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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1346 ..

the divisions between schools and require from all government-funded non-government schools the same degree of accountability and responsibility that the so-called public system is required to take on.

I will not be supporting Mr Pratt’s amendment. For the reasons that have been stated, it is quite inappropriate to be forcing a situation like that.

MR PRATT (8.49): Mr Speaker, I understand that amendment 5 conforms with amendment 3 that Ms Dundas did not get up.

Ms Gallagher: They have different wording in them. There are subtle differences about responsibilities.

MR PRATT: Surely the point is that we want our students in all schools, in both sectors, to be well looked after if they are in the process of looking as if they are going to fall by the wayside. We have put this amendment on the table to try to ensure that these kids get counselling.

Any expert in the world will tell you that people who need to be counselled often need to be guided. You cannot just give them the option. If you give people the option, they will not take counselling. I would ask you to seriously consider the aim of our amendment. If we are to pick up and put back into the system a student who has been put out for a serious reason, it is very important that we be proactive and not give that person the opportunity to voluntarily get counselling. I do not think to do otherwise is at all responsible. I take issue with Ms Tucker. Our amendment is not inappropriate. It is a very responsible amendment to try and do something about proactively helping kids who are purely falling by the wayside and in danger of not finishing their education.

MS DUNDAS (8.51): Mr Speaker, I have three amendments that seek to do the same thing. One is for kids in government schools and two are for kids in non-government schools—one for the Catholic system and one for the other students in the non-government systems.

What I am seeking is that the chief executive of the department of education must ensure that children in the government system who are suspended for seven or more days are given reasonable opportunity to attend appropriate counselling. In Catholic systemic schools, the director of the Catholic system is the one who must ensure that the child is given a reasonable opportunity to attend appropriate counselling. In the other non-government schools, it is the principal who wears that responsibility. The three different systems have three different levels of reporting in relation to what happens when children are excluded or suspended from their schools, so my amendments are different to reflect that.

Mr Pratt’s amendment removes that difference by putting all the responsibility on the department of education. When a student is excluded or suspended from a Catholic systemic school, the department of education is not necessarily informed. It is the director who is informed.

I should stress the point that the amendments talk about how the person in charge—be that the director, the principal or the chief executive—must ensure that the child is given

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