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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1345 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Of course, a screaming priority is to focus new intervention strategies on children in year 10 in danger of falling out. To that end, I am pleased to see Ms Tucker's amendment. I think that is a constructive and a positive way in which we can address the retention rate problem. We do not have that much of a problem anymore, but it is always going to be there. As a number of speakers have said here today, we can never stop striving to make our education system better. Hopefully, we can all work together to try to achieve those sorts of ends.

Retention, literacy and numeracy rates are a very important guidance vehicle. Ironically, I must agree with Ms Tucker's notion that they should not be politicised. You are right, Ms Tucker. They should not be politicised. They are an important guidance. Our work will never stop in seeking new and imaginative ways of exercising strong interventions in our schools to seek out and provide sympathetic and constructive assistance to our children who are in danger either of not achieving or of falling by the wayside. That does not apply just to year 9 and year 10 children in danger of not going on to year 12. It also applies to children at risk, who come from broken families, who are probably seen as disruptive in schools and who need a lot of attention.

These are things which are multi-partisan. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Assembly in striving to achieve new initiatives and improvements in our education system to ensure that all our children are well looked after and that the maximum number go on to year 12.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Personal explanation

MS TUCKER: I would like to make a clarification under standing order 46.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MS TUCKER: In the course of the debate before lunch today on discrimination against same-sex couples, I made statements which I was later informed were not correct. The error was in information supplied to me pursuant to a departmental briefing. We have checked and I want to clarify the record.

I listed legislation which I said was still discriminatory. To make it clear, I mistakenly said that there were provisions that discriminated against same-sex couples in the Coroners Act and the Guardianship and Management of Property Act. That was not correct but I was correct in saying that examples of such discrimination are in the Adoption Act, the Artificial Conception Act, the Casino Control Act, the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, the Debits Tax Act, the Evidence Act, the Land Titles Act, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Workers Compensation Act and the Transplantation and Anatomy Act. I apologise to members for the mistake.

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