Page 1277 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clearly Mrs Dunne has provided evidence of where a serious incident—what would appear to be a flagrant breach of the protocols—has occurred. Mr Barr says that nothing has been brought to his attention. The more correct thing would have been to say, “I have had no definitive advice from my department.” But it would appear that this issue was brought to his attention. Let us look at some of the details of the issue. In the letter from the parents, we see:
On the 1st march about 10.30 we were phoned by the Deputy principal … to … pick up our son … who had been savagely assaulted …
The letter goes on to say that the student who had assaulted him had been suspended until the following Monday as punishment. I think that is an issue in and of itself. But the letter goes on:
We were told they would get the boys together for mediation when—
their son—
recovered and the other boy was back at school. In the same call, we were advised not to get the police involved as the school would handle it themselves.
This seems to be a key part of the issue. This letter, which I understand went to Mr Barr’s office, did raise this issue. It raised it, and it goes on in some detail, some of which I will come back to. But it does go to the issue that these parents were told by the school not to call the police, not to get the police involved. In evidence before the education committee on 8 May, Ms Melsom was answering questions and talking about the protocols for informing the police. She said:
An incidence of violence might simply be a one-off, a particular outburst. Of course, there are degrees of violence as well. If it is extreme violence, it becomes a criminal act. If the child is over 10 years old, then we say to our schools, “You must report this; it’s a criminal offence.”
In his answer yesterday, Mr Barr said:
But where matters such as the ones that have been on the front page of the Canberra Times are brought to attention, they are appropriately referred to police because they are assaults. It is not bullying; it is assault.
The issue we have here is an issue around this breach of protocol where the parents were apparently told not to call the police, where—
Mr Barr: Apparently.
MR SESELJA: We have had this brought to your attention. What Mr Barr is essentially saying in his defence is that, if a concerned parent brings something to his attention, it has not really been brought to his attention—it has been brought to his attention only if his internal investigation or his department definitively advises him one way or another. We are saying, “When you answered that question and said that it had not been brought to your attention that there had been a flagrant breach, that was a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .