Page 4384 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
many different types of services. Some of them may need to involve the family. It may be a family services approach where the whole family needs to be engaged with support services, with counselling services and so forth.
Members interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot and Mr Barr, can Ms Hunter please speak.
MS HUNTER: Some may be around support programs for young people. Of course, we know that the Department of Education and Training provide a lot of different programs. I am very pleased that in our public school system we do have youth support workers in schools, we do have school counsellors, we do have pastoral care coordinators and we have welfare teams. Of course, they are engaging with them, and community sector agencies are engaging with schools. Hopefully, what can happen in these situations is that not just schools but the broader community and the community sector organisations can all be working together to find a solution that will re-engage the student in question, maybe find alternatives to education, and certainly look at a rosier future and a better outcome. As I said, in many cases I would suspect it may well have to involve the family that this young person is a part of.
I think it is a very complex area. It is not something that can come in with one simple approach. Therefore we will not be supporting these amendments because we do not believe you can take one possible solution or option and embed it in legislation. That is not a good way forward and that is why today we will not be supporting these amendments.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4:52): I was not intending to speak to these amendments but having heard Mr Barr’s rhetoric and his obstinate approach to this matter, I feel compelled to. He knows full well that, if he wants to get legislation through as a minister, and as he has seen his colleagues do, he should sit down and negotiate an outcome.
I think our intent is broadly the same; it is simply that we view a certain measure of amendments being required to extend the suspension period and the other amendments that Mr Doszpot has put in, which I think are very well based and well thought out. His failure to even acknowledge them or sit down and have a discussion demonstrates the characteristic sort of “my way or the highway” approach to pushing through policy that we have seen.
He is the one that is voting no here. He is the one that has been voting no to what are very sensible amendments. If that leads to a consequence where the entire bill is voted down then be it on his head. He knows the implication of what he is doing by voting no. He raised the fact that this does not cover independent schools. If that is a concern for Mr Barr then have that conversation with Mr Doszpot or submit those as amendments and I am sure that, if they make sense, we would support them.
Turning to Ms Hunter’s objections, and also to points made by Mr Barr, the fact that this is limited to three counselling sessions does not mean that is all that would be occurring. It is putting in place a marker—the fact that you do not suspend people from school without other action being taken. It does not say that is the only action
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .