Page 4271 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The COAG “earn or learn” changes to the ACT Education Act took effect at the start of the current school year and at this stage we have not had an update on these figures to see if truancy rates have risen since the change. That is something which the minister may be able to inform us on in due course.
The problem of absenteeism is very complex and there are a range of reasons for this. It is important that schools investigate patterns and causes for non-attendance and that strategies to address specific problems be implemented. Truancy or student absenteeism can be a significant social problem. This was one of the issues the ACT Greens raised in the Assembly earlier this year when opposing longer suspensions for ACT students. While we indicated at the time that it is wrong to expect education to be the fix for everything, the more we work to keep students engaged in the education system the better the opportunity we have of avoiding many of the social problems that arise.
We welcome the attempt in this case by the principal of Lanyon high school to try to address truancy. The approach of seeking to have shopkeepers refuse service to truant students does appear to be in breach of the antidiscrimination act and therefore is not one the ACT Greens can endorse. We recognise that there is a balancing act here and that, like all of us, the Lanyon principal wants students to attend school, but we cannot break the law in doing this.
The human rights commissioner, in a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times dated 10 September 2010, pointed out:
The ACT Discrimination Act 1991 makes it unlawful for a provider of goods and services to refuse service based on a number of attributes, including age, and any retailer considering refusing service should be mindful of these obligations. Additionally, it is unlawful to aid and abet someone else to undertake discriminatory action, and it is also unlawful to advertise an intention to undertake discriminatory action. That is, to put a sign in a shop saying that school students will not be served may be unlawful, and to ask someone to display such a sign may also be unlawful.
ACT Government agencies also have obligations under the ACT Human Rights Act 2004, including the right to equality, and special protection to children.
Any proposed action to ban children and young people from a public space also appears inconsistent with the recently released ACT Government ACT Young People’s Plan 2009-2014. One of the guiding principles of this Plan is that ‘young people’s rights are respected, protected and advanced, and that young people are valued members of the community’. Similarly, a cornerstone of the recently released ACT Children’s Plan 2010-2014 is for Canberra to become a Child Friendly City—a city which is ‘liveable, inclusive and accessible, and where children are provided the opportunities needed to participate fully in family, community and social life’. Encouraging shops to actively identify and refuse service to children and young people, even for such well-meaning intentions, does not appear to be in line with either of these plans.
My office spoke with the Children and Young People Commissioner yesterday about the approach adopted in this case by the principal of Lanyon high school. Like all of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video