Jewlz, is this THE Paul Hartingdon?

I found the minutes to a 1998 Australian gov't meeting posted on the Internet about a guy named Paul Hartingdon & his wife 'Bev' (with 10 kids)lobbying the gov't to avoid new home schooling requirements. Are these the same people? The full text is here:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LA19981020

Here are pertinent extracts:

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [7.30 p.m.]:
Bev and Paul Hartingdon of Castle Hill came to see me last week. They are home schoolers. They have 10 children. Some honourable members might have concerns that children have insufficient social interaction with home schooling. They could not say that about a family with 10 children. Indeed, quite the reverse would be the case. Mr and Mrs Hartingdon were very concerned about the potential impact this regulation would have on their lives and on their ability to carry out their home schooling program for the six of their children who are still of school age. They have chosen home schooling for their children because they are committed Christians. They believe it is the most appropriate way to bring up their children, and members on this side of the House have no quarrel with that.

We do have a quarrel with the fact that when Mrs Hartingdon spoke to John Ward, General Manager of the Board of Studies, he told her that the Board of Studies was thinking about a regulation. Within a few days Mrs Hartingdon found the regulation had been published on the Internet. She did not receive a letter telling her that the Government was going to introduce regulations, that what were previously guidelines would now be a regulation. Mr and Mrs Hartingdon were left to find out for themselves that the regulation existed. It was posted on the Internet. Clause 6A of the Education Amendment (Home Schooling) Regulation provides:

His opponent's response is quite significant:

Mr WATKINS (Gladesville)
Parents have rights recognised in the rights of home schooling. However, it is important to state clearly that children also have rights. Children have the right to a quality of education that matches that available in schools, the right to safety, and the right to a breadth of experience in their schooling. To allow less would be to disadvantage children and to put some children at risk. It is important to consider why we need regulations and guidelines. The position is simple. Without regulations it would be impossible to monitor whether children involved in home schooling were receiving adequate education.

It is essential that board officers have the ability to visit home schoolers to assess facilities and programs of study. If the position were otherwise, we would let our children down and fail to provide adequate supervision. For too long the rights of children to safety, equality of opportunity and respect have been ignored. This Parliament will soon debate a raft of legislative measures designed to demand safety for our children. The Children’’s Commission has been established because we now recognise that the whole community has a responsibility for the rights of all children. We must recognise that that responsibility cannot be ignored or walked away from. The need to ensure adequate standards in home schooling is part of that responsibility.

Fewer than 40 of almost 7,000 applications or renewal applications for home schooling since 1991 have been declined. It is important to note, however, that 40 of those applications were declined. Most of the applications declined were declined because a visit showed that a child’’s education or wellbeing would be at risk. Forty may be a small component of the total number of applications, but no rational person would deny the rights of the children in those homes to be so protected. It is important to note also that of the hundreds of home schoolers in this State only a very few object to complying with the procedures required under the regulations.

In the past 12 months a small number of people have refused to comply with the procedures, and they have run an effective political campaign based on a narrow and legalistic interpretation of the Act that favours their rights over the rights of their children. Basically, they argue that they have told the Minister that their instruction is up to scratch and that is where it ends. They believe that the Minister, the State and the wider community have no further right to ensure that their children are being properly taught and cared for. It is especially disturbing that those few parents have been supported by the Opposition in this matter.