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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1312 ..

the teaching of values and respect for and tolerance of others, of the law, the environment and property. The Liberal opposition believes that this should be one of the foundations of building an effective and responsible education system. While many schools instinctively carry out something like this commitment, some do not. We believe that this is because it is not legislated as a benchmark requirement.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.53): The government is prepared to support amendment No 2. I think it is covered off in other laws implicit in the work the government does and detailed in the ACT government schools plan. It is more appropriately placed in the guidelines, but it is certainly not something that I will die in a ditch over.

The government will not be supporting amendment No 3. Again, the requirement is implicit in legislation, in clauses 18(d)(iii)(iv) and (vi), in the amendment of Ms Tucker that we have just agreed to. I think it is probably an attack on values education in schools and is something that the government rejects wholeheartedly. It is aligning with Dr Nelson’s attack on values education in schools. The government will not be supporting the amendment.

MS TUCKER (4.55): Speaking to Mr Pratt’s amendment No 2, I will not be supporting the suite of amendments that require government schools to provide a safe learning environment. That is because, as I understand it, it is already a requirement for schools to provide a safe learning environment through the well-established principle of duty of care. Specifying a safe learning environment in another way may just establish the grounds for unreasonable civil cases or calls for more rigorous policing of schools if an unfortunate event occurred. In response, the P&C propose to expand the safe environment aim to encompass staff and volunteers, although they are covered, as I understand it, under workers comp and OH&S requirements.

I will be opposing Mr Pratt’s amendment No 3 and similar amendments. As I argued in support of my amendment to the general principles, I do think there is on many occasions a partnership between parents and teachers, but their view is not always or necessarily the same. I think that our education systems have a responsibility to the children rather than by necessity to the parents. To charge teachers with assisting parents on character development blurs the edges of those different responsibilities. You would have to wonder what character some parents might want for their children. If I were a teacher, I would have no clear sense of what was likely to pass for assistance in character development in my work as a teacher.

MS DUNDAS (4.56): Again, the Democrats find these amendments unnecessary. Making sure that schools provide a safe learning environment is something that almost goes without saying. There are guidelines in place to make sure that that becomes a reality and there are duty of care responsibilities for running our schools. All schools should be safe learning environments, but I am concerned that this amendment could be used in more sinister ways to justify somewhat draconian anti young people policies that might encourage police onto student campuses. We should be working to avoid these police activities as much as possible.

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