Page 4378 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
pathetic, isn’t it? But he seemed to be arguing against his own provisions by saying, “It’s a run to the right.” So it is a run to the right to give principals more power, except if you do the exact amount that is proposed by Andrew Barr, because that is the correct amount. That is the balanced amount. What a joke! It is not a run to the right when he does it, but if someone else does it, apparently it is.
This is about actually trusting principals. This is saying that principals in the ACT are as trustworthy as their interstate colleagues. They are able to make these decisions, and no argument has been put forward by the minister as to why there should be this disparity between us and other states other than that it is a Liberal proposal. That seems to be the main reason. I think what we will get, as we often do, is to again have a minister who is empty handed. We will have a minister who comes back and who has achieved absolutely nothing because he was prepared to go for a token change rather than a substantive change.
We believe that, if you are going to bother to make these changes, the changes should mean something. They should be substantive and they should actually reflect the trust and the confidence that we have in our principals. That is what these amendments do. Mr Barr’s proposed amendments do not, and we are again going to have a minister who has failed. He will have failed once more to get his agenda through.
I commend Mr Doszpot’s amendments. They are very sensible. They are seen as sensible right around the country, but apparently not by this minister, who will end up with nothing because he is not prepared to negotiate and he will end up with nothing in terms of actually giving principals the power that they deserve.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (4.30): I just heard Mr Seselja speak for about five minutes and say very little. He could have said it probably in one sentence, but I guess that is what lawyers do. One of the things that I took from what he said was that it is all about punishment. It is all about taking these kids away as punishment for something that they are doing. He did not offer any suggestions on what could happen about the root cause. Why are these kids behaving in this way? He has not made any suggestion about that at all.
The other thing that I remark on is that Mr Seselja’s principal argument was that the government did not trust the principals. If you ask the principals and you ask the Catholic Education Office what they think is a reasonable period of sanction that they can use—
Mr Seselja: They’re just taking what they can get.
MR HARGREAVES: Would you mind being quiet for just a little bit, please?
Mr Seselja: Like you and Andrew were when I was speaking?
MR HARGREAVES: I heard you in silence—
Mr Seselja: It was not silent when I was speaking.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Burch): Mr Seselja, please.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .