Page 2546 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have police been called to attend incidents in ACT government schools involving violence or vandalism?” The answer came back that only the AFP would have a complete list of occasions during the period and therefore I should refer my questions to the AFP. It was interesting that a similar question was referred to the minister for police who was falling over himself; he could not wait to get the answer back.
Mr Smyth: Squaring-off, eh?
MRS DUNNE: Yes, it could be squaring-off. The answer for last financial year was 117 incidents of violence in schools, consisting of 99 assaults, 12 sexual assaults—and the Attorney-General and minister for police just told us a few minutes ago that sexual assaults are the most abhorrent crime that we could deal with—three robberies and three other offences against the person.
It is interesting that, in the fact sheets that I obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, you do get some figures. Mr Barr was asked these questions in estimates and he declined to answer them on notice, but he did have some data. The fact sheet that he took to estimates says that there were 59 critical incidents in ACT government schools during the 12-month period from 1 June to 31 May. This included 27 incidents involving some form of physical assault or violence. Four were of a sexual nature, three involved some sort of weapon and six involved adults—for example, parents, bus drivers, teachers and intruders. It is interesting that when we had this discussion in the media recently Mr Barr was very keen to blame parents as the perpetrators. By his own figures, of the 59 critical incidents that were reported to the department, six—about 10 per cent—involved adults. But Mr Barr was very keen to blame parents when it suited him.
There are some inconsistencies here. (Second speaking period taken.) The police do keep the records. It is a sorry indictment of an organisation which has a duty of care over our children, our future, that it cannot provide or will not provide these people with information. The discrepancy of 59 incidents recorded by the department of education as opposed to 117 over a similar period, not the same period, goes to show that the minister does not know what is going on in his department. By his own admission, since the minister instituted his new reporting mechanisms on 15 May until some time in July—I cannot remember the exact date—when I asked this, there had been 21 critical incidents reported, I think, over 32 school day periods. That is getting up to almost one a day. It shows that we have a real problem—a deep and entrenched problem—in our schools, but that this minister wants to sweep it under the carpet. The mechanisms for reporting that this minister introduced on 15 May are quite opaque.
During the estimates process when I asked the officials to show me where it said in the guidelines—which are on the internet—that if these things happen you call the police. The colour drained from their faces and there was a flurry of confusion. I said, “Don’t worry; you can tell me about it at the break.” At the break I got a five-minute explanation: if you look at this document, which is on the internet, and then search your way through this document to another document, which I think is also on the internet, to a third document, which is not on the internet, in the footnote it says, “If you get to this place you have to call the police.” This is not transparency; this is not clear; this is no way to run an education system which is supposed to be about keeping our children safe.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .