Page 4376 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am moving for a continuation of the debate that has been circulating on this topic. The issues at stake in amendments 2 and 4 relate to the number of days for which suspension is sought, substituting 20 days and omitting the 10 days contained in the Barr proposal. We are saying the same thing in amendment 4, with respect to proposed new section 104B—page 6, line 15, omit 10 days and substitute 20 days.
Again, we come back to the crux of the argument—that Mr Barr’s amendments have gone partially towards addressing the problem but still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that the Greens have said they will not be supporting our amendments today means that they are quite happy for the filling out of more paperwork by the principals, and not giving them the authority to have the same advantage that their counterparts in every jurisdiction around Australia have. Filling out more paperwork, as Ms Hunter suggests, will not assist students that are facing suspension for periods of time. The head-in-the-sand approach will not help. We need to address these issues, and we need to address them along the lines that we have suggested.
The government have not gone far enough, and the amendments I am moving aim to strengthen the supports that are in place for a student who may be suspended for up to 20 days. Giving the principals power to suspend students for up to 20 days instead of their having to go through the red tape of the department, in line with other jurisdictions, is the right change to make to this bill. As Mr Seselja said, we believe that our principals are best placed to make these decisions, just like their counterparts in the states.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (4.22): The government will not be supporting these amendments, largely for the reasons I outlined on at least three occasions during the debate before lunch. The government believes that the proposals we have put forward in this bill are the appropriate and measured response.
I will repeat, for the benefit of members opposite who were not in the chamber earlier for this debate, that in preparing this bill the government consulted extensively with the Principals Association and the Catholic Education Office. Following that discussion, the proposal that the government put forward of 10 days was the position that was supported by those organisations. So we believe it is appropriate to continue on that path.
We believe that it will provide a series of different levels of sanction. It does not preclude suspensions of up to 20 days, but in the government’s view that is a most serious suspension, and one for which it is appropriate that there be consultation, in the context of public schools, with the chief executive of the education department, and in the context of the Catholic system with the Director of the Catholic Education Office. The Catholic Education Office are of that view as well. For those reasons we believe that it is appropriate to stick with the proposal the government has put forward and we will not be supporting Mr Doszpot’s amendments this afternoon.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.24): I did speak about this earlier but I reiterate that the ACT Greens will not be supporting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .