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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1347 ..

a reasonable opportunity to attend appropriate counselling. You cannot force somebody into counselling against their will. They can rock up and then they can leave or they can just sit in a room and not participate. But if people are doing the best they can to ensure that all the opportunities are provided to the young student, that is the best that we can ask them to do.

MR CORNWELL (8.53): The minister said that Mr Pratt did not understand the subtleties of Ms Dundas’s amendment. Neither do I. I am puzzled by the words “reasonable opportunity to attend appropriate counselling”. It is more than subtle—it is very vague. I simply do not understand. What is appropriate counselling? Going to have a talk to grandma, perhaps? I do not know.

Ms Dundas has confirmed that certain people in the non-government and the government sectors will have the responsibility to ensure that a child is given a “reasonable opportunity to attend appropriate counselling”. Do they know necessarily what the appropriate counselling is to be? What is a “reasonable opportunity”? Do you give them another seven days to attend the appropriate counselling? Do you request them to attend within 24 hours? Ms Dundas has already indicated that you cannot force people to attend counselling, so how can you force them or oblige them to attend within any reasonable time or with reasonable opportunity?

I feel that this matter, as set out, is very vague. My colleague Mr Pratt has at least pointed to an organisation, the department of education, which we assume has unfortunately had experience with this type of thing in the past. After all, it was only this morning that a report on the adolescent day unit was tabled. I suppose, Mr Speaker, that this unit is a means of dealing with some of the more difficult students within the formal education system.

So I believe that in this case it is appropriate that we identify the department of education, which at least is in a position to provide appropriate counselling. Presumably a “reasonable opportunity” to attend the counselling can be made available to the child and, of course, to the school, be it non-government or government.

MS TUCKER (8.56): Previous Assembly committees have conducted inquiries into children at risk of not completing education and services for children at risk. I might just answer the questions that Mr Cornwell put. Who would know what was appropriate? He proposes that the department of education would be appropriate. However, the people most likely to have an understanding of what would be appropriate support for a child who is suspended or excluded would in fact be the teachers at the school. The school community would have the best idea about what was appropriate for that individual child.

Mr Cornwell also made the comment, which I think was facetious, that appropriate counselling could mean going to have a talk to granny. I am aware of support that was given to an Aboriginal child by the grandmother. This course was initiated by the school because they understood what was appropriate, they understood the situation for that child and the support that that child needed.

The Assembly committees that held inquiries into children at risk and so on looked at the clearly unsatisfactory situation of kids being suspended from school and basically left

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