Page 3409 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: Clearly, Mr De Domenico was not listening, or he has no idea of what a sense of justice is. The parents have the right to test evidence used, to determine - - -
Mr De Domenico: No; I am listening. I am finding it very difficult not to object a bit more to this garbage that is going on.
MR MOORE: The interjection from Mr De Domenico again says that he finds it difficult to understand. Mr De Domenico, what is proposed here is an arm's length body to assess that a fair and equitable decision was made - nothing else.
Mr De Domenico: That is your opinion.
MR MOORE: That is exactly what is proposed. It would allow for the decisions to be tested - the same system that applies to law across Australia. Any time somebody goes to court, he or she has the opportunity to test a decision that is made, and that is what we are saying here. Why ought not these students to have the right to test a system, as indeed they do in most schools in Canberra? In government schools they have had this right for quite some time. The Catholic education system, since I put out my exposure draft of this Bill, has now established a system. It is a general system. The schools that have not are the schools that at this stage are most guilty.
The parents have the right to test evidence used, to determine whether it was gained under duress, as indeed was the case in the Canberra Grammar School - that is something we would not allow our police force to do - and to examine the disciplinary procedures that were put into action before the decision to expel was made. I am not saying that you cannot expel; I am saying that it has to be a fair process. The fact that the phone call at 6.00 pm from Canberra Grammar to the parents informing them that their son had been expelled was the first indication these parents had that there was a problem is evidence that appropriate disciplinary procedures were not used to deal with this problem. Perhaps these students were scapegoats, as indeed they believed, expelled in an unjust way as an example to others. This is not just, it is not sound educational practice, and it sends out conflicting messages about justice and why the law has due process. In the example just quoted, it also sends out inappropriate messages about drug education.
This Bill will have the effect of ensuring that the schools adhere to procedures that are fair and can stand up to scrutiny by an independent board. It is my sincere hope that, should this Bill pass, the board of review will not even have to be convened, but the possibility of a review will ensure a just approach to disciplinary problems. The Bill is basic to democratic principles. It gives students in all schools the same right they can expect in all other sectors of our community: The right to be treated justly and with fairness.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present an explanatory memorandum to this Bill.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: I present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Ms Szuty) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .