Page 525 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The principal may recommend to the chief executive that the chief executive—
(a) suspend the student from the school for a stated period of not longer than 20 days—
This is the independent check that provides proper external oversight. When these amendments were proposed last year, the best outcome for the child was the concern raised in the scrutiny support. The concern centred on the right of the child to the protection needed by the child because of being a child under section 11(2) of the Human Rights Act.
The committee has again this week drawn part of the Human Rights Act to the attention of the Assembly. A 10, 15 or 20-day suspension may be the easy option but not necessarily the best option for the student without the checks and balances option provided by the current legislation. The Liberals say, “Follow the other states.” Perhaps the other states are following us if you note that the Victorian government, as I said earlier in my speech, reduced the time that students can be suspended from 10 to five consecutive days and reduced the maximum number of yearly suspensions from 20 to 15 days per student.
It is worth noting that in relation to a very detailed section on suspensions in their Education Act terms like “students should only be excluded from school when all other measures have failed” and “if a student is suspended it should be for the shortest time necessary” are used, all appearing to be fair and ensuring the interests of the student are considered.
We have made the point through this process that pursuing the reintegration of students into school, the use of restorative justice practices, in-school suspensions and involvement of families are better ways of tackling this issue than seeking to further isolate the students by long suspensions. If you take these 15 days into account, it is three school weeks, which is about a third of a school term.
The Greens are not prepared to support the amendments that will be put forward by Mr Doszpot today. The only difference this year is the student support team pilot. It is a good thing and it is something we see as part of a proper suspension process. Let us see how it works and, if successful, see how it can be rolled out to accommodate the remaining 75 per cent of students. Then let us look at any changes in legislation needed to accommodate the program long term. To trial this innovative approach to suspended students at the same time as taking away external scrutiny of suspensions longer than five days and the earn or learn changes is attempting to put too many untried systems in place at once. We favour trialling and evaluating the pilot before potential changes to the legislation. This also ensures that the ACT continues to be an innovator in the area of education.
These changes are essentially about the ACT government’s election commitment when we already have a system in place to address the issues of suspension that is proving successful and may well be even more effective, by the minister’s own admission. Just to reiterate, the ACT Greens will be maintaining our stance that the current legislation is adequate, particularly, as I have said, with the introduction of the student suspension team pilot. We see that it is incredibly important to look at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .