The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.18 a.m]: I move:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE, and in particular:

Page 1570

(a) the process by which the Department of Education and Training resolved to close the TAFE,

(b) the social, financial and community impact on the Manly Warringah region, and

(c) any other relevant issues with regard to the closure of Seaforth TAFE raised in submissions received by the committee.

2. That the committee report by Thursday 25 November 1999.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to place the facts relating to the closure of Seaforth TAFE on the record. I ask the House to endorse the referral of the closure of Seaforth TAFE to General Purposes Standing Committee No. 1. The terms of my motion require that the process of closure be examined by the committee and that the social, community and financial impact on the northern beaches region be examined, together with other issues that may arise out of submissions received by the committee.

A number of matters need to be brought to the attention of the House. The first is whether the decision to close Seaforth TAFE is, as I will contend, a broken promise. In November of last year the Carr Government gave the people of the northern beaches region a clear commitment that Seaforth TAFE would not be closed. Indeed, that commitment was reiterated in the Manly Daily of 18 November and the Northern Beaches Weekender of 20 November. The commitment could not have been any more clear. In the Manly Daily of 18 November the deputy-director of the Northern Sydney Institute is quoted as saying:

There is no proposal for the closure of Seaforth.

The deputy-director said:

If the Government was planning to sell off Seaforth that would have to be three to five years in the planning so we could make alternative plans to accommodate students.

Either the planning process has not taken three to five years or the Government has deliberately misled the people of the Manly and northern beaches region. Although the Government gave a commitment in November last year, in August this year it made a clear announcement that it would close Seaforth TAFE at the end of the 1999 academic year and require all of the 1,800 students to be relocated to other sites. The process to close Seaforth TAFE has not been three to five years in the planning but has been driven by the Government’s cuts to the TAFE budget. It is important that we analyse the process. As the Government gave a commitment last year that it would need three to five years to close this significant TAFE college and a few months later it announced that the TAFE would close at the end of the 1999 academic year, the process needs to be examined. But we need to go further.

Honourable members will recall that when we debated the St George campus bill one of the Carr Government’s main arguments was that a review of the education needs of southern Sydney highlighted the importance of retaining the Oatley campus for public education purposes. In particular, the Government used as a reason for retaining the Oatley campus the fact that the campus could be used for TAFE and adult education. In other words, as the Government had conducted a review and drawn a conclusion, the House should agree to retain the Oatley campus for public education, including adult education and TAFE facilities. If the rationale was good enough for the Government in that context, it should apply the same rationale when dealing with Seaforth.

At present the Northern Beaches Secondary Education Review Committee is analysing the future needs of secondary education on the northern beaches. Education on the northern beaches is being reviewed to determine the best structure for secondary education and how to maintain it as a strong, viable and highly competitive force in the region. In fact, the Northern Beaches Secondary Principals Council has set up a consultative committee. The Government undertook an urgent review of the St George campus at Oatley and determined that the campus needed to be retained. However, because of budget imperatives the Carr Government is absolutely determined to close Seaforth, even though a review is under way.

The Government is ignoring the review; it is not even giving the committee an opportunity to complete its review. The closure of Seaforth is not logical or rational. Using its own standards, the Government should under no circumstances attempt to close Seaforth TAFE. It is imperative that this matter be referred to a general purposes standing committee because not only are students having to make other arrangements but work has already commenced at Brookvale TAFE. There is no win-win in this situation. There is no win for the community or the students of Manly. All we have is a Government that is absolutely determined, for its own budget imperatives, to close the TAFE without due regard to the social, community and financial needs of the region.

I shall focus on some of the issues that need to be examined. At the time the Government
Page 1571
announced its decision to close Seaforth TAFE it said that it would be possible to relocate at Brookvale TAFE 1,800 students currently studying at Seaforth TAFE. That is not the situation for all students. While many courses will relocate to Brookvale, up to 500 students are studying courses that will not be relocated.

Although the Government will put its spin on the story by saying that Brookvale is literally up the road and students can travel there by bus in a relatively short time, that does not take account of the fact that almost one-third of the students will not relocate to Brookvale. All Higher School Certificate students and many fine arts students will not be transferred to Brookvale. I want to focus on the fine arts students because they serve as a good example of how the Government has ignored the needs of the community in terms of impact.

The Government has not looked at any alternatives. If this matter is referred to the general purposes standing committee, the committee may be able to make suggestions to the Government in terms of solutions in the Manly region. The fine arts faculty consists of more than 400 students; more than 90 per cent of whom are mature-age female students. Some weeks ago the Special Minister of State, in putting the spin on the closure of Seaforth TAFE, referred to students being transferred to Brookvale, North Sydney and Hornsby. The Minister said, "close by". I then said, "and Meadowbank".

In the briefing note the Minister discovered that Meadowbank was included. I point out that students from Manly must travel on more than one bus to get to Meadowbank. Meadowbank will be a considerable travelling distance for some students. It will involve a number of bus journeys, a combination of bus and train journeys or a combination of ferry, bus and train journeys. Students will have to travel for hours to get to Meadowbank.

Many of the fine arts students will be asked to finish their courses at a campus that is a considerable distance from Seaforth. But it gets worse for these students. The fine arts students currently studying at Seaforth - earlier I said that many of them are mature-age female students - are able to undertake their courses part time. Meadowbank does not offer similar part-time courses. To complete courses at Meadowbank, students will have to study full time, which is not suitable for many of these women. In the decision to close Seaforth TAFE the Government has not given due regard to the needs of all the students.

Up until 12 months ago the students were using rooms at Balgowlah Boys High School annexed to Seaforth TAFE. At the very least the Government should look at alternatives and find an annexe in the Manly region for these students because their education needs cannot be met. They will not have a second chance and they will not have an opportunity to return to the work force if they must travel to Meadowbank to complete some of the fine arts courses.

The other group of people who will be particularly disadvantaged by the relocation are Higher School Certificate [HSC] students. They will not be able to access courses at Brookvale. Under the current proposals HSC courses will not be available on the northern beaches. That will be particularly important not in 2000 but in 2001. Next year the new HSC courses will commence, so for students who finish their HSC next year and decide to repeat it - perhaps because they do not achieve the university admission index mark they want - the only place they will be able to repeat the existing HSC will be at TAFE. But under the Government’s proposal that HSC will not be taught on the northern beaches.

Currently a significant number of students are studying the HSC at Seaforth TAFE. A number of young people have dropped out of school - some have a history of truancy - and found their way to the coastal community at Manly. In seeking a second chance they have gone to Seaforth to do their HSC. From talking to students who have used that facility I know that it has been a very valuable base for them. Had the demand at Seaforth been dropping, there may have been a case for closing the TAFE. But nothing could be further from the truth. The enrolments at Seaforth have increased across a significant range of courses.

For example, in accounting and commerce in 1998 there were 510 students. This year there are 550 students. In fine arts, enrolments have increased from 239 to 304. In marketing, advertising and public relations and real estate, they have gone from 586 to 630. HSC Japanese combinations decreased from 362 to 303 because the loss of some courses at Balgowlah meant it was less convenient for some of the students to attend Seaforth. Seaforth TAFE provides important courses that will not easily be picked up at Brookvale.

There are other significant reasons why it is not appropriate to close one TAFE in the belief that every student will automatically transfer to another TAFE. I said earlier that there are more than 1,800
Page 1572
students at Brookvale. Some may transfer to North Sydney, Meadowbank or Hornsby, so perhaps 1,000 students will have to be relocated to Brookvale. This gives rise to issues involving parking and transport. Brookvale residents are very concerned about the impact of additional students on their streets and their area.

Another group that will be disadvantaged by the proposal is the disabled. There will be some upgrading of block H at Brookvale because it is not wheelchair accessible and does not meet current access standards. People with a disability have written letters to my office and to the Minister saying they will not be able to go to Brookvale as it is at the moment. Seaforth is an appropriate institution and it has wheelchair access.

Many good stories can be told about students with significant disabilities who have completed courses at Seaforth. These are the sorts of issues that the committee needs to examine. It needs to examine the process and the financial impact on the people and businesses of Seaforth. Only a few months notice has been given. People in Seaforth making investment and business decisions are concerned about the closure of the TAFE.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: They need the TAFE to train their workers, if nothing else, in the Brookvale area.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: It is important for the training of workers, but we need to focus on Seaforth. The Government said in the Manly Daily last year and in the Northern Beaches Weekender that three to five years would be needed to close Seaforth TAFE. A business person in Seaforth who made decisions based on that sort of information would make different decisions if he or she knew the TAFE was being closed in December. The Government has given no consideration to these factors.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It has no concern for small business.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The Government is not interested in small business or in the needs of the local community. Relocation of students will have a significant impact on Brookvale and business in the Seaforth region. Numerous small businesses in the area have been given just months to understand the impact of the closure. There will be a significant financial impact and staff will have to be relocated.

The bottom line is that the Government is trying to get out of its budget black hole by closing a TAFE without due consideration of the needs of the local community. It is not a question of closing one TAFE and shifting everything to another one. It is not that easy. Due regard has not been paid to all the concerns. Seaforth is considered to be a much safer area than Brookvale. Perhaps that is why so many mature-age women attend Seaforth.

There is a problem at Brookvale with car parking during the day, and also at night. Many issues have been raised in letters to me. If the motion is passed they will all be considered by the committee. The local community has been given all sorts of information and misinformation by the Government.

Let us see if we can come up with better solutions and overcome some of the problems. Mature-age women students will not easily be able to transfer the courses they are undertaking to Meadowbank, Hornsby or any of the other places that have been suggested. The most compelling reason for the matter being referred to the committee is that the people of the Manly and the northern beaches region were let down and given wrong information by the Government. It is another broken promise.

The Government reviewed the situation at the St George campus and prepared a plan. It found that it needed the campus. The Government should at least allow the northern beaches review to be completed. There should be opportunity for a full assessment of the education needs of the region. I have not found a single person in the Manly and northern beaches region who has anything good to say about the proposal to close Seaforth TAFE.

The community should have the opportunity to make submissions to the parliamentary committee. The Government knows it cannot win seats in the Manly and northern beaches region. It will not win seats while it takes the community for granted, as it has done with this decision. It is compelling that we refer this matter to General Purpose Standing Committee No.1 so that the whole process can be examined. We should work with students and staff to find solutions to their education needs. I urge the House to support the motion.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.39 a.m.]: I wish to move an amendment to the motion, that the reference be to one of the standing committees, but I will do that after referring to some of the matters raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. The House has now considered this matter on at least two or three occasions. Not long ago the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer dealt with the matter
Page 1573
by way of a question asked in this House, and I dealt with the matter in considerable detail in my reply to the debate on the University of New South Wales (St George Campus) Bill. The issues raised by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe are not at variance with the basic tenets of the Government’s decision in relation to the matter, as I will outline.

Much was said by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to whip up this issue on the northern beaches. In effect, the entire issue is predicated upon an inevitable consequence of Federal Government cuts to TAFE in this State. For the clarification of honourable members I will now move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting from paragraph 1 "General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1" and inserting instead "the Standing Committee on State Development".

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Have you talked to Tony Kelly and the committee? There are major responses going on at the moment.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: We have spoken to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, who has indicated that he is quite happy to conduct this reference because it relates to training needs in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You will use your numbers on that committee to bury it. You won’t even turn up at the meetings.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: If this matter is to be examined properly, it should be considered in the context of the needs of the entire training sector and the Federal Government cuts to training in New South Wales. I am sure the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, as deputy chair of the committee, will be more than enthusiastic about contributing to such an inquiry, and I am sure he will not leave one stone unturned in ensuring that the committee is able to conduct this inquiry.

A few things need to be said about the obvious intent by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe not only to whip up this issue on the northern beaches but also to hide the fact that the Federal Government is responsible for the cuts to TAFE in this State. As has been made perfectly clear, there have been considerable cuts to TAFE in this State - in fact, as I will show, in the order of millions of dollars.

Since 1995 the New South Wales Government has increased its funding to TAFE by $53 million, despite the outrageous cuts of the Federal Government. Throughout this period Federal Government cuts to New South Wales have totalled approximately $75 million. Yet the New South Wales Government has been prepared to increase TAFE funding by $53 million.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: This is a joke. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. You don’t support this.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: They are the figures. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti ought to sit back and listen for a few minutes, instead of raving on, as he normally does, without understanding the facts. It is little wonder that, when it came to a vote for the presidency of this House, not every Coalition member voted for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: I voted for him.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: The Hon. D. J. Gay probably voted for him. That would have been under duress, for sure. But I could nominate one or two others who would have chosen to vote for the Hon. Dr. Meredith Burgmann, or indeed Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti continues to interject, perhaps we could detail the votes for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for President of this House. He could not even get the entire vote of his own caucus. In fact, the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti could get only 12 of the 13 votes of his caucus members.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: Point of order: With respect, in examining the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe I can find no reference to voting for the President. I ask that you request the honourable member to return to the matter before the House.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: To the point of order: On many occasions in this House, Presidents have ruled that if the member speaking is provoked by way of interjections ranging over ancillary matters he or she is entitled to reply to the interjections. I am quite happy to return to the substance of the motion, but I am under incredible duress from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who obviously has not taken enough of his sleep-inducing mixtures to calm himself down and afford me the opportunity to deliver my contribution to this House in a calm, intelligent and intellectual way.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: To the point of order: Clearly the Hon. I. M. Macdonald has
Page 1574
nothing relevant to say on this matter; he is simply filling in time. More importantly, he is displaying what everyone knows: that whilst I maintain my integrity, he lost his years ago.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The tradition of the House is that members may reply to interjections. However, I remind the member that the standing orders require that members not be tedious and repetitious.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: I ask the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to withdraw his statement that I lost my integrity years ago. I take great umbrage at that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders provide that members must not reflect on the integrity of other members. However, the comment was made in the cut and thrust of the debate.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: As I was saying, the motion fails to encompass the whole issue: what the Federal Government is doing to TAFE in New South Wales. As a member of the Standing Committee on State Development I look forward to analysing the figures in great detail when the committee conducts this inquiry. I think members will find that the continued economic rationalist policies of the Howard Government lie at the heart of the matter, particularly their impact on TAFE, education and research. Clearly, substantial cuts have been made in the TAFE area.

As I said, despite continued Federal funding cuts there has been an increased demand for enrolments in TAFE New South Wales, from 411,000 in 1995 to more than 445,000 this year. The New South Wales training sector is more competitive than ever, and TAFE New South Wales is determined to reposition itself to ensure its standing as Australia’s pre-eminent training provider. Increased competition and less Federal funding have resulted in budget adjustments which are necessary to improve TAFE New South Wales’s cost competitiveness compared with that of other States and private training providers.

The Seaforth centre was refurbished some 13 years ago, but since then has deteriorated to a stage where an estimated $250,000 has to be spent on the roof, and students have complained about inadequate parking and canteen facilities. The Northern Sydney Institute has reviewed its educational profile and decided to relocate courses from its Seaforth campus to nearby campuses.

[Interruption]

I know it is difficult for the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to travel any distance. People who live on the north shore are close to the city, and they are used to travelling short distances. However, it is absolute nonsense to suggest that students will be greatly inconvenienced by having to travel 3.8 kilometres from Seaforth to the Brookvale campus. I do not think that the people of the western suburbs of Sydney would be impressed by the sorts of distances that citizens who live on the north shore will have to travel to change colleges.

As northern beaches college enrolments have been declining overall, the relocation will improve efficiency and enable the institute to consolidate its educational programs and maximise the number of students actively engaged in vocational programs. These changes will provide better facilities and services for the northern beaches community. Some examples of improvements include the creation of a new engineering skills centre, the establishment of an integrated fine arts facility, better library facilities and services, longer opening hours, the provision of extra car parking spaces for students, increased security, better computing equipment and systems support. These are absolutely fundamental improvements for the overall benefit of students in the area.

A steering group has been established to develop the fine arts centre, in consultation with the fine arts staff. The institute will focus its educational program in fine arts in those areas that lead to employment. Fine arts students will seek to undertake single subjects as enrichment programs and will be able to undertake adult community education programs within the local community. Currently enrolled students will complete their studies in 1999. Continuing students will be advised how best to complete their course.

The institute profile continues to emphasise business studies as an important provision, and as a consequence we will relocate the business studies students from Seaforth to Brookvale, some 3.8 kilometres away. I know it is hard for some people on the north shore to travel 3.8 kilometres to Brookvale. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I, being country people, are used to travelling hundreds of kilometres to attend various meetings and gathering. I do not think the 3.8 kilometre journey from Seaforth to Brookvale is terribly onerous.

The institute also intends to relocate pre-vocational programs to either North Sydney or Brookvale and to relocate fine arts students to Brookvale, subject to consultation with staff and
Page 1575
students, or to give students the option of choosing to be relocated to the National Arts School or to Meadowbank or Hornsby, whichever suits them best. That is the sort of situation that has characterised educational programs in the south-west and west of this city.

In some instances students must travel some distance to attend various educational facilities. I am sure the strong-willed and hardy individuals of the Manly area will be able to cope with the changes. They will see that this is necessary for the overall development and improvement of TAFE in this State. This is at a time when duress is being create by the Federal Government’s attitude to funding.

I must deal with a couple of issues related to the Seaforth TAFE campus. Since 1996 Seaforth has experienced an effective full-time student number decline of 13.8 per cent. There has also been a decline of 3.3 per cent in effective full-time students in the whole of the northern beaches colleges between 1986 and 1999. So this is a matter of declining enrolments, and, in particular, Seaforth has suffered a very significant decline of 13.8 per cent in effective full-time student enrolments.

Enrolments at Seaforth have declined from 2,119 students in 1996 to 1,880 in 1999. That is a decline of 11.2 per cent overall. There has been a slight increase in the enrolments of some fine arts "statement of attainment" courses that cater for the personal enrichment of students. I am not against that in any way; I believe they are very useful courses. But I do not see the great difficulty in relocating around the area.

Since 1983, when enrolments at Seaforth were approximately 4,000, they have dropped to 1,880 in 1999. So something had to give in terms of the rationalisation of the educational facility in the region. That rationalisation basically is brought about by some $75 million in funding cuts imposed by the Federal Government. Something had to give. There had to be some reprogramming and reorganising to be able to conduct TAFE effectively and efficiently in the northern suburbs region.

In my previous contribution to debate on this issue I mentioned the Seaforth building. This is the third occasion on which this issue has been debated in a significant way in this Chamber. In that contribution I said that the Seaforth building was constructed in 1962. This is a very important issue because it is at the heart of the capital works problems of the Seaforth college. In 1985 the Seaforth buildings were refurbished to provide for alternative usage.

