Page 4326 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is also not envisaged that this reform will increase the number of suspensions. Students are not going to misbehave more as a result of this change, but it will give principals more time to calm a volatile situation down, to reassure students, parents and teachers and arrange support programs and strategies for the suspended student.
Parents want this change. They tell me regularly that they want safe schools, and this reform will make our schools even safer. But it is a tough balance between upholding the expectations of behaviour in schools and the rights of any victims in a violent incident and ensuring a suspended student is supported and re-engaged in learning.
The government believe we have got the balance right. It is worth noting that there has not been an increase in bullying and violence in our schools. Between July 2007 and March 2009 there has been a general downward trend in the number of critical incidents. In the July to September quarter of 2008 there were eight critical incidents, compared to 27 in the same period in 2007. In the October to December quarter 2008 there were 13 incidents compared to 18 in the same period in 2007. So I repeat: this is about principals having more flexibility and discretion to run their schools. A suspension period of up to 10 days gives schools more time and more flexibility—more time to reflect on an antisocial incident, to reassure students, parents, and teachers that their school is a safe environment to work and to learn in—and it allows principals to link up other programs and agencies to help the suspended student.
It is worth noting, too, that suspensions can occur for a period of up to 20 days, but the chief executive of the Department of Education or the director of the Catholic Education Office makes the final decision on whether this is an appropriate sanction. It is important that suspended students are encouraged to re-engage with education, whether that is through training, skills development, work experience or traditional education settings.
In conclusion, the government believe this is about balancing different needs. A 10-day suspension period gives principals more time and flexibility but it keeps the checks and balances and oversight of the chief executive or the director of the Catholic Education Office for suspensions longer than 10 days. We have got the balance right in this legislation and, judging from the contribution of those members opposite and on the crossbench, we have struck a middle position.
Finally, the scrutiny of bills committee made a comment in relation to an element of the legislation and it recommended that the opinion of the chief executive be based on reasonable grounds. I can advise the Assembly that the suspension processes are drafted taking into account the administrative law rules, the decision making, which include that decisions are to be made on reasonable grounds. I think all government executives would make decisions based on reasonable grounds; this is the legal standard usually applied and does not need explicit wording.
I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I understand Mr Doszpot will be moving amendments, but the government will not be supporting those amendments.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .