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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1326 ..

MS TUCKER (5.54): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 1382]. I am, once again, uneasy with the argument that all school reviews need to consult the police. I do not see similar provisions with non-government schools. It suggests that government schools and their students cannot be trusted and are in need of social control or correction. I also reject the notion that all community entities’ views need to be taken into account. I can think of several community entities that I would prefer had no voice in our schools. I have proposed an amendment suggested by the P&C that a review must seek “the input of the local community served by the school”. That would seem to offer an opportunity for community organisations or interested parties to put their perspective on the record for the benefit of the school review process without distorting the purpose and integrity of the review itself.

MS DUNDAS (5.55): We are happy to support this amendment as moved by Ms Tucker. It is important because schools are important parts of our communities and the community’s involvement in the review of a school would be quite vital. Schools provide employment in the area around them and community groups often rely on school facilities for their activities and as a focus for the community. If such groups choose to be involved, their input to a school’s review should be able to be heard. So this amendment is quite adequate and it is something we support. I think the wording suggested by Mr Pratt’s amendment No 9 is quite concerning and does not really recognise the role that the school provides in the community. That is the core of Ms Tucker’s amendment and it is, think, all that needs to be done.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.56): The government is happy to support the amendment moved by Ms Tucker. I think it is a useful addition to that section of the bill and it is certainly better phrased than amendment No 9, which will be moved by Mr Pratt. Giving “entities that provide local community services and the police” a say about reviews in particular schools is concerning. I think that what Mr Pratt is trying to achieve, which is to seek input from the local community served by the school, is actually what Ms Tucker has managed to deliver through her amendment so we will be supporting that and I foreshadow that we will not support amendment No 9 of the opposition.

MR PRATT (5.56): I am going to oppose this amendment because I do not think it goes far enough and I will rest on the laurels of my amendment No 9.

Amendment agreed to.

MR PRATT (5.57): I seek leave to move amendment Nos 9 and 10 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: I move amendment Nos 9 and 10 [see schedule 3 at page 1376]. Amendment No 9 seeks to include the views of the local community served by the school, including community services, community organisations and the community police, when the review of the effectiveness of a government school is being undertaken. A school is part of the community and, as such, the community should be involved in the

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