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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1309 ..

possible. The amendment seeks to remove the words “as far as practicable” in this clause so that the clause would then read:

(1) Everyone involved in the administration of this Act, or in the education of children of school age in the ACT, is to apply the principle that every child has a right to receive a high-quality education.

Under the current system people seeking an education have the right to be provided with an education, but this bill today just simply gives them the right to education as opposed to the right to be provided with an education. It is a small and subtle difference, which has raised concerns among parents, specifically parents of students with disabilities or behavioural problems. Many parents, at great personal and financial cost, have already fought long and hard through the courts to make sure their children are able to be educated within our school system. They do not want to see these efforts undone by a qualifier that then has to be retested through the courts. As I said previously, a good education system is one that is inclusive. While the words “as far as practicable” remain in the bill, a spectre remains over the head of every child who is slightly different, a child with a disability or who is otherwise difficult to teach. There is no guarantee that “as far as practicable” will not mean something different under a different education minister or a different government. That is why I think it is important that these words are removed.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.42): The government will not be supporting this amendment. In saying that, it certainly is not to compromise the principle that every child has a right to receive a high quality education. What it does is reflect the fact that you cannot legislate and take into account the needs of every child and every situation that schools and systems may be presented with. This is a term that is aligned with the term “reasonable adjustment” used in the DDA standards as they apply to education. I and the Tasmanian minister were the only state and territory ministers to endorse this at last year’s MCEETYA meeting.

“As far as practicable” takes into account the financial capacity of schools and systems and provides a defence for those schools which might not have the financial capacity to accommodate needs for curriculum access and some physical modifications. It in no way compromises the right of a child to have a high quality education, but it does seek to provide some leeway in situations where you simply cannot foresee or meet the needs of every child at times. It is not to compromise that right at all.

MS TUCKER (4.43): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. It is about a basic principle, which is that everyone has the right to have quality education. In practice, we would get such an education only as far as practicable, but that is not the principle; it is the outcome. It might be argued that people could take action against the school for not delivering a high quality education to someone with a serious disability or behavioural problem. However, in the first case the principle does not apply to each class of school being obliged to provide such an education. Secondly, the specifics of children with disabilities are dealt with at clause 7(3)(b), which specifies that unjustifiable hardship cannot be imposed on the school in providing that education.

MR PRATT (4.44): The opposition will be supporting Ms Dundas’s amendment. We think that “as far as practicable” provides for too loose an arrangement. We would much

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