Between 1988 and 1998 there have been extensive repairs to the roof, costing some $60,000. Current advice is that the roof needs replacement, at a cost of $250,000 - merely to keep rain out of the rooms of this college! Advice is that the fine arts area at Seaforth requires new ventilation to meet occupational health and safety requirements. That work alone is estimated to cost a further $150,000. Other maintenance required includes concrete spalling and painting work, estimated at $50,000. The institute advises that the annual expenditure to maintain the Seaforth college is between $80,000 and $100,000. The estimated land value of the Seaforth site is between $1.5 million and $2 million. The site includes a heritage building which is currently used by the local community as a library.

Since 1991 the Government has spent $13.6 million refurbishing and upgrading facilities at Brookvale. So, on the one hand, the Seaforth facility is in need of substantial upgrade to meet occupational health and safety standards as well as educational standards, at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars, along with a substantial annual maintenance bill of over $100,000 to meet standards. On the other hand, at the same time as we have a decline in use of the facilities at Seaforth, the Government is spending more than $13 million to upgrade the Brookvale college. I believe that is the direction in which we should be going overall, taking into account the decline in Federal funding provided for TAFE.

The Teachers Federation requirements of 400 car parking spaces assumes that every student who enrols at Seaforth at any time during the year will require parking at Brookvale. TAFE students attend the college in various patterns, usually for only a few hours at a time. There are currently 344 car spaces at Brookvale, and more are planned. That should be adequate to ensure students have access to parking. So the issue of car parking is an absolute furphy. There will be plenty of car parking at Brookvale, now and in the future.

The fine arts single subjects are not seen as high priority in TAFE as, in the main, they do not lead to employment, a key objective of TAFE education. This Government’s commitment to art is well documented and established with the creation of the independent National Arts School in East Sydney, which now offers up to degree programs. The Northern Sydney Institute of TAFE has been offering fine arts at three locations - Hornsby, Meadowbank and Seaforth.

There are only three other locations where diploma fine arts is taught in the metropolitan area,
Page 1576
and this includes the National Arts School. People within the Northern Sydney Institute area have had greater access to fine arts programs than anyone else in the metropolitan area. Of course, the Hon. Patricia Forsythe seeks to protect the privileged position that she and her fellow citizens on the north shore enjoy.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: It is inverted snobbery that is motivating you now, is it?

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: No. The point is that the community in the northern campus area has had greater access to fine arts programs than anyone else in the metropolitan area has. That is a fact.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Drag them down - that is the attitude.

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD: There is no dragging down. It is about relocation. The institute has decided to establish an integrated fine arts facility at the Brookvale campus. So the need will be met at the Brookvale campus - some 3.8 kilometres from Seaforth. It is not a question of dragging anyone down; it is a question of relocation and rationalisation to improve the delivery of services and save the dollars being spent in TAFE. The institute has decided to establish an integrated fine arts facility at the Brookvale campus, which will offer fine arts programs up to certificate 4 level in 2000 together with diploma level courses in ceramics.

The great majority of full-time and part-time fine arts students at Seaforth will be able to continue their courses or begin new fine arts courses at Brookvale next year. The continuing fine arts diploma students will also be accommodated at that facility. However, they will be required to undertake photography and screen printing at the Hornsby, Meadowbank or National Art School campuses, which are centres of excellence. Continuing students will be given a priority, as is TAFE policy.

A steering committee comprising the head teachers of fine arts and ceramics is working on the establishment of the centre and the details of course provision for 2000. It is clear that many students in TAFE courses across the State would be only too pleased to have a facility like Brookvale so close at hand. I know many regional centres across the State in which TAFE facilities are at great distances and require time and effort by students to attend. The Government is constantly trying to upgrade the regional network of TAFE colleges, but it cannot continue to afford development while the Federal Government continues to cut back on TAFE in New South Wales despite the efforts of the Government to increase funding by $53 million from its own sources.

Of course, something had to give. With the decline in enrolments at Seaforth from 4,000 as long ago as 1983 to 1,880 this year, clearly there is a case for consolidation in the northern beaches area. The Government welcomes the concept of an inquiry because it has the facts and the figures and will be able to show clearly that the decision is rational and necessary and that it has made the right sorts of decisions. The closure will not greatly inconvenience the students of the northern beaches. Plenty of other students across the State have to travel many kilometres from various areas to attend TAFE courses.

The Government, therefore, has moved that the matter be conducted by the Standing Committee on State Development on the basis that the standing committees have the resources and the staff to be able to conduct such inquiries. The chairman has made it clear that the inquiry deadline of 25 November will be met and that the resources of the committee will be devoted towards ensuring a thorough inquiry into the matter. The Government believes that that is the appropriate way to go about such an inquiry that relates heavily to vocational education and training. The Government believes also that it should proceed down that path rather than refer the matter to a committee that was established essentially to look at the budget itself.

The budget was brought down in May-June. It is now four or five months later, and a standing committee is the appropriate forum for dealing with this matter. I urge honourable members, particularly those on the crossbenches, to support the Government. It will have the inquiry; it has the facts; it has made the right decisions about Seaforth; and it has nothing to hide. The Standing Committee on State Development will bring it all out. The committee will conduct a detailed inquiry and produce a final report that will cover the issue and put these matters to bed.

There is no rationale for the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 or any other standing committee to conduct these sorts of inquiries at this time. The general purpose standing committees were set up as estimates committees, designed to look specifically at the budget. It is appropriate to refer the matter to the committees that have the resources, the back-up and the staff to conduct such an inquiry.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [12.04 p.m.]: I welcome this opportunity to speak about Seaforth
Page 1577
TAFE. The axing of any educational institution that serves such an important purpose for students in surrounding areas should be of concern to this House. However, I was concerned this morning when I heard that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe planned to move this motion because last night in her adjournment speech she spoke in great praise of Mr Jeff Kennett. One of her remarks was: "He has given significant public service." Let us remember what the public service was that he gave to the people of Victoria when it came to education, which has a great deal to do with why he is no longer Premier.

Kennett closed a record number of schools - 386 in all. But he did not just stop at schools. He moved on to TAFE institutions, except he used an insidious mechanism to kill them off. It was death by amalgamations. They went from 33 to 18. So we have an extraordinary situation here. For reasons of political opportunism the Coalition has moved a good motion. However, if the Coalition were in power it would do what Labor is doing, and probably worse.

Let me go through what happened in Victoria. There was death by competitive tendering whereby colleges were forced to reduce their bids to unsustainable levels; death by contracting out basic services to private providers, leaving the public sector starved for funds; death by removing subsidies to rural and regional TAFEs that were designed to compensate for their additional costs; and death by amalgamations with universities. So Kennett was the champion TAFE destroyer. He makes the New South Wales crew look quite amateur. Because of its failure to turn around on competitive tendering maybe it will copy some of Kennett’s horror tactics.

Honourable members would have heard that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe aspires to be Minister for Education and Training. Considering her praise for Mr Kennett, one would be worried what New South Wales might face down the track if she does get that portfolio. If the closure of Seaforth TAFE goes ahead it will be the second closure of a TAFE by the Carr Government. In the first year of its first term the Government closed Dover Heights TAFE, again to great outcry. Now in the first year of the second term of a Carr Government it is after Seaforth TAFE, and that would be a tragedy for the many people who go there.

Let me turn to how it has been played out for the people at Seaforth TAFE. Honourable members should remember that the bureaucrats at Seaforth TAFE actually gave the people a promise that it would not be closed. However, without consultation, without discussion, all of a sudden the Government announced that Seaforth TAFE is to go entirely. The ramifications are huge. There are ramifications on a personal level for many individuals who would not be able to transfer to other TAFE colleges and ramifications on a wider level for the educational implications for the people of the northern beaches.

The plans include relocation of the students. Brookvale TAFE has been mentioned. If that were to occur, there would need to be development of the Brookvale site. Though it is supposed to happen by next year, no development application has been lodged to change Brookvale TAFE; no studies of traffic have been undertaken, and there would be enormous traffic implications. Again, there has been bad management in the handling of this closure. One of the tragedies referred to by previous speakers would be the closure of the very well respected art department at Seaforth TAFE if that TAFE is broken up. All the great qualities that have been built up in that art department would be lost or would end up at Hornsby and Meadowbank TAFEs, but that would involve just some of the students and some of the staff.

The collective aspects of the art department, and all that it has built up over the years, cannot be transferred and would be lost. Some of the TAFE students who have disabilities have indicated they would not be able to attend TAFE facilities in other areas. If this closure goes ahead, it will be a loss to education in New South Wales.

The arguments put by the education bureaucrats do not stack up. One of the arguments is that student numbers are declining. The Hon. I. M. Macdonald made great play of that, implying that there is no need for Seaforth TAFE because of the loss in student numbers. The information from local teachers is that student numbers have increased. In some areas of New South Wales there has been a reduction in TAFE student numbers. But one cannot deduce from that there is a decline in demand. There has been a reduction in numbers in certain areas because of government policy and mismanagement of this important form of education. The arguments do not add up to a reason to close Seaforth TAFE.

Although in this place Mrs Forsythe has previously spoken very strongly in support of Seaforth TAFE - for which I congratulate her - it is important to note that the Liberals on the northern beaches have been rather limp in their support of teachers and students at Seaforth TAFE and have not attended their protests in numbers. Again, one wonders about the political opportunism that is
Page 1578
occurring today. However, Mrs Forsythe’s recommendation is on the record, and we support it. The Greens also support the extensive work carried out by Mr David Barr, who represents the electorate of Manly on the northern beaches. On a number of occasions he has met with Seaforth TAFE students and teachers and has organised a series of deputations to enable them to bring their viewpoint to this place and meet with the people who will decide the fate of Seaforth TAFE.

We need to consider the overall situation. The fight on the northern beaches to save Seaforth TAFE is being repeated across New South Wales. That fight has been brought about because of the terrible decision of the New South Wales Government to cut $67 million from the budget of TAFE education and 630 positions, but at the same time to assist private providers. It all adds up to the "p" word, a word we do not hear any more since the Labor Government learnt its lesson in its attempt to privatise electricity. It adds up to privatisation. It must be named clearly. When private providers are brought in, it is privatisation.

The Greens strongly support the TAFE system of education because only a publicly owned and well-funded TAFE system can provide vocational education to all students, whoever they are and wherever they live, and provide them with a comprehensive range of subjects. It is important to note that this attack on TAFE is an attack on the ability of working-class families to gain an education. It would not be so surprising from the Coalition, but it is surprising from a Labor government. However, in this second term of the Carr Labor Government, it is what we have come to expect. The Greens are developing diverse coalitions with a range of community groups and unions to fight these terrible policies.

Although the Greens support an inquiry being held, we are presently determining which committee should conduct that inquiry. We welcome the co-operation between many forces to save Seaforth TAFE. Although I have offered up criticisms to the Liberal and National Party Coalition on this issue, those criticisms should be taken in good faith because we have a common position, that is, to save Seaforth TAFE.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [12.14 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to refer the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE to an inquiry and for that inquiry to report by 25 November. I am in two minds about supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald. I suppose the position will become clearer later.

The Hon. D. F. Moppett: If it were an investigation into the whole of TAFE we would agree with him. This is a single TAFE and should go to the general purpose standing committee as a budgetary matter.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: I do not know whether referral to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 or the Standing Committee on State Development is the better option. I will share some information I received only this morning from a friend who is very involved in TAFE. She supports a reference of inquiry. I am told that because there has been no planning undertaken to close Seaforth TAFE next year, there should be a moratorium on the closure. The closure seems to be on the basis of economics. There is no rationalisation for this closure at all.

A relevant concern was expressed that Seaforth TAFE offers the General Certificate in Education, the Tertiary Preparation Certificate, and the Higher School Certificate, which are generally undertaken by underprivileged students. If they are required to transfer, they will be displaced and marginalised. To use Ms Rhiannon’s words, they are working-class students, and their educational needs should be looked at on a humane basis rather than on an economic rationalist basis.

The teachers at Seaforth TAFE work very hard to deal with these underprivileged younger students. If the students have to transfer to North Sydney or Hornsby, or even Meadowbank, they will be even more disadvantaged. Living on the northern beaches, I know that Seaforth TAFE caters for the local community, and transport in the local area is inadequate. These students will not receive any higher education at all because they cannot get to Hornsby, North Sydney or Meadowbank after work. TAFE usually caters for people who work part-time or full-time. To this extent I sympathise with the protesters, who are making loud objections at numerous protests and public meetings, and I support their cause.

I ask the Government to reconsider the closure of Seaforth TAFE until it has clearer planning strategies. Seaforth TAFE should not be closed merely to save salaries and money. With better planning, the educational opportunities of the people on the northern beaches will not be lost. As the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked, why is the TAFE to be closed so soon? The Government should plan for such a closure two or three years ahead, so that the students will not be disadvantaged by not being able to complete their education at this location. If the students know well ahead, they can plan their education and will not lose an educational opportunity.

Page 1579

I am still undecided about which committee this matter should be referred to. I know the State development committee quite well, and its chairman, the Hon. A. B. Kelly, has said that it has the resources, the time and the eagerness to deal with this issue. At the moment it has other referrals which are not ready to proceed. That committee can deal immediately with this reference and it can report back by 25 November. It is important to have a short, sharp inquiry and not one that lingers. This matter is urgent.

The Hon. Dr A. CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [12.20 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are committed to public education and social equity, which it believes are extremely important for a harmonious society. I was discouraged by the humbug imposed upon this House today. The motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe is supported by the Democrats. The Liberal party wants to keep Seaforth TAFE open yet, sadly, only a few weeks ago it wanted to close St George TAFE.

The Liberal Party is demanding that the State Government spend more money. In fairness, since 1995 the State Government has provided a $53 million increase in funding, whereas in the same period the heroic Liberal Federal Government has cut $70 million in funding. The philosophy of the Liberals has been to reduce funding yet today in this Chamber the Liberal Party demands, hypocritically and opportunistically, that more money be spent on TAFE.

The Government, on the other hand, conducted a survey, after a lease was signed with Trinity Grammar School, and saved St George TAFE, without allocating new money. Presumably, money had to be taken from elsewhere, and if that is so, some other facility might have to close. The Government kept St George TAFE open but wants to close Seaforth TAFE. The Democrats are aware that 630 teacher positions are being cut in TAFE although about 50 per cent of its staff work part-time. TAFE has been a great Australian pioneer institution.

People with practical knowledge of the world can do a TAFE bridging course and become a TAFE teacher. They can work in their area of expertise or continue part-time in their job and teach people at TAFE. Adults can do their Higher School Certificate at TAFE without having to go back to school and, with a TAFE diploma, can go on to university and obtain a degree. TAFE allows the practical aspects of the workplace to blend in with academic life.

For too long those in Australia’s academic system and in universities have not liaised well with the industries they serve. For years it was impossible to even do short courses at university. One had to do a three-year course, or a one-year course for which no credit was given. One had to go to university between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. because academics did not want to go out in the evening. Effectively, education was a plaything for an elite who did not wish their academic interests to be integrated with the reality of work.

I tried to do university courses while I was working full time in the public service, and I am well aware of such difficulties. I studied absenteeism in industry and the problems of integration of education and second-chance opportunities in a work force. I realised that the Australian education system had evolved as an elitist organisation in comparison with Japanese institutions which had achieved far better integration. However, TAFE was the shining example that disproved the lessons of history by enabling the best integration of industry and education. TAFE, a model much admired by Australians, has suffered from managerial interference and the effects of economic rationalism. The Federal Government has reduced funding yet has given large amounts to groups that offer little other than impressive curriculum vitaes. There is a great danger that more cuts will be made to TAFE.

People from the lowest socioeconomic groups who climb to the top take with them an understanding of what it is like at the bottom of the heap. People who start life at the top of our society and enjoy all the opportunities of their privileged position are often out of touch with life at the bottom, and their decisions often accord with the tastes of the top social class. The Marxists claim that people are loyal to their social class rather than to their nation. If decision makers lose touch with grassroots problems, social cohesion will crumble and the risk of social breakdown will increase.

The social effect of TAFE in the wider historical and political context is extremely important and it is worrying when that is threatened. The Government wants to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on State Development and not to a general purpose standing committee. The Democrats are concerned that the Government wants to refer this matter to a committee on which it has a majority. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, of which I was a member last year, became known as the rural health committee.

Last year that committee was funded to find out information that would not have been disclosed without our energetic efforts and extensive travel around the country. That provided some extraordinary insights into both the way the
Page 1580
Government worked in general and the dichotomy between gobbledegook managerial statements and what people on the ground actually said. The committee would not have had that insight without a majority of non-Government members. It is true that its findings have not been implemented but that is more of an indictment of the Government’s secrecy in the way it wants to do things and use its power.

I do not have faith that the Government will do the right thing by way of investigation if it refers this matter to the Standing Committee on State Development. In consequence I will certainly be voting against the amendment. According to the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, Seaforth TAFE this year has 1,883 students, and had 1,687 last year. On 9 September the honourable member for Wakehurst in the other Chamber said that Seaforth TAFE student numbers had increased from 1,687 last year to 1,787 this year. Whichever number is correct, it is a fair-size group.

Interestingly, Bob Puffett, Assistant Director-General, Technical and Further Education, thinks that the adult students can be accommodated in the local high school. That might be fine in relation to availability of teachers but would be difficult for adults attending a school where all the children are under 18. Whether that is a practical solution is another matter. The Government also says that the roof of Seaforth TAFE needs replacing. I am always amazed that buildings magically and suddenly become decrepit when it is convenient.

According to Don Muller, the New South Wales Teachers Federation redesign project architect for Seaforth TAFE, in 1995 the buildings were in quite good condition and had quite a lot of life left in them. I must confess I would be more inclined to believe him, given that sudden decrepitude seems to affect buildings when it suits political convenience.

The Australian Democrats would like to have the maximum number of public education facilities, particularly of the TAFE variety. While it may be said that it is better to rationalise two campuses into one because of economies of scale, we must recognise that we are living in a historic time. If an asset is sold in an area where land is extremely valuable, the chance of getting that asset back at a later date is small, as I said when the House debated the St George campus bill.

Basically, we as a Parliament are managing this State - if the Parliament can be said to be managing things when the Government tells us so little. We are not buying and selling; we are managing things for the future. If we sell something we assume that we will have to buy it back later if we want to have the same degree of facilities in the increasing population density in this historic time. However, buying back the asset will be immensely expensive, and people will not be willing to sell plots of land sufficient to locate a TAFE at a future time.

We will wait for a report like this to look seriously at the issues. We recognise that the Government has budget constraints. Nevertheless we would like to retain the assets we have until, hopefully, there is a more enlightened attitude towards education in Australia. It should be noted that the tiger economies of Asia believe that they cannot afford to have ignorance.

It is not a question of what education costs; they cannot afford to have a population of uneducated people, because if people are not educated they will not be employable, if they are not employable they will be on welfare, and if they are not given welfare they will be a major social disruption. They will privatise the welfare system and steal sufficient money to survive. What else would they do? In a sense it is not a question of whether we as a society can afford education. We cannot afford ignorance and we had better start thinking about how we will provide that education.

That is a problem for this Government in terms of Seaforth TAFE in particular and the TAFE system in general. It is also a problem for the Howard Government, which I believe is taking a very unintelligent approach to education. The Liberal members of this House need to look in their own eyes in terms of what their party is doing for education in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia generally. The Australian Democrats will support this motion and oppose the amendment to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on State Development.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [12.32 p.m.]: I support this motion. I am most concerned, as are many people on the northern beaches, about the closure of Seaforth TAFE. This is not altogether the responsibility of the State Government; the Federal Government has made severe cuts to the education budget. The cuts include the loss of the equivalent of 630 full-time jobs, or 8 per cent of full-time staff, and at least $43 million has been stripped from the $923 million teaching budget.

At the same time as these cuts have occurred, student numbers are expected to increase by 2 per cent next year to 120,000 full-time students. There are 427,000 TAFE students undertaking part-time or
Page 1581
short courses, and these are extremely valuable. Recently the New South Wales Teachers Federation placed an advertisement in various newspapers explaining why TAFE teachers are striking and expressing severe concern about the $67 million cut to TAFE funding. The advertisement states:

We believe the cuts will:

•compromise the quality of public education
•promote the interests of private providers
•hurt business, industry and the community
•reduce opportunities in country and city NSW
•reduce subject choice
•eliminate some courses
•increase class sizes and reduce individual assistance
•compromise safety and health standards
•reduce support for students with special needs.

A large demonstration was held outside the Parliament recently. The people at the demonstration, many of whom I knew from my local area, were furious about both the Federal cuts and the State Government’s lack of assistance by making up some of the cuts with State moneys. The major impact of the cuts locally will be the loss of 1,700 TAFE places on the northern beaches from Whale Beach to Manly; 1,200 students will have to relocate to Brookvale campus to complete their studies; up to 500 students completing the Higher School Certificate and fine arts courses will be forced to travel to Hornsby, North Sydney and Meadowbank to complete their studies; and 200 students will have to travel to Hornsby.

Recently the Daily Telegraph stated that Seaforth TAFE is only the second major institution of this type to be closed this century. Although the reason for the closure is budget cuts, the campus costs only $750,000 a year, which is a tiny amount in the scheme of things. Seaforth TAFE is an important institution. The cuts will mean the end of Higher School Certificate studies for TAFE students on the northern beaches.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It will increase the resale value of the property.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile talks about the resale value of the property. As I listened to the other speakers the value of the property did occur to me. The property is in a high-value real estate area, and I suspect that it may be worth quite a few million dollars. I wonder what the property is zoned for currently; I presume it is not zoned for housing. Presumably the Government will attempt to have the property rezoned. I suspect that the local council would not wish to rezone the property, so the Minister may have to rezone the property over the heads of the local councillors.

The budget cuts will impose an enormous burden on students who want to continue their studies but are unwilling or unable to attend high schools. It is undemocratic to close a community college that gives people a second chance to achieve an education. In a letter dated 31 August addressed to the Minister for Education and Training, the Teachers Federation stated:

The closure of Seaforth TAFE would mean that the HSC has been eliminated from the peninsula. Consequently students from Whale Beach to Manly seeking a second chance at the HSC qualification would have to travel to North Beach or Meadowbank.

The relocation would make it impossible for most students to continue their courses because of the lack of public transport, part-time work, family and school commitments. There is also very little parking at North Sydney College.

Fine arts students from the peninsula would have to travel to Hornsby or Meadowbank.

Business studies and Japanese studies classes would be transferred to the Brookvale campus.

A letter signed on behalf of John Hennessy of the Teachers Federation states:

Currently, Seaforth provides an excellent "second chance" for students who have dropped out of school before completing the HSC and students who have failed to obtain the marks they need and need an opportunity to try again in a non-school environment. Seaforth also provides for students who are unable to access all of their chosen subjects at their own school.

If the Northern Institute’s decision to close Seaforth Tafe is implemented such provision will no longer be available on the Northern Beaches.

There are not many Labor seats on the northern beaches. The letter further states:

You will understand that many of the students who need the "second chance" provisions referred to come from troubled social or family backgrounds and suffer low confidence or self-esteem. You may not know that a number of such students currently enrolled at Seaforth are physically disabled.

The cuts will have a dramatic impact on local people. Interestingly, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 31 July referred to the number of Olympics tickets going to TAFE institutes. The article stated:

In the midst of a major job-cutting exercise, TAFE institutes across the State are awaiting up to $180,000 worth of Olympic tickets - most of which will be provided to their top commercial clients.

The ticketing deal is part of a commercial loyalty program, contained in a confidential discussion paper, which proposes that each of the 12 TAFE regions select its top client to receive an Olympics package worth close to $7,500.

Page 1582

So the Government is involved in Olympic package scams at the same time as it is cutting jobs.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: That is $180,000 for Olympic sponsorship and the Government cannot find $250,000 for building costs.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: It is totally outrageous. Clearly, the local community is outraged about the decision to close Seaforth TAFE. The teachers and students at Seaforth TAFE are more outraged. I have had an association with this area for some 34 years, and the decision to close the TAFE is a crying shame. If Seaforth TAFE had been in a Labor electorate I suspect that it would not have been closed. I suspect that the decision relates to local politics. The Government may have to rely on the local member after the next election. If so, it will regret closing Seaforth TAFE.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [12.39 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe, which reads:

1. That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 inquire into and report on the proposed closure of Seaforth TAFE, and in particular:

(a) the process by which the Department of Education and Training resolved to close the TAFE,

(b) the social, financial and community impact on the Manly Warringah region, and

(c) any other relevant issues with regard to the closure of Seaforth TAFE raised in submissions received by the Committee.

2. That the committee report by Thursday 25 November 1999.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 recently conducted an inquiry into the education portfolio during which questions were raised about TAFE generally and Seaforth TAFE in particular. To that extent the committee is already up with the issue and is ready and able to follow through on the reference. Members have referred to the staff and resources of the committee. As a result of the actions of the President and the Clerk, Mr Evans, there is now a general purpose committees secretariat which has staff and resources. I am very pleased about this. I have been very impressed with the efficiency and capabilities of the staff.

I am confident that when the general purpose committees receive a reference - in the past we were in a vacuum - they can conduct short inquiries into important and limited issues, as distinct from the standing committees, which deal with general issues of policy. At some future date the Standing Committee on State Development may investigate the whole education policy of the Government and the TAFE policy in general.

This reference specifically deals with Seaforth TAFE, a particular location at a particular time. Therefore as it would not be a broad, general inquiry, a general purpose committee such as No. 1 could cover it. I would have no objection to another general purpose standing committee conducting the inquiry but, as I said, No. 1 has already inquired into the whole area of education over a period with some reference to Seaforth.

I will not go into the details of the issue because that would be pre-empting the inquiry. I have received a lot of correspondence on it from interested citizens, the Teachers Federation and David Barr, the member for Manly, urging me as chairman of the committee to conduct the inquiry. The motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe pre-empted me or another member moving such a motion. As the reporting date is 25 November the inquiry would have to be short but I believe that in the time available the information could be gathered and a report prepared for the House.

The crucial issue is the solutions for the students, not just why the TAFE was closed. What can now be done to provide facilities for students? Seaforth TAFE could be kept open or something could be done to make it easier for the students to continue their courses. The committee should come up with solutions rather than just canvass the issues. As chairman of the committee I am happy to take on board the reference.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [12.44 p.m.]: I shall speak on the motion not just in relation to the importance of what is happening in TAFE in New South Wales but also in relation to how this House resolves to conduct inquiries, the time scale and who conducts them. What is happening in TAFE at the moment needs considerable attention. I have spoken in this House on TAFE funding on a number of occasions, most recently last night in the Address-in-Reply debate. I have drawn attention to the Federal Government’s continual cuts in funding and the steps that the State Government has had to take to at least partially - it is never possible to do it fully - replace the missing funding.

I will not deal in detail with Seaforth TAFE and Brookvale because many members know more about the locality than I do. However, I point out that I live equidistant from Meadowbank TAFE and
Page 1583
Ryde TAFE. I know that Meadowbank seems a long way from the leafy north shore to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe but it is not that far. That is by the way.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Social Issues I wish to deal with the House referring matters at short notice. It has been suggested that not one but two inquiries could be held into the matter: one by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 into the particular issue of Seaforth TAFE; and another by the Standing Committee on State Development on TAFE issues generally. That would be an excellent idea. I would love to do it if the committee had time. Another proposal is to combine the two inquiries and have the State development committee inquire into the specific issue and the more general one, and to use the general context to inform the specific.

I remind the House that the reference about group homes being tendered out by the Department of Community Services was referred to the social issues committee on 16 September. The committee is a standing committee which has existed for a decade or so. It has a very well qualified and dedicated staff. It is set up to conduct inquiries in the most efficient, serious and sensitive manner possible. We had the best will in the world. We held a special meeting in a small break of the House sittings to meet the newspaper deadlines for placing advertisements. They were prepared prior to the House’s authorising resolution. We realised that, though it was slightly irregular, if we did not do that we would have to wait one more Saturday.

With the whole process of newspaper advertising, circulating our terms of reference, holding meetings with all the major interest groups, calling for submissions, receiving submissions and writing to people who had made submissions and beginning to organise witnesses, faced with an inquiry into a very specific issue with a reporting date of 30 November and a much more general issue providing the context for all of that without a definite reporting date, we will hold our first hearing this Friday.

The staff and members of the social issues committee should be congratulated on that. It has taken the social issues committee from 16 September to 22 October to hold its first hearings. Submissions closed last Friday, 15 October, but we are accepting late submissions. It will be incredibly difficult for the committee to prepare the kind of detailed report that the House expects of its standing committees.

It has taken more than five weeks to get to this stage. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is essentially an ad hoc estimates committee that has no staff specifically dedicated to it, which has no staff readily available to work with it. It has no staff with qualifications or expertise in the area of education, for instance, as the social issues staff have in the area of community services. It is impossible for a committee to prepare a complete report within five weeks of a resolution being referred to it by this House.

As I said, it has taken the Standing Committee on Social Issues five weeks to get to its first hearing - but it has worked as hard as it possibly could; indeed, the House provided the committee with additional staff to help it proceed with its work. I very much doubt whether General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, faced with the work it is currently doing, would be able to cope with the extra workload.

I understand that the committee will meet tomorrow night - perhaps Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile could confirm that - to deal with an estimates matter, and that it will hold further estimates committee hearings in relation to the Olympics and other matters. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 is also continuing to conduct its current inquiry. I think it has a meeting scheduled in the next couple of weeks to deal with the reference given to it by this House in relation to the budget appropriations and the remarks of the Auditor-General.

Therefore, it seems to me very foolish, indeed quite irresponsible, for members of this House to pluck out of the air a committee whose staff have no expertise to deal with this matter - indeed, the committee has no staff at all and has no real chance of getting staff. I believe that the Standing Committee on State Development should inquire into issues relating to the training needs of New South Wales. Perhaps the Standing Committee on State Development could conduct a short inquiry into the specific issue of Seaforth TAFE - for example, the Standing Committee on Social Issues is conducting an inquiry into a matter that has a reporting date of 30 November - and then conduct a more detailed inquiry into the broader issue of training needs in this State.

I have discovered that when a committee conducts an inquiry of this sort, the people who come before it to make submissions on the short-term and specific issue often say that the short-term issues do not make much sense unless they are considered in the broader context. That seems to me to be an appropriate solution.

Page 1584

I believe that this House could responsibly embark on an inquiry into TAFE, perhaps involving the State development committee preparing a brief and, almost by necessity, an incomplete report, and then conducting a more major inquiry. I cannot see much sense in the ad hoc General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, without staff, conducting an inquiry into an immediate issue without considering its context, and then the State development committee conducting a separate inquiry into the broader issue, which would include issues relating to Seaforth TAFE. This House is becoming almost drunk on inquiries. Hardly a day goes by - certainly not a week - without this House deciding to inquire into something. When other members of this House speak they will talk about the sort of load they take on.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer and I are in competition when it comes to attending estimates committee hearings. So far he has attended nine committee hearings and I have attended 8½ committee hearings. I think he attended one today, so he has now attended 10 hearings. I know that other members of this House are serving on one committee and chairing another, and so on. The House has committees of various kinds - joint committees, standing committees, select committees and estimates committees - each comprising between five and 11 members.

However, I am constantly reminded that there are only 42 members of this House. Perhaps the time has come to call for yet another tabling of papers - we are drunk on tabling papers as well - that provide a list of the number of committees on which each of the 42 members currently serves, and some indication of the workload that that involves in terms of meetings with people, hearing evidence, reading submissions and writing reports.

I urge the House to seriously consider whether General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 - which is currently inquiring into Olympics tickets, budget appropriations, the remarks of the Auditor-General and numerous Ministers’ portfolios - can, without staff, conduct anything other than a Mickey Mouse inquiry between 20 October and 25 November. While such an inquiry may make the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and a number of other people feel good, it will not in any way be a serious inquiry. The House must examine why these kinds of committees are established and what these sorts of inquiries achieve.

The Hon. Dr P. WONG [12.55 p.m.]: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. The intended closure of Seaforth TAFE illustrates the Government’s lack of planning on education and its poor management skills in this area. The closure of Seaforth TAFE highlights the Government’s failure to consult the local community, teachers and students on this issue. We have seen this arrogant attitude in relation to the St George campus fiasco of a few weeks ago and the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Bill, which is to come before this House.

I distinctly remember that Premier Carr, following his election win, advised his Ministers in public that they must consult communities in their decision making. Seaforth TAFE is a glaring instance of this action not having been met. As late as 18 November 1998 the deputy director, Mr Sivakumar, was quoted as saying:

There is no proposal for the closure of Seaforth TAFE . . . If the Government was planning to sell off Seaforth that would have to be three to five years in the planning so we could make alternative plans to accommodate students.

However, in August this year Mr Sivakumar, who is now the acting director, announced that Seaforth TAFE would be closed at the end of the year and that students would be transferred to Brookvale, Hornsby, Meadowbank and North Sydney. I accept some of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald’s arguments that some fault must be attributed to the Federal Government for its severe cuts to TAFE education in this country. He further elaborated that some $500,000 needs to be spent to maintain Seaforth TAFE.

He also explained that so far more than $13 million has been spent on the Brookvale site. In this regard I question the Hon. I. M. Macdonald on his Government’s ability to manage the educational system of this State. On the one hand, the Government cannot find half a million dollars; on the other hand, it can spend $13 million on another site.

The Government has not denied that as a result of the closure of Seaforth TAFE, first, there will be only one TAFE campus to service the northern beaches area; second, there will no longer be Higher School Certificate classes for mature-aged students or students who fail to obtain enough marks to get into universities; and, third, art and design students will have to go to either Hornsby or Meadowbank. I assure the Hon. I. M. Macdonald that Meadowbank is much more that 3.5 kilometres from Seaforth. In fact, due to poor public transport facilities it can take people up to two hours to travel from Seaforth to Meadowbank. I suggest that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe should take a few honourable members on an educational tour from Seaforth to Meadowbank;
Page 1585
when they come back they will be less vocal and more informative.

This House has received conflicting opinions about whether student numbers in Seaforth TAFE are increasing or decreasing. This conflict further enhances the need for proper investigation into this issue. I understand that Seaforth TAFE had a $4 million refurbishment in 1985. The project architect has stated categorically that the buildings are in good condition and have many years left in them. This statement raises a question in my mind: What does the Government intend to do with the site? The closure of Seaforth TAFE is a very important matter for the local community, and indeed for the people of New South Wales. In conclusion, I quote a passage from the Daily Telegraph of 21 September, which reads:

Somehow, it doesn’t seem too smart to be closing a community college that gives people a second chance to achieve an education unless the Government needs to raise money quickly to meet the growing Olympic bill.

I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [1.00 p.m.]: The debate seems to have been about the choice of committee to which the matter should be referred. The motion obviously proposes its reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. I do not think that is the appropriate committee for such a reference. The House would be better served if it were referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on State Development.

There seems to be consensus that the Standing Committee on State Development is the more appropriate committee to deal with the matter because policy issues are involved. The closure of a facility such as TAFE should be dealt with as a policy issue, and the Standing Committee on State Development is best placed to deal with it. The general purpose standing committees seem to be getting more and more references of matters to do with policy. It would be far better to continue to use our standing committees to deal with policy issues.

The social issues and State development committees have a history of doing good work and of dealing with issues in a bipartisan and multipartisan manner. It would be better if such a vital issue as education were dealt with by the State development committee. Having said that, I would like to place on record a few facts about TAFE and the Seaforth college. New South Wales spends more on technical and further education than any other State. More than one-third of all vocational education and training spending in Australia is in New South Wales. The Government has increased funding for TAFE in New South Wales.

[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [2.30 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and I oppose the amendment proposed by the Government. In my time in this House I have rarely heard more diatribe than I heard from the Hon. I. M. Macdonald today. His speech was quite extraordinary. It rarely touched on the matter before the House - and even then only by accident. The motion deals with a specific item, the closing of Seaforth TAFE.

I remind the House that the Carr Government clearly promised it would not close Seaforth TAFE, but obviously that college is to be closed. That, no doubt, is the intention of the Government. I do not intend to canvass the many statements made to the House about enrolments at the college and the difficulties that will be caused to students by the proposed closure. I put aside the furphy of the 3.8 kilometre journey to Brookvale, as related by one Government member; I will simply treat that matter with the contempt and disdain it deserves.

The Government amendment is simply a move to try to stop or delay the inquiry. Already the Standing Committee on State Development has in hand four references. Whether it would or would not have the time to deal with this matter expeditiously is a matter of conjecture. The State development committee - if it proceeds at the same rate as we were told the Standing Committee on Social Issues does - clearly would not be in a position to deal with this matter before Christmas. By that stage, I am sure, the Government will have fulfilled its intent, closed Seaforth TAFE, and probably sold the land.

Some other matters raised must be dealt with. One is which is the more appropriate committee to which this matter should be referred. The standing committees on State development, social issues and law and justice were established by this House to deal with major policy issues in a bipartisan manner. The general purpose standing committees, of which there are five, were established to cover the various ministries and to deal with single-issue matters that might arise quite suddenly. Those committees can call for witnesses. Such references need not be advertised and thus the committees need not wait for weeks before dealing with a matter.

Page 1586

I remind the House that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has carried out very effective inquiries into matters such as land tax and electricity generation. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 dealt with rural health. Those committees have been able to subpoena witnesses and report in a short time. They were established to inquire into and report upon specific matters. The general purpose standing committees flowed perforce from a happening in the lower House and have also undertaken the role of estimates committees. They are general purpose committees firstly, though they also undertake the role of estimates committees.

I think it is proper to draw attention to the terms of the motion. In particular, it deals with the process by which the department resolved to close Seaforth TAFE. It deals also with the social, financial and community impacts of such a closure within the Manly-Warringah area. They are specific matters. The motion seeks to empower the committee to deal with any other matters that may arise during its inquiry and other matters that result from it.

To argue that Seaforth TAFE was built some 13 years ago and is in a run-down condition is to argue in favour of indicting the Government for its negligence during its five years in office. If the college is in fact run down, that is due to the Carr Government not spending adequate money on its repair and maintenance. The truth of that matter may come out at the inquiry.

The effect of the closure of Seaforth TAFE on local people and the more than 1,700 students is quite clear. They will be disadvantaged. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods had no understanding of the motion and, like another member of her faction, in my view made a speech that was insulting. I would remind the honourable member of the staffing requirements and to that end -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who is the other member of that faction?

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING: I will deal with the matter at hand. The Treasurer may respond if he so wishes. I was referring to the staffing of general purpose standing committees. The assertion that those committees do not have adequate staff to deal with an inquiry into the subject matter of the motion is an absolute furphy. A director has been appointed to the general purpose standing committees, they have their own staff and they can hire, and from time to time have hired, additional staff to assist them in their inquiries and deliberations. So the argument that only the standing committees have specialist staff is nothing more than nonsense.

Whether there is to be a fight between the Standing Committee on Social Issues and the Standing Committee on State Development is irrelevant. This specific matter must be dealt with now. It must be dealt with efficiently and as a local issue. If the nominated committee wishes to carry out an investigation into TAFE generally, its staffing and everything else, perhaps the reference should be to the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on State Development.

Let it be quite clear: the general purpose standing committees are designed to undertake one-off investigations. They have the resources and facilities to proceed quickly with their inquiries and report in a timely manner. They are not structured to deal with general policy, such as examining the whole of the structure of TAFE. The Government, in my view, by moving its amendment, has but one intention: to delay the inquiry and ensure that Seaforth TAFE is closed. That delay would prevent local people from having a say on the matter. They would have that opportunity through the reference of the matter to a general purpose standing committee.

I suggest without fear of contradiction that, having closed this TAFE, the Government would then promptly proceed to sell off the site, whether for housing or, as has been done in the past, for commercial or retail premises or hotel premises. The Government would sell the land to raise money to pay for the building of the Brookvale TAFE, for which no funding is available. The amendment should be seen for what it is, and rejected. This House should unanimously support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe.

The Hon. R. D. DYER [2.39 p.m.]: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I am drawn to comment on what the Hon. J. H. Jobling said about the respective resources of the standing committees and the general purpose standing committees, or estimates committees as they are commonly known. The Hon. J. H. Jobling said that the resources available to the general purpose standing committees are adequate to receive a discrete reference such as the one contemplated here, and that the Standing Committee on State Development, the Standing Committee on Social Issues or the Standing Committee on Law and Justice do not have superior staffing to the general purpose standing committees.

It is intended to refer the Seaforth TAFE reference to the Standing Committee on State
Page 1587
Development, and I would argue very strongly, on the basis of my now extensive experience of general purpose standing committees, that the staffing available to the standing committees is most definitely superior and more adequate than that available to what are more commonly called the estimates committees.

I will give the House a clear example of what I am referring to. Two committees on which I serve, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 and General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5, are due to meet for deliberative purposes tomorrow. One is scheduled to meet at 9.00 a.m. and the other at 1.00 p.m. The purpose for which those meetings are scheduled, it is stated, is to consider the draft reports of those estimates committees. Last Monday evening I sat on one of those committees when it heard further evidence about the community services portfolio.

I inquired when the draft reports would be circulated and whether I could have an assurance that they would be circulated at least 24 hours before the committees were due to meet. I was given that assurance. However, as at this very moment that I am speaking, no such reports have been circulated. One does not need to be Einstein to work out that it is less than 24 hours until those general purpose standing committees are scheduled to meet.

I regard it as oppressive that members of the committee should be expected to consider draft reports without due notice. After all, although the Government is in a minority on the general purpose standing committees, Government members have their rights too, and one of those rights is to consider the detailed comments made in the draft reports and, if thought fit, to specify their dissent or suggest amendments. To this moment committee members have not been given the draft reports for those committees.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Who are the chairmen?

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The chairs are from the non-government side of the House. One is the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti and the other is the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: That is an absolute disgrace in both cases. They are treating the House with contempt.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Treasurer would not treat me with contempt, though. I raise this matter because I have been told - I do not intend to name names or embarrass any member of the committee secretariat - that the staff are working 13-hour days and that the reports are late because of that workload. That does not stand with what the Hon. J. H. Jobling said. He said the general purpose committees are adequately resourced, at least on a comparable basis.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: I said they are adequately resourced.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: At least on a comparable basis with the Standing Committee on State Development, the Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the Standing Committee on Social Issues. The general purpose committees are labouring under a strain and it cannot be maintained with any certainty that -

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are attempting to distort the facts.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: There is no distortion here. The fact is that the general purpose standing committees are wilting under their load and it cannot be said that they ought to receive a further discrete reference from the House on this Seaforth TAFE matter. It is clearly contrary to the facts for the Hon. J. H. Jobling or any other honourable member to suggest the contrary.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: You are talking nonsense.

The Hon. R. D. DYER: The Hon. J. H. Jobling is an expert in talking nonsense, so I would have to defer to him in that regard. However, I have made my point. The general purpose standing committees are insufficiently resourced by comparison with the standing committees. Clearly, the proper venue for a discrete reference such as this is the Standing Committee on State Development.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.46 p.m.]: The debate has certainly been interesting. As one of the Green members of this House, I support the motion of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. This is a most important issue, and eventually it should translate to looking at the whole question of TAFE establishments throughout the State. Certainly the request of the students and teachers at Seaforth TAFE that the Minister reverse the decision to close the college is reasonable. I sympathise with them and I can understand a number of the issues that have been raised.

I have not had a great deal of time to prepare for the debate, but I consider it offensive to condemn people living on the peninsula. Young and
Page 1588
mature-age students have a right to access the educational opportunity that exists in a particular locale. To travel as far afield as Hornsby and Meadowbank is significantly difficult for a number of people; it would have a significant effect on their opportunity to be educated. There are arguments to the contrary about people living in country areas, and that is a major problem.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is a separate issue.

The Hon. I. COHEN: It is a separate issue, and it is one that solidifies the argument that we need educational institutions in particular community areas so that everybody has reasonable equity of access to them. As a Green, I hold very dear the concept of public education for all, so I am extremely concerned about the closure of this TAFE college. I am concerned also to hear that in 1985 there was a $34 million refurbishment. I have been told that the establishment is still quite adequate, and that enrolments there are increasing, not decreasing.

I have grave concerns that the closure is a short-term budgetary saving measure on the part of the Government. I have grave concerns about the resale value of this property. It is important also to consider how disabled students would be affected by any move. I know from recent debates in this House that disabled people are adversely affected by moves, be they in relation to accommodation or educational institutions. The disabled could well be put in a position of losing their opportunity for educational advancement as a result of this rather heavy-handed move by the Government.

I do not think there is much debate among the Opposition and crossbench members, and I am sure that many Government members would be concerned about the closure of this institution. As to which committee should deal with the inquiry, many interesting points have been raised, which I will cover briefly.

In communications with Mr David Barr, the honourable member for Manly in the other House, I learned of the substantive positions on the closure of the educational institution. Mr Barr has written to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile suggesting that the inquiry be referred to the general purposes standing committee rather than the Standing Committee on State Development. That has caused significant debate, and the major issue has become which committee structure should be used to obtain the most adequate representation.

I have listened to the many issues about the value of the relative committees, their staffing and funding. I feel that we could be hoodwinked if we are not careful. Committees should not be government controlled. They are a mechanism set up by the Parliament and they should be free of any constraint by control of the purse strings. It is no valid argument for the Government to say it is feeling unco-operative because a committee is taking a particular direction. According to the politics of the day, some committees may not receive the same support as others. However, I am assured by correspondence from Madam President to the Treasurer which states:

This Secretariat will not be a panacea for all of the resourcing issues in connection with the General Purpose Standing Committees. Undoubtedly, senior officers and administrative staff of the Legislative Council will be required to provide assistance to these Committees. Senior Project Officers will also need to be brought in on a temporary basis to provide technical expertise for most inquiries. However, the advantage of such a Secretariat will be that there will be a small unit dedicated to the work of the General Purpose Standing Committees. As well as assisting in the efficient operation of these Committees, this will ensure that the essential work of Legislative Council officers in relation to the functions of the House is not compromised.

It is reasonable to ask whether the committees will be appropriately resourced. Another interesting issue is the changing nature of the Parliament and its committees. I appreciate the services of the Parliamentary Library researchers who, at short notice, provided me with an large volume of material, all of which, unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read. One reference paper, Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, edited by Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, states:

Legislative and general purpose standing committees

The legislative and general purpose standing committees, appointed under standing order 25, are the engines of the Senate’s committee system. First established in 1970 -

The committees have a substantial history -

together with a system of estimates committees, these committees, specialised by subject, inquire into and report on matters referred to them by the Senate.

The committees cover between them all areas of government responsibility and subjects of inquiry. Specific matters, within their subject areas, are referred to them by the Senate. Some "watching briefs" are also referred to them, for oversight of areas of government activity. In 1989 they were given the task of scrutinising annual reports of government departments and agencies, and bills referred to them under the system then adopted for the systematic referral of bills to committees.

The most significant change to affect the operation of the legislative and general purpose standing committees occurred

Page 1589
in 1994 when, after the Procedure Committee reported on ways of making the committee system more responsive to the composition of the Senate, the Senate amended the standing order relating to the committees. These changes combined estimates committees with legislative and general purpose standing committees and divided the combined functions between pairs of committees in each of eight subject areas.

I will not list the areas. That reflects the changing nature of the Senate and committees, and there is more change in this House because of its composition and the increasing number of crossbenchers. Given that this House reflects the traditions of the Senate and the way that it evolves -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: I advocate the abolition of the Senate and this House.

The Hon. I. COHEN: I do not think many people are interested in the Treasurer’s point of view on this matter. He is out of touch with not only the rest of the Parliament but also the people of New South Wales. If he were not a leading light in a certain political machine he would not be a member of Parliament, because no-one would vote for him.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: How many votes did the Greens get?

The Hon. I. COHEN: The Greens got 125,000 votes in 1995 - a reasonable vote. How many votes did the Treasurer get in Cronulla? I suggest that the Treasurer would do well to put up or shut up. At the next election he should stand as Michael Egan, local member candidate, and see how many votes he gets. He probably would not be voted into the lower House. The Treasurer should show some respect to those who are elected by the people of New South Wales to serve in the best way they can. Despite what the Treasurer says, many members in this House work hard, do a good job and respectfully represent the people in their community.

Probably more than anything else, that exchange convinces me that the general purpose standing committee should deal with the inquiry. The Greens support the position of the Hon. Patricia Forsythe to inquire into the closure of Seaforth TAFE college.

The Hon. D. F. MOPPETT [2.57 p.m.]: I support the broad initiative that has been introduced by my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I have had a long interest in public education in New South Wales, both as a member of the National Party and of this House. I have served on advisory committees and I have a sincere interest in the welfare of our TAFE system. Vocational education is one of the hallmarks of an advanced and civilised community. Any threat to the integrity of our TAFE system is a matter of concern not only to members of this House and the local community of Seaforth TAFE but to everyone throughout New South Wales.

It is appropriate for us to institute an inquiry into the decisions that have been taken and telegraphed to the students of Seaforth TAFE. It is interesting to compare the rhetoric - I would call it humbug - from Government members about the Oatley campus with the Government’s actions regarding Seaforth TAFE. It is most appropriate that an inquiry is set in place but the real point of the argument seems to be about selection of the correct vehicle for such an inquiry. I strongly defended the appropriateness of the Standing Committee on Social Issues undertaking a broad-ranging inquiry into respite care and supported accommodation for people who suffer disability because it would extend beyond a narrow reference to a wider inquiry involving broad issues throughout the State.

That certainly is not the case today. However, a follow-on reference could be devised to enable the committee to look into vexatious subjects such as the integration of TAFE with the Department of Education and Training, a decision with which I have little truck. I do not want to canvass all those points but I do believe that it is most appropriate that this inquiry is undertaken by the appropriate general purpose standing committee. I say that with modesty, even though I am a committee member, and I look forward to the committee undertaking the inquiry. I hope the crossbench members will support my amendment. I move:

That the question be amended by adding at the end:

3. That there be a moratorium on any moves to demolish the Seaforth TAFE buildings or tenders for its sale until after the committee has reported.

I am reminded that part of the royal anthem states "Confound their politics". The Government would do that if it had half the chance. When the Government becomes aware of what will be exposed by this inquiry it will move swiftly to sell the campus or demolish the buildings so that the inquiry’s decision will be irrelevant anyway. The ultimate irony may be that in its haste to sell the campus it will sell it to a private school. I commend my amendment, and the motion, to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [3.02 p.m], in reply: I thank all 13 members who have contributed to this debate and, in particular, I thank the crossbench members for their thoughtful
Page 1590
comments. I could take issue with the remarks of one or two members but I do not think that is appropriate. I will focus very briefly on comments made by Government members. Despite Government rhetoric, its only substantive argument for closing Seaforth TAFE, with its 1,883 student body, is that the building was last renovated in 1985 and repairs would cost $250,000. The Government is spending huge amounts on Olympic tickets but can only offer a $250,000 repair bill as its best argument. If the Government wishes to save money it should allow building students to add to their skills by repairing Seaforth TAFE, and thus achieve the best of all possible worlds.

I support the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. D. F. Moppett. The amendment tests the bona fides of the Government. The Government said it is happy to have an inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on State Development, so it should accept the amendment. The Government says that the Standing Committee on State Development has resources and staff that other committees do not have, but that is wrong. Project officers can be appointed to the general purpose standing committees, which already have directors and committee officers. If the Treasurer is going to stifle the work of this Parliament by some Treasury budget cut -

The Hon. M. R. Egan: When I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee we had no staff, we needed no staff and we did the work that we were paid to do.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: The Treasurer has heard the contributions of many members of that committee. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has chaired the committee, the Hon. Dr P. Wong and the Hon. D. F. Moppett and I are happy to do the work, and I can assure the Treasurer that we have the support of staff. The claim by the Government that the committee has no resources is a ruse and is plainly wrong. If the Government does not understand the facts, it can rest assured that crossbench members do understand them.

The second argument of the Government is that the standing committee is inquiring into training needs in New South Wales. But this issue concerns not only training needs but financial and social impacts on the people of the northern beaches. The Standing Committee on State Development would not focus on those impacts. By the Government’s own admission that committee would focus only on training needs.

Any inquiry must take a broader look, for example, at the impact on the person who runs the Seaforth art supply shop and on others in the local community. The committee should focus on the needs of the students and staff who attend and work at Seaforth TAFE. We need to ascertain why the Government said in November last year that it had no intention to close Seaforth TAFE. It also said that three to five years was needed for such a major decision to be made, but nine months later a decision has been made.

The general purpose standing committee is a perfectly appropriate vehicle not only because it will have a different focus than that of the standing committee but because time is of the essence. General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 has scheduled a deliberative meeting tomorrow evening. At that time it can deal with issues such as advertising and staff. The chairman of the committee provides the best advice about that. Not one member of the committee is in any doubt that we have the time and the commitment to get the work done by November this year.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald began by stating that this matter has been dealt with on two or three occasions. The Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer also dealt with this matter, but both would put the Government’s spin on this matter. The Opposition wants to look at the facts from as broad a perspective as possible. If the matter is sent to the Government-controlled Standing Committee on State Development, that committee will direct how the inquiry is conducted every inch of the way.

If the matter is sent to a general purpose standing committee which does not have a Government majority, that committee will look at it in a broad perspective. I have every confidence in the work of general purpose standing committees. One of the most important statements the Government ever made to members of Parliament is that no TAFE campus will close. The reality is that the Government has decided, for whatever reason, to close Seaforth TAFE.

Not long ago the Teachers Federation was told that no TAFE campus will close, but that is wrong. I hope that the Government correctly evaluates this State’s training needs and accurately assesses the impact of Federal Government funding decisions and the number of TAFE literacy courses that have been forced to closed in New South Wales. The Federal Government has put millions of dollars into literacy training and has contracted out provision of literacy courses across Australia.

This Government is not prepared to admit that it is not funding TAFE literacy work but instead is
Page 1591
shifting that obligation back to the Federal Government. Members opposite talk about TAFE funding cuts but they never mention that the State Government is shifting responsibility for students and courses to the Federal Government. The Government is being dishonest in its interpretation of the Federal Government’s policies and in its response to those policies. I look forward to the standing committee looking at those issues, which are somewhat different to the closure of Seaforth TAFE. It is perfectly appropriate that the general purpose standing committee deals with that issue. I urge all honourable members to support the motion and reject the amendment of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald.

Amendment by the Hon. I. M. Macdonald negatived.

Amendment by the Hon. D. F. Moppett agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Mrs Nile
Mr Bull Rev. Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Oldfield
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Ms Rhiannon
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Hannaford Mr Tingle
Mr Harwin Dr Wong
Mr M. I. Jones Tellers,
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Jobling
Mr Lynn Mr Moppett

Ms Burnswoods Mr Obeid
Mr Della Bosca Ms Saffin
Mr Dyer Mr Shaw
Mr Egan Ms Tebbutt
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Johnson Tellers,
Mr Kelly Mr Manson
Mr Macdonald Mr Primrose

Mr Gay Mr Tsang

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.