Page 4329 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, I commend the amendment that we have brought forward and I would seek the support of both the Greens and the government so that we are not just getting, to coin a phrase that Mr Barr is very fond of using, Mr Barr opposing for the sake of opposing.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (12.28): In response to Mr Doszpot’s speech in support of his amendments, which was a little bit short on detail and a little bit long on rhetoric, there are a number of questions that the government has in relation to the amendments. So, firstly, I think it is worth putting on the record that these amendments came through very late, and there was a second set of amendments after the Liberal Party room meeting yesterday afternoon, I understand. Mr Doszpot may have been rolled within his party room—that is a matter for him to comment on—but it would appear that the last minute nature of these amendments leaves a number of questions unanswered.
In relation to the first amendment around counselling sessions, there is appearing to be a lack of clarity around what will happen for student re-entry if the student does not attend three counselling sessions. Why the number three? What if the matter is resolved earlier; would you still mandate in law that a student must—
Mr Doszpot: The matter is resolved—there is no problem, Mr Barr.
MR BARR: You are proposing to mandate in law that a student must attend not less than three counselling sessions. It is a clumsily worded amendment done at the last minute. It would not apply to independent schools. This section of the act applies to public and Catholic schools, but it would not apply to independent schools so it would create different standards there around re-entry which is, again, an interesting issue that would need to be further explored.
There has not been consultation with the non-government school sector of any detail, as I understand it. The cost implications have not been discussed. The involvement of the family in these compulsory counselling sessions has not been considered. Why exclude other support programs? Why only specify in the amendment three counselling sessions; why exclude all other forms of support to facilitate re-entry of a student into the school environment? So there are a number of very practical reasons why this amendment cannot be supported.
What this matter largely represents is a race to the right by the Liberal Party in this territory. Not content to support the government’s position, which is a sensible, moderate, balanced position, the Liberal Party has to do just that little bit more, be seen to do that little bit more, and run off further to the right. Some would argue there is not much room left on the right wing in ACT politics for the Liberal Party to run to, but seemingly each time an issue of some ideological contention comes forward the Liberal Party feels the need to head off in that direction.
As I have indicated on a number of occasions in this debate, the government is seeking a balanced position here—one that we have negotiated with the Principals
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .