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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2871 ..

MR STEFANIAK: I thank the member for the question, which he mentioned briefly to me earlier. Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure whether we are talking about the same circular, but I have briefly seen a circular which we seem to think is the only one that went out, dated 28 June. Mr Osborne might like to check that with his source, because I would be interested if there was a circular saying that schools were no longer to lock bike compounds.

The circular I have indicates that there are some instances where schools provide bike compounds. Whilst, obviously, a bicycle is placed there at the owner's risk, the circular goes on to say that the schools should supply details of the arrangements set in place to secure the compounds and indicate that there would be times when they would be unlocked for a variety of reasons. Obviously, they would need to be unlocked when the kids come to school and they would need to be unlocked for a time when the kids are leaving school. I do not know whether that is the same circular.

Mr Speaker, if there was a circular saying that schools which had bike compounds should no longer lock them, then I think that it would be an incredibly stupid circular. If there are ways in which schools can assist in terms of making property more secure, the better it is. When Mr Osborne raised the question earlier, I think we had had a couple of instances in which there had been some very determined thieves who actually stole bikes from schools using bolt cutters.

No matter what precautions you take, there will always be instances where determined thieves will do their deeds and take other people's property. I reiterate that people who take kids' bikes are the lowest form of low-life but, unfortunately, these things do happen despite the best efforts. I make that point to start with.

Schools are not liable for any goods that might be taken, especially by intervening acts of third parties. Where those third parties cause acts which lead to the loss, damage or theft of a student's personal property, the schools are not liable. I think I indicated to Mr Osborne last time that I would be looking into things such as insurance, although I do not necessarily know whether that would be the answer from a school's point of view because of the cost to government, but that is something to look at.

The circular I have does encourage parents not only to take precautions, but also to ensure that if valuable property is taken to school it is, in fact, insured, and warns of the dangers of taking certain items of property to school unless it is absolutely necessary. Whilst not all schools do have areas in which they can actually lock bikes, some do and it is essential that those bikes be locked up if they can be locked up. There will be times during the day when the compound will have to be unlocked for obvious reasons, but the circular I have certainly does not indicate that schools are not to lock bike compounds; in fact, it is quite different. If Mr Osborne is referring to a different circular, if it is not the one of 28 June, I would like to see it, because that is not something that I would agree with.

MR OSBORNE: I have a supplementary question. I will check on that, minister. I have also been made aware by the circular I have that the schools are also advised to try to encourage the parents not to allow their children to ride bikes to school. Are you aware of that? Is that a policy that you support?

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