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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1342 ..

business entities, they will have commercial-in-confidence information. If it is not necessary for the principal to talk about that information, it is culled out. The principal is required to provide appropriate information to families and it perhaps should not involve commercial-in-confidence information. That is the aim of the amendment.

MS DUNDAS (8.34): We will not be supporting these amendments moved by Mr Pratt. I think the argument has got caught up in what Mr Pratt is trying to achieve. He has mentioned that his amendment seeks to prevent the revealing of commercial-in-confidence material to parents of students at non-government schools. No school could actually be forced to reveal commercial-in-confidence material; that is the whole point of the commercial-in-confidence guidelines. We do not have every piece of information put forward. The clause states:

The principal of a non-government school must make available to parents of students at the school and to the staff and students of the school information about the school’s educational programs and policies, and the operation of the school.

It says “information”—not every single document that has ever been written under the sun about how a school is operating today. It just talks about general information. Putting in the word “appropriate” could mean that more things are hidden from parents than are necessary and that more things are hidden from students and the staff than are necessary. There is no need to change subclause (1) and there is no need to remove subclause (2) in relation to the principals of schools consulting with parents about the operation of the school, including educational programs and policies. Consultation should be encouraged within the school community, and that is why that needs to remain.

MS TUCKER (8.36): This is another example where the accountability that is built into this legislation would be weakened if Mr Pratt’s amendments were passed. The provision of information on the operation of the school is fairly open ended. Arguing that it only needs to be appropriate information really suggests it may be very little indeed. The number of times “appropriate” has been used as a justification for non-transparent decisions in this Legislative Assembly ought to stand as a warning against its use in this bill.

I notice that the Association of Independent Schools do not want to have to consult, believing it would open them up to undue pressure from a few parents, and have made the point that the ultimate accountability mechanism for non-government schools is for the students to leave. That is an unsatisfactory response to those of us who would like to build accountability into all government funded education systems. The article in today’s paper reflecting on research conducted by the Australian School of Government Studies makes this point as well. As we all know, consultation does not need negotiation; at the simplest level, it simply requires listening and response.

Amendments negatived.

Clause 80 agreed to.

Clauses 81 and 82, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 83.

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