Page 530 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was derived after quite a considerable amount of experience and feedback and discussion.
In relation to the Parents and Citizens Council, with due respect to Elizabeth Singer and her committee, they are a very small group of parents and I do not think that they claim in this instance, and I do not think they would, to speak on behalf of every parent. At no point have I suggested that every single parent would agree with this—there will be a range of views in the community—but a lot do. In fact, in my view—and I will make the political judgement here and I will face the consequences one way or the other, as will the opposition, in relation to this—the overwhelming majority of parents will support this action. Frankly, the P&C Council are out of touch on this issue; I very firmly believe that. I believed that a number of years ago, back before the 2008 election, and I believe it now in 2010. And I do not resile at all from that view: the P&C are out of touch on this issue.
I return to the scrutiny committee. The need for a suspension is reflective of the need to balance human rights. In such circumstances, the behaviour of the child has the potential to compromise the learning environment and safety of fellow students and the working environment of school staff. Students who are suspended will be given reasonable opportunity to continue their education during the suspension and this is laid out in section 36(5)(d) of the Education Act. Suspended students are also provided with access to a range of support services to assist in addressing their reintegration into the school community and their ongoing individual learning and development needs.
The scrutiny of bills committee also raised this: “A further consideration is that this amendment to the Education Act 2004 will have the effect of reducing the period in which there will be a review of the need for a suspension and for arrangements to be made in consequence of the suspension.” Again, it is worth reiterating that the proposed amendment that I have put forward and that Mr Doszpot will then add to with his amendment will remove the need of the chief executive to consider whether to give effect to a principal’s recommendation that a student be suspended for a period of what now will be six to 15 days rather than a period of five days.
However, all decisions made under the proposed section 36 of the act, as amended and as then amended by Mr Doszpot, will be subject to the review of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. So there is still a review mechanism, but it is not the department of education in this instance. In addition, the department’s complaints resolution policy, which is publicly available on the department’s website, contains a specific process for responding to complaints about suspensions. So there are very adequate measures contained within the legislation for review.
I do not suggest that the Greens are implying by their opposition to this that principals will run rampant with suspensions. I do not believe that will be the case and I do not think anyone who considers this matter seriously does. But, in any event, were that to occur, there are still review mechanisms through the department’s policy and then ultimately through ACAT. So I think there are plenty of protections in place in the extremely unlikely event of a principal doing something entirely crazy—and I do not think that is going to happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .