schools. Those rules include: the educational credentials of the applicant, it’s financial viability, whether it has premises, what impact a new school would have on existing (public and non-gov)and whether it can enrol any students.

The CEO (operating schools over 20 plus campuses), along with any existing school would have been able to avoid any controls on expansion unless this ‘loophole’ (if there was any loophole – my reading of the Act doesn’t reveal any ambiguity) was fixed.

Elsewhere on education policy this Govt is seriously #@%^ed, but not on this.

KaneO 9:34 pm 19 Dec 06

The disclaimer was due to the fact that some people have been charged with ‘inciting violence’ offences after making a similar style of comment in online forums. Sad but true. When the bodies pile up, the finger pointing begins.

gurunik 12:32 am 19 Dec 06

i’ll just say (as a fence sitter on this thread), woody, you are the gun. i disagree with you on principle, but you back your shit up (as much as happens on the ‘net’). i tend to agree more with thumpers view that this is sly political bullshit. sometimes the dollars dont equate to the outcome, and it works both ways. sentimental values are worth something, esp. to voting parents, so the rub will come next election.

nyssa76 10:53 pm 18 Dec 06

Pandy, you can find it on the LA site – see the daily notices for the assembly or go to the Save Tharwa School site via SOS.

It’s there. It wasn’t well advertised before the passing and it still isn’t easily accessed (if you don’t know what you are doing).

miz 10:38 pm 18 Dec 06

I’ll believe the new Tuggers school when I see it. 2011??! Huh. They’ll be voted out by then, and I bet it’s not even factored into the finances. It’s a Piecrust Promise, to soften the blow and make the Kambah community less antagonistic for closing the heart of their community down.

Pandy 10:08 pm 18 Dec 06

I dont see a mention of this new rule in the Canberra Times?

nyssa76 3:37 pm 18 Dec 06

True JB, but the LA website doesn’t give you much so if I’d have known earlier I would have let a few people know.

I just think it’s back door handling at it’s worst but the law didn’t need changing as there had never been a complaint about the criteria as a whole before.

johnboy 3:29 pm 18 Dec 06

To be fair Nyssa the legislation would have had to have been tabled before it was passed.

That no-one could be bothered actually scrutinising the legislation is a big, big miss by the Opposition.

nyssa76 3:17 pm 18 Dec 06

Woody, I’m not just talking about the school closures but rather the impact across the entire ACT Govt school system – something I know a lot about.

I’ve already stated in previous threads about said impact – think of throwing a stone into a pond and all the ripples.

Country schools are important. seepi has already asked about the travelling time for Tharwa kids. It’s a joke.

Plus ACTION’s new timetable doesn’t come out until January nor does the new PEAs (Primary Enrolment Areas) which do affect all students who’s schools have closed.

There is a hell of a lot more to this than just the closures and the changing of law (without public notification until after it was approved).

And having worked in the area which registers Non-Govt schools, it was doing fine as it was. There was no need to change the law to reflect the school closures, which is all it did.

No one will gain from this underhandedness.

Now we wait to see how much the land will sell for – if they haven’t sold it already.

seepi 11:59 am 18 Dec 06

You have to admit the timing seems very suss.

And if the bridge isn’t done yet, then how far do they have to drive to get their kids to the nearest school?

I think the govt has messed up on this one. There is a lot of community support for the Tharwa and Hall schools.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site