Page 3408 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposed board of review would ratify the decision made by the school, and ratify it publicly. However, if a school expels a student without going through procedures that are deemed by any reasonable person to be fair, the board of review would just as publicly set aside the decision and remit the decision for reconsideration by the school.
Although the name of the school and the date of the decision would be identified when published for public information, the name of the student involved would not be. The intention underlying the provision in the Bill allowing this action is that the prospect of publicity should encourage schools to make decisions in as fair a manner as possible. Notions of fairness, of course, vary from person to person. This Bill, therefore, lays down guidelines that the board of review must take into account.
The inspiration for this legislation came from the action taken by the Canberra Grammar School earlier this year, which demonstrated a total lack of respect for the law and the principles of natural justice. You may recall that eight year 12 students were expelled from the school in March and, according to a parent of one of the students, "without any effort to counsel the student nor support for the problem". The same parent was upset by the actions of her son and had hoped for support to deal with the problem. Instead, the student was summarily expelled, with absolutely no redress whatsoever.
One of the reasons this case stands out from others is that the school had displayed extraordinary inconsistency in its disciplinary procedures. The misdemeanour that sparked such a flagrant disregard for natural justice was that these eight boys had admitted to smoking marijuana out of school hours and out of school grounds. Apart from the opportunity lost for some sound drug education to be delivered at a most appropriate time, and that these boys were punished severely for their honesty - it actually would have been better for them had they been untruthful - the subsequent action made a mockery of democracy and natural justice. In fact, they were actively being taught that injustice is okay in some exclusive cases, that a favoured few can operate above the law without recrimination.
Many in Canberra, including the parents and other students, described the action taken by Mr Tim Murray, the principal - or, as he terms it, the headmaster - as a witch-hunt and Dickensian, especially as the previous year other students, including Mr Murray's own son, had been suspended for a similar offence. Mr Murray's response to public pressure on the issue this year was to make no comment. Many observers probably saw this as a way of protecting the school. The reality was that he was protecting himself because the laws of defamation made it impossible for anyone else to draw attention to those inconsistencies in school policy.
The reason for raising this issue is to highlight the need for schools to act in accordance with the same laws these students will face in the rest of society. It is not acceptable for any school to set itself above the law and the legal processes. Those students - and probably many we do not hear about - have a right to a fair hearing and to a reasonable punishment consistent with the community's sense of justice.
Mr De Domenico: They probably already get that anyway.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .