Page 4319 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Many of the speakers have touched on the fact that suspension is merely one tool in dealing with problem students—students who display violence in schools and indeed have other behavioural problems. Suspension is simply one part of that. It is worth putting it into context that suspension does not solve the problems. Allowing principals or others to suspend students for longer in and of itself will not solve problems, but it is one important step.
The question for the Greens, and indeed Mr Barr, becomes: why do they not trust principals in the ACT to do their job in the best interests of students in the same way that principals right around the country are trusted to do their job? That is fundamentally what we are dealing with here. Principals in New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory, Victoria and South Australia—
Ms Hunter: So let’s just go the lowest common denominator every time.
MR SESELJA: Ms Hunter interjects and says it is the lowest common denominator to give principals the ability to deal with this issue.
Mr Smyth: Don’t trust principals.
MR SESELJA: Principals in New South Wales, South Australia or Victoria are somehow inherently more trustworthy in dealing with students and the issue of suspension. We have a situation where the 20 days suspension that has been proposed by Mr Doszpot would only be used as a last resort. It would only be used in the most serious of cases. It would only be an additional tool for principals to deal with the most troublesome of students—the most disruptive students, the most violent students. We know that these are a very small minority of students in our schools, but they are there and they cause serious disruption. We need to say, “Why would we not trust our principals?” What is it about our principals that the education minister does not trust when he will not give them the same ability as their interstate colleagues to deal with disruptive students?
That is the fundamental question here. It appears Mr Barr believes that principals in Queanbeyan, Gunning and Sydney—anywhere in our region—can do it, but in the ACT it is not reasonable, that in his opinion in some way they are not up to that and we can only give them this limited power of 10 days. That is the choice here. It appears that the Greens and the Labor Party have both determined that they do not believe that our principals are as trustworthy as their interstate colleagues.
We take a different approach. We actually believe that our principals are the best placed, in consultation with their teachers and other relevant officials, to make these decisions. They should be trusted to make these decisions. They are charged with running schools, with the safety of their students and with ensuring that it is a safe environment for students, teachers and anyone else entering the grounds. We happen to believe in our teachers and we happen to believe in our principals. That is what Mr Doszpot’s amendment is about.
The principle of extending the power, the delegation and the ability is one we support. We simply believe that this is a piecemeal way of doing it, that we do not actually trust them in the same way that their interstate colleagues are trusted. That is where
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .