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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4198 ..

But the other really important aspect of the experience was that, by learning to cook, you learnt what to cook; you learnt about nutrition. Everyone was required to eat the meal that was prepared each day by the particular kids that were doing the cooking unit and the catering unit. So they actually learnt about nutrition. That was something that was clearly very, very important to a number of them. It makes you reflect on how poorly nourished a lot of young people actually can be in our community; it’s about an understanding of nutrition and so on.

Other life experiences were given to them through that program. For example, a number of them, it was discovered, had never been to the beach and had never played in the sand. So at the age of 15, they were playing in the sand for the first time. There was in this program a really healing, holistic approach to these kids. I think that you need to take that really broad approach to what the needs are for this particular group of young people.

We have some programs like that operating effectively in the ACT, although, like many worthwhile community-based programs, there are ongoing issues in sourcing government support and funding. For example, the Billabong Aboriginal Corporation is producing good outcomes for indigenous kids at risk. Many of these kids have already made the decision to leave school, and the program assists them with vocational training. However, some kids involved in the program are successfully combining school and work.

Another local program which is achieving good results with kids who are at risk and which has also struggled for support is a program delivered by the Gungahlin Community Service and Gold Creek High School—the alternative learning program, which provides IT and other skills to kids at risk.

There are also a number of organisations, both in Canberra and nationally, attempting to address the issue of intergenerational poverty and disadvantage—for example, the Smith Family’s learning for life program, which provides financial and educational support to kids at risk. That’s basically dealing with the use of the Hayes component of public education.

Ms Dundas’s motion, as I said, has much to commend it, and the information base clearly makes it worth exploring. However, I think there would be benefit in undertaking some further consultation before we push ahead with an after-school program. In the short time available to us, we have heard concerns from people with extensive experience in the sector, in particular in relation to the prospect of having a program delivered after school. It may be that after school is not the best time for such a program. Kids might not want to have to stay back after school for extra training.

An after-school program might also be a barrier to kids with carer responsibilities. It may be that making vocational training for students at risk could be an elective as an alternative to traditional school subjects, although, then again, I know people can have concerns about that. There are a range of options and I think there needs to be further consideration of the best ways such a program could be delivered.

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