Page 3643 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this censure motion. For the benefit of members who may find this whole debate a little mystifying, I might just outline some of the facts, and there are some fairly basic facts around this. The government announced a review of curriculum and pedagogy for students with disabilities in ACT public schools earlier this year. On 30 April the ACT Liberals, through their shadow education spokesperson, demanded that the ACT government use the Human Rights Act 2004 to ensure that the review also examined curriculum and pedagogy for students with disabilities in ACT public schools. In his press release, Mr Doszpot said:
The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 also applies to all students with a disability, not just the government sector.
This is the heart of the matter. Mr Doszpot says the Human Rights Act means the government must review the curriculum and pedagogy for students in non-government schools if the government reviews curriculum and pedagogy for students in government schools. That is what he said. It is there in his media release:
The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 also applies to all students with a disability, not just the government sector.
I rejected that demand and indicated a policy position on behalf of the Labor Party that we would not impose a review on non-government schools without those schools requesting involvement in such a review. The Doszpot release was put out on 30 April. On 16 June, within 24 hours of a request from Catholic and independent schools to be included in the review, I was delighted to announce that we could conclude the funding and timing details of revised terms of reference. That was good news for all, because they asked to be included and we said yes. Except that the next day, 17 June, Mr Doszpot interjected in the Assembly during question time and said:
Under human rights principles, you have a responsibility, minister.
Again, I rejected that, and I quote from what I said at that time:
If we are to take Mr Doszpot’s argument to its logical conclusion, there can never be a differentiation in policy, teaching practice, curriculum or anything that is relevant to the Human Rights Act.
My office was in touch with the Catholic and independent schools within hours of Mr Doszpot’s claim to assure them that, whatever he had in mind, I am committed to the full independence of the non-government school sector and so is the government. I will never seek to dictate to non-government schools their teaching and pedagogy practices. If they ask to be involved in a review—which they did in this instance and we said yes—that is fine. But it is not my view that I would seek to go in and impose teaching practices, curriculum and pedagogy on the non-government school system.
On any examination of the facts, what is clear is that my statements about Liberal Party policy have been entirely accurate and fair. If the Liberal Party wishes to clarify this matter of the confusion over their policy, they could—
Opposition members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .