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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1311 ..

assaulting another. If we do not have such a provision in place, I would be concerned that injury may be caused to another child without any appropriate prevention being taken.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.50): The government will not be supporting this amendment to insert a note clarifying that corporal punishment does not include the application of what appears to be self-defence. Corporal punishment is defined in the dictionary section of the bill as “physical force applied to punish or correct, and includes any action designed or likely to cause physical pain or discomfort taken to punish or correct”. To have that in there does not serve any purpose at all.

MS TUCKER (4.50): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. We do not think this note is necessary. Corporal punishment is defined in the dictionary as “physical force designed or likely to cause pain and taken to punish or correct”. I do not believe that, in that context, appropriate and reasonable physical force to prevent physical injury could be taken to be corporal punishment.

MS DUNDAS (4.50): The Democrats feel that this amendment is not necessary as self-defence is already defined by law. It is not conceivable that corporal punishment can be confused with the legal defence of self-defence. We will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 17, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 18.

MR PRATT (4.51): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name together [see schedule 3 at page 1376]. These amendments add a principle to government schools that they provide a safe learning environment for students. This should be a basic principle that all education systems, government and non-government, adhere to and do as much as practical to ensure that schools and classrooms are safe learning environments. I believe the department has a duty of care to ensure the best possible learning and teaching conditions in schools. This fundamental issue deserves to be enshrined as a principle. While the ACT education system contains a much safer environment than elsewhere in the country, we all in this place know that the standard is deteriorating—not necessarily through any fault of our schools or the department—and that that deterioration conforms with national trends. This deterioration does not have to occur.

Further, these amendments add another element of commitment for the government school system to assist parents in the character development of their children, including

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