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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2996 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

think it would be a particularly useful allocation of the committee's or the government's time.

I am sure that Mr Cornwell is aware that clearly recommendations are recommendations only. Government can, of course, not agree to implement recommendations. So I would suggest that to ask them to fully cost every recommendation of a committee's report before they have decided to implement them would be a waste of taxpayers' money.

The role of a committee is to look at the policy-in this case, social policy-taking into account the evidence that is given to it and to make recommendations to government. Those recommendations are made with a consciousness that there may be resource implications. Of course, not all recommendations have resource implications. But committees are always well aware of this and it is something that we assume and know that government will look at.

The recommendations in this report are far reaching. The committee did not expect that government would respond overnight and pick them all up. But this is a substantive body of work which hopefully will inform government policy. The report is the result of evidence bought from community, academia and the government itself. I do not think Mr Cornwell has thought this through and I reject what he said.

The other general complaint that Mr Cornwell made was that we moved outside the terms of reference. I find that an interesting comment. To summarise, the recommendations basically looked at a number of issues. For example, participation with young people and the community to develop policy: I don't see how that is outside the terms of reference of any public policy area. Indigenous health: pretty relevant to the health of school-age children. Provision of medical centres: pretty relevant to the health of school-age children. Physical education: pretty relevant. Nutrition: very relevant. Youth centres and community support services in colleges to support young people in their lives, and obviously particularly relating to health care: pretty relevant to the health of school-age children.

Drug education: I cannot see anyone saying that is not relevant to the health of school-age children. Environmental pollutants: we know people get asthma and they cannot perform very well at school and I think that is pretty relevant to the question of the health of school-age children. Counselling and mental health: it would be hard to see how that was not relevant. Body image: we know how absolutely disruptive to people's lives eating disorders are and I cannot see how that is not relevant. The question of sexuality: we know that sexual health is a major issue for young people; it is certainly relevant to the health of school-age children. Getting pregnant really does have an impact on the health of a person at school. Probably they do not go to school when they are in the later stages of pregnancy and after the baby is born. So I think that is fairly relevant.

Sexual violence and sexual assault: the evidence is pretty clear that young people who suffer from sexual violence do not fare too well and that certainly has an impact on their capacity at school. So it is pretty relevant. Transport is obviously relevant. As the committee explained quite clearly, it is related to the question of physical fitness and health. Violence against women and young girls: I have already dealt with that. Bullying: very relevant to the health of school-age children.

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