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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1313 ..

As to amendment No 3, I think it is a tad too prescriptive to have principles for government schools. We have identified the need to promote respect and tolerance for others in the overarching principles of the act. The amendment is a little more refined: it talks about “assisting parents in the character development of all students” without defining the characters we are trying to develop and the values we should be imparting. I think it is something that is better left explored through the curriculum. Clause 18(d)(vii) talks about “teacher, student and parent participation in all aspects of school education” and should facilitate what Mr Pratt is trying to achieve. As I said, we find these amendments overly prescriptive and unnecessary.

MRS DUNNE (4.58): The Liberal opposition is proposing these amendments. There are similar bits in the overarching principles and objects of the act—and, as Ms Dundas and others have said, they are in the guidelines—but the act is the fundamental document. When you want to find out what the ACT government or the ACT Assembly thinks about how education should be conducted in the ACT, you do not go to some guideline that might or might not be on a web page or might or might not be easily accessible, you go to the act. This is really about building partnerships across the sectors, across government and non-government schools, between parents and teachers, principals and pupils, and with people who are associated in more tangential ways with the education system. To find crossbenchers baulking at the notion and saying that it is unnecessary to say that government should provide a safe learning environment for students somehow beggars belief. As Mr Pratt has said—

Ms Tucker: You weren’t listening, obviously.

MRS DUNNE: I was listening, Ms Tucker. As Mr Pratt has said, generally speaking safety in the ACT is considerably higher than it is in other parts of Australia. But that does not mean that we do not need to be vigilant to ensure that this is happening. A cursory glance at almost any news magazine programs—

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MRS DUNNE: Just this morning, at a cursory glance of some of the news magazine programs on television, the issue of safety in schools came up in two separate stories on two separate occasions. They were not ACT related issues, but it is indicative of a decline in this area. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to hold safety up in a high place as being one of the essentials of a good education system. People cannot learn if they are not in a safe environment. People cannot teach if they are not in a safe environment. If you do not inculcate and nurture that environment, it may deteriorate over time. This amendment highlights safety, fairly much upfront, as being one of the things that we should be aiming for. Without it, amongst other things, we will not have a good education system for our children.

Amendment No 3 talks of “assisting parents in character development of all students, including in relation to values and respect for and tolerance of others”. I ask you, Mr Speaker: why are we suddenly afraid of tolerance of others? This is a principle upon which government schools should operate. From my experience, government schools in

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