Page 4377 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
these amendments to allow a principal to be able to suspend a child for up to 20 days straight out.
We have put forward arguments today as to why we believe that the status quo should be maintained. Currently, for students who are antisocial, who do commit acts of violence or extreme acts within a school that may create an unsafe environment, there is provision under the act to suspend them for up to 20 days. But the process at present is that a principal can suspend for the first five days and then must put a case to the chief executive of the department for the time for that suspension to be increased. So there is already the capacity to suspend a student in extreme circumstances. I believe that both the minister and Mr Doszpot have been quite clear, along with the Greens, that we are talking about a 20-day suspension being in very extreme circumstances.
That capacity is already there. That is why the Greens believe that we will be sticking with the status quo. So we will not be supporting Mr Doszpot’s amendments. We certainly did put forward arguments earlier around the importance of early action, of early intervention, of getting in there and addressing the issue, solving the issue, working with the student and with the student’s family.
I believe that, to be able to just exclude a student straight off for 20 days, it leaves far too much time when there may not be proper action taken—proper services put in place, the sorts of interventions that you would want to see in this situation. I just do not think that is appropriate.
Also, I do not think that enough thought has been given to the sorts of implications this has for families, for carers and for parents. Obviously, if a child is excluded straight up for 20 days then that does raise a whole lot of issues for working parents or for those who may not have the capacity to supervise the child at home for that time. I believe that this is not a well-thought-through proposal and, as I outlined in my arguments earlier, we believe that the status quo is what we should be sticking with at this time. It still has the capacity to go to 20 days with a five-day review, and we believe that is where the ACT should be staying at this point in time.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.27): These are good amendments that will actually achieve what the minister claims to be wanting to achieve, which is to give principals the ability to deal with these issues.
The Labor Party and the Greens, in voting against this provision, are saying that they do not trust the principals to have that role. Minister Barr let the cat out of the bag when he almost seemed to be arguing against his own bill. He said: “This is running to the right. They’re running to the right by giving them 20 days.” And he used the term “redneck”. Of course, the other five jurisdictions are all run by rednecks, and giving principals more ability to suspend is running to the right! So what is Mr Barr proposing then? I suppose that is running to the right. It was a ridiculous argument.
Mr Barr: A sensible and balanced approach, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: No, but the position put by the education minister is to say: “I trust you, but really not very much. I trust the principals for an extra five days.” It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .