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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1322 ..

come from very good backgrounds—that it is important to have a neutral political position in all aspects of their professional behaviour. Kids notice it. There is always concern about certain teachers being too political and influencing their kids that way. Maybe that is true. It is rather silly for teachers to try it.

A teacher I knew—I still see him occasionally; I still like seeing him—was certainly overly political. We called one of the first AEU or Teacher’s Federation activists at Narrabundah High “Red Matt”. I remember that in year 10 he gave me three out of 10 for a history essay because I took a pro-British position on the Boer War. He certainly rammed down our throats how good the union was and what it was going to do. He was a bit silly because it was probably wasted on 15- and 16-year-olds. I do not think anybody in the class particularly appreciated him for it. He was, however, a very good teacher, a bloke I have seen on a few reunions since then. We laugh about it now. He had his own strong personal views. If anything, it made him look a bit silly I think at the time with the class. It is probably wrong and also rather silly and unnecessary for anyone in that sort of position to try to foist their own personal opinions, be they political or otherwise, on others. What is wrong with adopting a neutral political position?

I will briefly mention the amendment to proposed new clause 21B. When I was education minister and had talks with the union representatives, they themselves said that they did not want duds to stay in the profession. It is particularly difficult, I suppose, to get rid of someone who really is unsuited. I shared a flat in Muswellbrook once with a teacher who turned out to be an alcoholic. They had immense difficulty getting rid of him. I wonder how much easier it is now? I heard what Ms Gallagher had to say about the Public Sector Management Act, but I think a bit more flexibility in the power to recruit and to dismiss staff is very important. I do not think that is something that is necessarily really opposed by principals, board chairs or even necessarily, when it has its druthers, by the union itself because of what they have said to me in the past. That might well be something worth supporting as well. I do not intend to speak any further on the other points my colleague Mr Pratt has raised in this particular series of amendments, but I do wish to make those points in this debate.

MS TUCKER (5.38): The Greens will not be supporting these amendments. As to amendment No 4, my comments on the safe teaching conditions stand. Furthermore, the requirement for the department to provide a bursar and deputy principal would undermine the viability of small schools, which is something the Greens have no interest in doing. Ms Gallagher noted that Mr Pratt did not propose putting the safety and staffing requirement onto non-government schools.

I have already spoken to a similar amendment to Mr Pratt’s amendment No 6. This amendment is a grab bag of aspirations, some of which, such as professional development requirements, warrant further, more detailed discussion, and some of which, such as “a neutral political position in all aspects of their political behaviour”, simply lay the groundwork for hostility to be directed at teachers for their political persuasion. I would argue that all teachers serve their students well when they are clear about their political persuasion but in no way prejudiced or discriminatory in their work and engagement with students.

There are codes of ethics and behaviour that already exist in regard to the work of teachers. I am particularly disturbed that there are such ill-considered terms as “the

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