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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1348 ..

out of the system. This amendment is trying to address the situation, which I am sorry to say does happen, of schools saying, “Oh, phew, this child that no-one can deal with is out of our hair for seven days.” That is totally unsatisfactory and, as I have said, that came up in previous committee inquiries. We want to make sure that there is a consciousness about what is happening to a child who is excluded, and that every opportunity is taken to support that child in ways that are appropriate.

I support what Ms Dundas said. My understanding of the evidence is not as Mr Pratt said. It is extremely unlikely that a child who is forced to undergo counselling will benefit. This is not always the case—there can be occasions where someone who is obliged to take counselling can benefit. But, on the whole, this course of action has the opposite effect. It actually alienates the child more. You need a willingness. It is important that appropriate action be taken because you need to find something that the child feels they can work with.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.58): Sorry to keep this debate going but I would like to make a couple of points. Mr Cornwell questioned what was meant by the term “appropriate counselling”. Mr Pratt is not seeking to amend that term. In fact, he was seeking to include the words “appropriate counselling”. So I think there is agreement across the floor that “appropriate counselling” is the right term to use.

Again, “reasonable opportunity” is a term that is consistent with the words used in other clauses of the bill. For example, once the child is suspended, it is provided that they be given “reasonable opportunity” to continue their education. So the drafting of this clause is consistent with other clauses in the bill.

Again, if we agree to Mr Pratt’s amendment to undertake appropriate counselling as organised by the department of education, that would require non-government schools, both Catholic and independents, to report to the department of education about any suspensions that they have in their school. That is something that I do not believe they would welcome. I imagine that there would need to be quite extensive consultation with them on this because that sort of information is not forthcoming. I have to say that it is not information that I would object to receiving but I think you need to be a bit careful about what you are doing here.

The responsibility for students and the responsibility to suspend students in those sectors rest with the director in the Catholic system and with the principals in the independent system. Therefore, it is ridiculous to require the department of education to provide counselling; it is also not something that the independent or Catholic systems would welcome.

MR PRATT (9.00): I am not sure about that, Mr Speaker. I do not see why, for example, the Catholic Education Office cannot talk to the department of education and seek assistance if it is beyond their means to deal with a particular problem.

Ms Gallagher: Well, they do in those situations. But you are saying “must” undertake counselling organised by the department. “Must”.

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