Page 4318 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
concerned that these changes may be more in line with an election commitment than about well thought through changes that would produce better outcomes for students.
We have an existing system in place, as part of the current act, requiring close monitoring of suspensions and we have an Assembly committee addressing issues surrounding the achievement gap. Yet the government is proposing to increase the time away from school, which is often one of the only consistent, structured environments in the life of many troubled children.
We are also concerned about the proposed changes surrounding the delegation of the chief executive’s power to transfer a student from a government school to another school and delegate that down to a public servant. The transfer of a student is a significant issue and should only be done after all other approaches have been exhausted. The chief executive’s careful consideration of all cases provides another check to ensure that all of the options have been exhausted and proper process has been followed. I would add, again, there was little detail in the explanatory statement regarding this issue and also in the briefing about the need to change the act.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the education and training department and Mr Barr’s office for briefing us on this amendment. However, while appreciating the issues involved, the ACT Greens will not be supporting the amendments. In response to Mr Doszpot’s proposed amendment, I think I have put forward very clearly that we will not support an automatic suspension of up to 10 days. We want it to remain as it is now, up to five days. As I said, with some forms and paperwork filled out and some check and balance happening, the option then is to request another five, 10 or 15 days. We will not be supporting Mr Doszpot’s amendment to give principals the power to suspend a child for 20 days.
I think I have put forward quite clearly that many of these children are facing many complex issues. They can be very troubled in many ways. I have actually consulted with people I have known and worked with over 20 years. These are children’s advocates, people who have worked with children in education or in health—a whole range of areas. That is how I have come to my position. We cannot support an amendment around extending it to 20 days.
I feel that the amendment that has been suggested around counselling has been very last minute. There has not been an opportunity for any discussion. I do not think that is a good way to approach amending legislation. It says that students who are suspended for 20 days or more must attend counselling sessions. To put in a “must attend” is an issue in itself, but there are many issues that would need to be worked through and discussed, such as: what is the purpose of the counselling, who provides it, how is it provided? A whole range of issues need to be talked through. Having had the amendments in a timely manner to be able to follow through and have discussions would have been, I believe, a far more appropriate approach. We will not be supporting Mr Barr’s amendments to the act and we will not be supporting Mr Doszpot’s proposed amendments.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.48): I commend Mr Doszpot for the approach he has taken to this legislation. It is important that we deal with these issues in a serious way. There are a number of aspects to this debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .