AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR THE DEFENSE OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS - D.O.G.S.

PRESS RELEASE 110#.

 FURTHER LETTER TO MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

CONCERNING REVIEW OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING LEGISLATION

6 JUNE 2005

DOGS HAVE SENT THE FOLLOWING FURTHER LETTER TO MINISTER LYN KOSKY

FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS SEE PRESS RELEASE 105#

CLAIM THAT THE PROCESS IS "OPEN AND TRANSPARENT" FALSE

Ms L. Kosky,

Minister for Education and Training

Dear Madam,

RE: REVIEW OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING LEGISLATION

EXPECTATION OF REPLY FROM MINISTER, NOT A BUREAUCRAT.

We expect a response from the Minister of Education when that person is engaged in an all out assault on the concept of free secular, compulsory and universal public education.

Your lack of personal response to our concerns is exacerbated by the track record of the Premier Mr Bracks. We enclose a copy of our Press Release 109 which you can also view on our web site at www.adogs.info/pr109.htm

Our Advertisement placed in the Age of 26 April in response to your Legislation Review can be further viewed on www.fightingforpubliceducation.info.

Since our inception in 1964 we have had many  experiences with Victorian Government “consultation processes”, Such experiences  led us to pay for a full page advertisement in the Age rather than trust any assurances of bureaucrats and politicians. During our involvement with issues involving submissions we are more than aware that such submissions can end up at the bottom of filing cabinets or web sites while relevant committees push ahead with a preordained agenda.

Are we going to see for example the behind the scenes and written submissions by the Catholic Education clerical, bureaucratic and lay lobbies? – not to mention the private school agents and acolytes within the Victorian Education Department itself?

FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF MARCH 1 2005:

Even though we have received two letters from Kathryn Henderson, the Deputy Secretary of the Office of Strategy and Review we have yet to receive answers to the following questions which we listed in our letter dated March 1:

Could you please enlighten us on the following matters so that we can make some sense of the proposals in the Discussion paper?

1.                  When was this Review initiated?

2.                  Who initiated this Review?

3.                  Which groups were involved in compiling or contributing to this Discussion paper?

4.                  Please supply the names of all persons involved in the process and compilation of this Discussion paper together with their particular contributions.

5.                  Who decided on the time lines?

6.                  Were any persons outside the Department involved in the process, compilation and time lines for the completion of this Review and passing of the legislation?

7.                  Were any persons connected with 2-7 above either connected with or in the past connected with private schools?

The two letters received managed to avoid the above.

CLAIM CONCERNING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT CONSULTATION PROCESS

In the letter dated May 10 it was asserted that the government has embarked upon an open and transparent consultation process. If this is true, then there should no question about providing answers to the above questions. If you fail to do so or if you merely pass the buck down the line to a bureaucrat to write a piece of guff in a fob off, responsible citizens can only consider the “open and transparent consultation process” mantra a sick joke.

If you feel free to make the process genuinely open and transparent, we assure you that there are many more questions requiring an answer, particularly in relation to activities and agendas in the corridors of Treasury Place.

CITIZENS NOT STAKEHOLDERS

It would be appreciated if you and your bureaucrats understood the true nature of public education in a free, democratic society with citizens rather than slaves. If you are a citizen you are certainly far superior to a “stakeholder”. A citizen in a liberal democratic state has basic rights and has no need to throw any stake into any ground or issue for any reason. A citizenry cannot be equated with “stakeholders” especially in relation to public education.

The very use of the term “stakeholder” is a concept related to private, selective, sectarian educational institutions but certainly not our public education system.The use of the term “stakeholder” in your propaganda indicates the overwhelming influence of the private sector mentality in your department.

Before you try to turn back the clock past the 1872 free secular compulsory and universal conceptual and legal framework we suggest you do a bit of educational history and understand that the private, denominational sector never has, never can, and never will educate ALL the children. Ever since the State became involved in offering genuine educational opportunities to all Victorian children, the religious, private school interest has overtly and covertly opposed its philosophical underpinnings and expansion.

Yours sincerely,

RAY NILSEN

PRESIDENT DOGS