Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 38 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

reputation and has been at SWOW before. I personally have received a number of reports from parents and students who have been taught by that person praising that person. As I have already indicated to you, I find that particularly disturbing.

The department has written to the chair of the board and the president of the Friends of SWOW and the other adults who have been spending large periods of time at the school, pointing out that the behaviour was inconsistent with the department's policy for a harassment- and violence-free workplace. Might I say that it is totally inconsistent, I would think, with the very philosophy of SWOW itself - a philosophy that was put forward to me on the numerous occasions I had meetings with people at SWOW last year. We will staff the Braddon program, Ms Tucker, with experienced teachers, and I think the children who are there and the parents know that - experienced teachers who will continue working towards establishing a viable education program at the school. We will be doing all we can to provide a quality education program and appropriate duty of care for students who decide to remain there.

I might say that Mr Justice Higgins, in his judgment on Friday, confirmed what I would say is obvious: The staffing and management of SWOW is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Training and not of the courts. I might suggest that the Friends of SWOW Inc. would do well to look at His Honour's judgment and the various comments he made, perhaps as obiter dicta, in terms of what is likely to happen in the future. The fundamental point here, Ms Tucker, is that the department has a duty and a responsibility to run its education system. It is responsible for the staffing; it is responsible for the programs. That is not really the responsibility of the court, as His Honour quite correctly said on Friday.

MS TUCKER: I ask a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. That was nothing to do with my question. I am glad you had the opportunity to make that statement, Mr Stefaniak. I am very interested that you suggest that I say something to the Friends of SWOW. The point of my question was this, and I will put it again as a supplementary question, Minister: You have told this place on many occasions that it is difficult for you to access all the students. You have not been able to find some, you claimed. My question was: Have you or your department ever written to the students about what was happening with the changing status of the School Without Walls, not about the review? I am talking about all the different things that have happened to that school. Your department has a responsibility to communicate directly, and I am asking you why they did not communicate directly with students enrolled in that government school about what was happening in that school.

MR STEFANIAK: My understanding, Ms Tucker, is that towards the end of last year, I think - and I will correct this if it is wrong - the department made contact, I believe it was in writing, with students who are currently in the SWOW program in relation to the proposed move. I just have a mind's eye impression of that being one of the steps in what has been a fairly long and tortuous process since about June last year. I will get back to you exactly on the details of that, Ms Tucker. As you yourself know, the department has made a number of attempts to contact a number of students about various matters relating to SWOW and the relocation since about midway through last year. There have been numerous meetings; there have been teachers there since the start of term one.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .