Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier On Youth Affairs

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [7.41 p.m.]: Earlier I referred to Scott Wakeling, a 16-year-old student from Mount Druitt High School, who had been attacked outside the school. The Department of School Education and the Minister for Education and Training have used that as an excuse to claim that they did not have the jurisdiction to try to help Scott Wakeling in his plight. He took his case to the Today Tonight program. He and his parents told the program that he was physically and mentally scarred, and that he had been diagnosed as manic depressive. The family is considering relocating away from Mount Druitt because they cannot guarantee Scott's safety outside school. As I mentioned earlier, apprehended violence orders have already been taken out against the students who have assaulted Scott.

When the school is not prepared to take account of incidents outside school grounds in the broader community although they involve school students, such incidents must be dealt with in a way that teaches students why they should not harass, bully or act violently towards other students in their community. They cannot be dealt with in a simple, punitive, get-tough way. Yet time and time again that is the response of the Carr Government. The chronicle from this year continues. In February 1977 at Matraville High School two teenagers held a boy in a headlock and repeatedly hit him over the head with a tree branch during a schoolyard bashing. In November 1966 at Hunters Hill High School a schoolboy was stabbed by a classmate during a fight.

Mr Watkins: Are you going to go over every incident that occurred at every school?

Mr O'DOHERTY: All these matters have been raised publicly. The honourable member for Gladesville would be happy if these matters were never raised publicly because the Government he represents, a government that is failing to address the problem of student and teacher safety in schools, would then not be accountable. He might want to hide from it. He may not want people to reflect on these issues and, in the calm light of a dispassionate debate in this Parliament, discuss the inadequate response of the Carr Government He might not want the Government to be accountable, but the people of New South Wales do.

Mr Rozzoli: On a point of order. With due respect, I ask you to ask the honourable member for Gladesville to desist from interjecting. We are trying to listen, but we can hardly hear what the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is saying.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The point of order is upheld. The honourable member for Gladesville will cease interjecting.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member for Gladesville is a teacher, and teachers have said that the response of the Carr Government is absolutely inadequate. The honourable member for Gladesville is deliberately flouting your ruling. For the edification of the honourable member for
Page 7232
Gladesville and others I will read to the House what was said by teachers at Marrickville High School:

We welcome the Director General's recent support of teachers in regard to the issue of student violence, however, the lack of appropriate facilities remains a major problem. Whenever Marrickville High School wishes to have students with behavioural problems placed elsewhere, it expects the full support of the Minister of School Education and the Department of School Education. Unless such support is immediately forthcoming, we will regard Marrickville High School as an unsafe working environment and failing to comply with the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

If the honourable member for Gladesville cares about the working conditions of teachers he will be quiet and listen. The reaction of the Carr Government has been tough rhetoric, and the Minister for Education and Training has ordered schools to crack down on bullies. I laughed when I heard the Premier of New South Wales, not the Minister for Education and Training, announce that a black list would be created, which already has the names of 800 students on it. Teachers in schools have told me that students with serious behavioural problems who have been named on the list and who were in programs to modify their behaviour have started to try to live up to the reputation created for them by being on the new black list.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Gladesville to order.

Mr O'DOHERTY: That is the kind of muddle-headed, punitive response that has led to groups like the Parents and Citizens Association accusing the Government of being driven by fear and prejudice, and of offering no incentive to anybody to behave in a better fashion. A review of school suspension rates, which was ordered by the Minister for Education and Training, revealed that despite the get-tough rhetoric and the new you-beaut policies, suspension rates under the Carr Government have increased. Every day 160 students are suspended in schools. The response of the Government is to suspend five-year-old children, but the report stated that the major problems were boys in years 7 to 10. The report revealed that the major problems are linked to attitudes and cultures that lead to violence. The Government is doing nothing about those attitudes and cultures but issuing press releases and making a big show of suspending five-year-old students from school.

The Government has also come under attack from teachers for not implementing a policy that clearly upholds the rights of teachers to suspend or expel students. I am sure the Minister will say in his contribution that he has guaranteed the right of teachers to suspend or expel students. It is not working in schools. The Minister will remember debates in this Chamber in which he said exactly the same thing about the policies of the previous Government. It was the then Opposition that said that schools ought to be tougher on suspending and expelling students. Such policies have always been in place, but there is much more to the issue than that. A few years ago the Minister argued some of those aspects in this House. The Minister now seems like a total company man. He has bought the line that everything possible is being done.

The reality is that every day violent incidents continue in schools. Last year almost 600 violent incidents in or near New South Wales schools were reported. There is no lack of will on the part of teachers to deal with the problem, but they want the resources to do so. I refer honourable members to resolutions of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The federation wanted the department to investigate as a matter of urgency the whereabouts of the funding previously available to behaviour teams. Where has the funding gone? Where have school counsellors gone? They have gone into district offices where they are remote from being able to deal on a one-to-one basis with the sensitive issues that lead to violence in schools. The promises of the Labor Party are legion, but they are not being met.

In 1995 the Labor Party promised teacher education programs to train teachers to cope with bullying and playground violence, but training and development funding has been cut. It promised that school counsellors would be targeted on a needs basis. School counsellors have gone into district offices and become administrators, and fewer school counsellors are on the ground. The Labor Party promised isolation rooms in each school, but no funding is available. It promised at least one extra school specialising in students with chronic behaviour disorders. The Government is finally cranking that policy into operation after the events at Marrickville last year. The Labor Party promised more, but nothing has yet happened. It promised flexible school hours to allow for more playground supervision. That has not happened. It promised cooperation between local police and school staff to stop gangs. That has not happened. It promised to ban gang insignia and behaviour in schools. That was always banned.

The Labor Party wanted to ensure that the department backed the authority of teachers and principals. Teachers made a submission in January or February this year stating that had not happened. It wanted to introduce a trial program of specially trained teachers at schools to act as discipline officers. No trial has been conducted. The adopt-a- cop policy has not been implemented. The Labor
Page 7233
Party claimed that it would encourage community reporting of locations where youth problems are frequent. That is a rhetorical nonsense; no program is in place. The policy of police youth liaison officers patrolling identified locations has not been implemented. School conflict resolution panels have not been formed. All relevant vocational subjects are about to be shaken up and made less relevant as a result of the McGaw report. A systematic reporting framework for schools has not been implemented. [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [7.50 p.m.]: At the outset I want to place on the record that the Government and the Department of School Education are absolutely committed to combating violence and discrimination in all its forms. Any form of bullying, violence or discrimination is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. I would have thought that in 15 minutes the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai would be able to come up with some remarks that were a little more positive and factual. I would have thought that he would be able to give some detail about what he proposes or to point out some specific shortcomings of the Government. But he failed in all of those matters, because he is negative, negative, negative. All he can do is attack schools, and belittle the popularity of various schools and the reputation of teachers and principals and the schools to which they belong. Not once in 15 minutes did he offer a single iota of positive comment about what the Opposition proposes to deal with bullying and the other issues at hand.

Later in the debate I will deal with the specific details of the Government's comprehensive policy in relation to bullying. The Government had a big job to do. The last two years have been difficult indeed because of the previous seven years of gross neglect. I am not the only one saying that. Figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics, to which I will refer later, show precisely how the Government has made major inroads into school bullying. There is, of course, one difference between the present Government and the previous Government. The previous Government made nothing public. It had a culture of silence, an ethos that hid every fact. Managers were told to manage, and school principals never reported anything that would reflect on the the reputation of the school. If a matter went further than the school, it went to the regional office. As happened with so many other matters it was then then lost because regional directors were supposed to maintain their own systems. Nothing was reported to head office, and the director-general and, indeed, the Minister were kept in blissful ignorance. That is the way the previous Government ran the system. By keeping people ignorant the previous Government was able to hide the facts and cover up the extent of bullying in schools.

The shadow minister now has the hide to move a censure motion against me. The Government has had a record two years of introducing policies, initiatives and training proposals into schools. Principals and students have had more support than they have ever had before. I am not the only one to say that. Teachers; Chris Puplick, the Chairman of the Anti-Discrimination Board; and many others have said it. I have it in writing. Members of the Opposition laugh and carry on because they are blissfully ignorant of the facts. Their approach is negative. Their approach is to create false issues and make up spurious stories. The shadow minister raised one or two specific incidents during his contribution. He referred to an incident at Mannering Park Public School. Today he trumpeted long and loud, as he did earlier in the media, about the fact that a five-year-old student was suspended from that school. The child was not five years old, but six years old. He claimed that the principal had no alternative but to do what he did.

Mr O'Doherty: That is what he said.

Mr AQUILINA: Precisely, that is what the principal said. To claim that suspension was in accordance with the policy, or that it was my fault or the Government's fault that such action was taken, is clearly nonsense. The shadow minister himself even admits it is nonsense. If, as a result of some major tragedy, he were to become Minister for Education, would he be personally responsible for the supervision of the actions of each of the 2,226 principals in this State? Of course he would not. He is laughing and sniggering, because he knows precisely what the facts are. I make it plain now as I did previously that the policy is in black and white as a specific guideline, but the principal on this occasion did not apply the policy appropriately. The claim of the shadow minister is wrong. The policy does not state that students must be suspended at any age. The principal was wrong; that is not the policy. The policy is a guideline to be used with discretion. Principals are nominated because they have discretion, experience and expertise and because they can exercise judgment. That is why the policies are laid down as guidelines. They are provided to give support and help. They are to be used as a guide; they are not laws that have been laid down and must be adhered to.

The shadow minister referred to what happened at Hurlstone Agricultural High School. That shameful situation, which was trumpeted in a media hit one Sunday morning, did an enormous amount of harm to the school as well as to the
Page 7234
Campbell House students to whom it referred. Again the shadow minister hides his head because he knows about those shameful circumstances. He knows that what happened has not done anybody any good but has brought harm to the school and the students and has damaged the reputation of both schools. Both schools and their communities have worked hard to overcome whatever problems existed. Indeed, that was their responsibility. I am pleased that those schools and their communities are now satisfied with the arrangements that have been agreed to. The reports I have received indicated that there have been no serious incidents in relation to the issue and that the two schools are working harmoniously. They had every opportunity to do that from the outset and that is what is now happening.

Conflict resolution is a major task for schools, teachers and students. People like the shadow minister and other members of the Opposition augment conflict because they want to highlight it for the specific purpose of promoting themselves rather than resolving the problem. The shadow minister has a muddled approach. On the one hand he claims that the Government's policies are inadequate. The Government has a vast list of policies and, as I have said, later in the debate I will itemise those policies in detail. However, on the other hand the shadow minister has claimed that the Government's approach is heavy-handed, and that the Government is all about suspensions and kicking children out of schools while not taking enough time to provide the counselling that students and teachers require. I categorically refute his claims. The shadow minister clearly does not have a clue about what is happening in schools. He does not have a clue about bullying and violence in schools. He is speaking absolute rubbish.

For example, he has referred to counsellors being in district offices and to the fact that the Government is supposed to have only recently established special schools as a result of the incident he referred to at Marrickville. I say to the shadow minister that special schools are operating and this Government will establish more. If the shadow minister asks me where they are I will not tell him because he will make a nonsense of this proposal, just he tried to do with the so-called 800 students who are on his supposed black list. That is the sort of negative psychology used by the shadow minister.

Mr O'Doherty: It is your black list.

Mr AQUILINA: There is no black list. There is a list of students who require help and special assistance. They can only get that special assistance if they are identified and if we are frank about this issue. When the shadow minister was chairman of the former Government's education committee he was a party to a serious cover-up of the location of these students and the sort of assistance they were supposed to be getting. Those students never got that assistance because nobody recognised them. Nobody wanted to know who they were. Frankly, they have been left in blissful ignorance to stumble their way out of the schools and eventually, because of their age, work their way out of the system.

This Government has recognised those 800 students and is targeting their needs. It is providing special classes and special schools for them. They are getting specialist attention and will continue to receive that attention. They are receiving attention right from kindergarten, not only at the end of their schooling. The Government recognises the students requiring that special attention and it is providing it for them at their schools. Between third class and sixth class they are removed from the school, if that is required, for a short period. Later, in their secondary schooling, they are removed from school, if required, for an extended period to enable them to attend specialist classes.

There are a record number of counsellors in our schools. Today the Government has in place more policies and more training than has ever been the case in the history of New South Wales. It certainly has far more counsellors and policies in place than was ever the case during the time of the previous Government. But, even more important than that, the Government is honest about the present situation. It is not a party to the cover-ups of the previous Government. The Government does not believe in not finding out who these kids are and where they are located so that it does not get any negative publicity. For those reasons the Government will continue to provide the sort of support that those students need.

Despite all his claims, the shadow minister is taking a softly-softly approach. Members of this Government are supposedly the culprits because they have allegedly given principals and teachers leverage to discipline those students who refuse to be disciplined. The shadow minister, when referring to a case at Mount Druitt High School, said that teachers should be held responsible for what happens to students outside school hours. I acknowledge that teachers have a responsibility to ensure that they should do whatever they can for students within the school environment and while they are at school. I am confident that teachers, using the policies and guidelines that the department has given them and the counsellors that are available to them, are doing what they can for students during the school period within the school grounds.

It is absolutely ludicrous to hold teachers responsible for what students may get up to at a
Page 7235
shopping centre at the weekend or, perhaps, in a local neighbourhood late at night. Teachers are there to provide teaching and guidance for students within the time available to them. They cannot be mother, father, sister, brother and teacher to all the kids in their care. That is precisely what the shadow minister is saying teachers should be doing. On the one hand, he is saying that today teachers have an impossible job and, on the other hand, he is giving teachers responsibilities which are beyond their physical capabilities. More importantly, he is allocating blame to those teachers for what happens outside school grounds and the school environment.

Frankly, the attitude of the shadow minister is reckless. His policy lacks direction. He has no sense of where he is going on this issue. We do not know whether he will use the hard stick on the one hand or the softly-softly approach on the other hand. Clearly, the Liberal Party has no policies. I have not heard the shadow minister advocate one policy that would be of benefit to students, teachers and schools. The shadow minister is all about criticism, negativism, narking and apportioning blame and he has denigrated the reputations of schools and pupils, and the work of teachers.

The shadow minister and the Opposition stand condemned for their negative policies on this matter. They have the hide to attempt to censure me and this Government after the record number of policies that we have introduced in the classroom and after the record number of improvements that we have achieved over the last two years in an attempt to undo the problems created for us and for schools over the past seven years and in an attempt to build up a positive environment for teachers and students within the school environment. I am proud of the Government's policy on bullying. Frankly, the Opposition has nothing to offer in this debate. [Time expired.]

Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [8.05 p.m.]: I was fascinated to hear the Minister for Education and Training talking about the negative attitude of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. He said that the honourable member's attitude was negative, negative, negative. Frankly, it is difficult not to be negative about what this Minister is doing to our education system, about what the Government is doing to our schools and about what the Government is not doing for our students. I remind the Minister that he is the Minister for Education and Training; the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is not the Minister for Education and Training. It is not the responsibility of Opposition members to develop policy and to hold the Minister by the hand; it is the responsibility of the Government to develop policies that work and to implement those policies in a way that benefits our schools and our students.

I was fascinated to hear the Minister talk about the record two years of introducing policies, but he could not name any teachers or anybody in the education system who actually supported those policies. The only person whose name he could cite as supporting the Government in its actions was Chris Puplick, his mate. Clearly, there is no support whatsoever for what the Minister is doing to protect teachers and other students within the school system. The Minister criticised the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai for what he had to say about Hurlstone Agricultural High School. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai quoted extensively from a newspaper article that appeared on that issue. In common with many other honourable members in this House, I was sent a letter from Hurlstone Agricultural High School Parents and Citizens Association.

Mr O'Doherty: That is why I raised it. I got the letter and that is why I raised it.

Mr RICHARDSON: That is right. The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai, who also received this letter, raised the matter appropriately. If relations between students at Hurlstone Agricultural High School and those of Campbell House school have improved, it is almost solely due to the publicity which has accrued as a result of the actions of the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Gladesville will cease interjecting.

Mr RICHARDSON: I received the letter in January this year.

Mr O'Doherty: They had written to him for a year.

Mr RICHARDSON: That is right. The problems at this school have been ongoing for a number of years. It is interesting to note that on 5 February 1996 the Minister said that the problems at this school had been resolved. On 5 February 1996 the Minister wrote to the Hurlstone Agricultural High School Parents and Citizens Association and said that a local investigation of the concerns expressed to him by the parents and citizens association had been carried out by the district superintendent, Mr Richard Booth, and some local initiatives had been put in place to help alleviate problems caused by student contact. That is terrific! One would have thought that the Minister had resolved the problems. But the next paragraph in the letter from the parents and citizens association, which I will read, will disillusion honourable members. The author stated:

Page 7236

Sadly, since that time the problems have escalated. The Minister's promise has not been kept . . .

That is precisely the point the Opposition is making in this censure motion. The Minister's promise has not been kept. No effective response has been received from Richard Booth. The Hurlstone Agricultural High School Parents and Citizens Association has been reasonable on the issue. It understands that kids with behavioural problems and special needs have been placed in this special school. However, it objects to those kids imposing on the rights of the other students at Hurlstone Agricultural High School - as, indeed, honourable members would object if they had kids at that school. The letter stated:

It was a provocative and irresponsible act for the Department to open the Glenfield Tutorial Centre in a demountable building at the corner of Roy Watts Road while the Campbell House School incidents were being investigated . . .

The only measure which has been put in place that we can see to alleviate the problems has been to stagger the times of arrival and departure of the respective schools. Rather than alleviate the problems, this has in fact exacerbated them.

According to the letter there has been no improvement at Hurlstone Agricultural High School. The most recent incidents cited by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai date from October 1996. The Opposition seeks from the Minister proof positive that the situation has improved materially since then. The Opposition knows that, for example, inadequate funds have been granted to Arndell Special School at North Ryde to maintain its program. [Time expired.]

Mr ROGAN (East Hills) [8.10 p.m.]: A censure motion is important, and there should be substantial reasons for moving it. During the debate all I heard from Opposition members were quotes from a series of newspaper articles about individual incidents but nothing of great substance. I have not heard anything that goes to the core of the discipline and violence problems in our schools. I tried to make some notes of what Opposition members said, but there was absolutely nothing to which the Minister need respond. This Opposition motion is hypocritical. One reason for the problems in our schools is that families are in crisis. Families are under stress and their problems are carried into the schools. They will be in further crisis as a result of the Federal cutbacks. Community services were massively cut - criminally, I thought - by the previous Government, and that goes to the heart of this motion.

Mr O'Doherty: On a point of order. The honourable member may not have been present during the earlier part of the debate, but the motion is substantially a censure of the Minister, relating to his school violence and discipline policies. It has nothing to do with the Department of Community Services, the Federal Government or family policy at a Federal level.

Mr ROGAN: On the point of order. The point raised by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai is indicative of the total lack of understanding of what is behind the motion. I referred to the Department of Community Services and the cutbacks by the Federal Government because those matters are germane to the debate, which is about discipline and violence in our schools.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr ROGAN: When this Government took office it restored 20 district officers and at least 40 field officers in the Department of Community Services to help families in crisis. That was a small measure but at least it redressed the terrible neglect of the previous Government. All these things happened under the Opposition when in it was in government. Earlier the Minister outlined the various measures taken by the Government. Time does not permit me to detail all of them but I shall refer to some of them. School counsellors will be targeted on a needs basis to assist in resolving the problems to which this motion is supposed to refer. Local police and school staff have cooperated to stop gangs from using standover tactics and intimidation. Indeed, in my area of Revesby, crime prevention workshops for school students have been launched to build better relations between police, students and teachers.

Honourable members can relate in the House or in their electorates specific discipline incidents or cases of school violence. However, what is required is a policy to address the problems. The Government, through this Minister, is implementing a policy - something that the previous Government did not do. I suppose that the Opposition spokesman on education is required to justify his existence on the front bench by moving such motions as a matter of course. However, he is required also to provide substance to them - substance that has not been provided in this debate except for quotations from a few newspapers which do not address the major problem of school violence and discipline. That problem is being addressed by the Government through this Minister. [Time expired.]

Ms SEATON (Southern Highlands) [8.15 p.m.]: I am pleased to support this censure motion because safety in schools for both students and staff is paramount. It is fundamental that staff and students should feel safe and secure at school and,
Page 7237
indeed, on the way to and from school. Without the assumption every day of being able to walk through the door into a safe environment, it is impossible to learn. Children cannot learn in an environment in which they fear the actions of others; and teachers certainly cannot concentrate on the job if they are in such an environment. Supporting this censure motion is important not only because it highlights the Minister's failure to ensure safety and security in schools but also because it reminds us of the daily fear of some students with disabilities in New South Wales schools, and the Government's inadequate response to that fear of bullying and violence.

Recently there have been reports in the media, including the Sydney Morning Herald, of parents who have been forced to keep children with disabilities at home for fear of the trauma and bullying that they have been experiencing at school. Those reports have referred to the lack of appropriate action by schools in respect of disabled students. Concern has been expressed by the Disability Council of New South Wales and I shall refer to a couple of specific incidents that I think would horrify parents. The first is an incident of a 12-year-old girl with a disability who was sexually abused -

Mr Watkins: Allegedly.

Ms SEATON: - who was allegedly sexually abused in a toilet cubicle by four girls. The Sydney Morning Herald reported the incident of a disabled girl who allegedly received brain damage after being kicked by a gang of boys. What was the response by the Government and the Minister to those incidents? The Premier led the way; basically, his response was to wade in and shoot the messenger. He did not try to solve the problem. He did not look at the causes and provide constructive solutions. His solution was to take the children out of the schools and deny them access to mainstream schools.

The Minister stood by and watched the Premier say that; his silence meant effectively that he agreed with the Premier. The Minister did not support students with disabilities who live in fear not only of harassment and humiliation but of being bullied. The Premier has further confused and muddied the waters of the whole debate about access to mainstream schools by telling students to stay away. No wonder parents of children with disabilities are shocked and disappointed by what has been happening. This is in the context of the important McCrae report, which is being considered by parents and teachers. The Government has sought submissions on that report. I have met with special school parents and teachers, and there is a lot of confusion about exactly where the Government is coming from in relation to children with disabilities and their access to schools. The Premier is essentially saying that children with disabilities should be taken out of these schools.

The Minister is not disagreeing with the Premier on this issue. That is because the Minister is not prepared to act, just as he was not prepared to act on school violence of the sort that has been demonstrated by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. It is not just the coalition that is concerned about these issues. Many coalition members have received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister from the principal of an inner-western school who is particularly concerned about violence. The letter suggests that the department has failed both teachers and students, that there has been a lack of appropriate facilities to deal with instances of violence in schools, and that whilst the principal expected the full support of the Minister, she did not get it. I have also received letters from parents involved with Hurlstone Agricultural High School, and I support the comments of the honourable member for The Hills on that issue.

The Minister deserves the censure of this House. On 20 May 1993 the Minister made much political mileage of his proposal to ban weapons in schools. He talked about heavy fines and long periods of imprisonment. But, having said a lot about it, he has been very reluctant to actually do something about the things he was promising. Teachers and staff were promised one thing by the Minister and have been left with nothing. One would also have to ask what happened to the Minister's party policy promise in January 1995 of a crackdown on school violence. What happened to those specially trained school discipline officers? I said before that the coalition is not the only organisation that is worried about an increase - [Time expired.]

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [8.20 p.m.]: It is obvious that in this debate the shadow minister for education is reckless in his endeavour to denigrate teachers in New South Wales schools. He has done that without any positive program, without any alternative, and without any attempted solution. It is obvious to anybody listening to this debate that the shadow minister's censure motion is based on a few articles in the Daily Telegraph and other publications. We can all quote from publications, and later in my speech I will quote from today's Daily Telegraph. In this censure debate, based as it is on newspaper articles, the Opposition has not once said what it intends to do. What reports or investigations did the Opposition ever initiate? What will the Opposition say to students in New South Wales? Every member who has contributed to this debate has said that students deserve to go to school and feel safe. How will they be able to do that? An
Page 7238
article in today's Daily Telegraph, under the headline "Peace terms" and the subheading "Words, not fists, resolve disputes in this playground", talks about Rooty Hill Public School, a school close to the Minister's electorate and my electorate. It reads:

When there's a dispute in the playground of Rooty Hill Public School, the students sort it out among themselves - not with fists, but with words.

How do the students do this? The article continues:

Rather than go at it toe-to-toe to resolve a difference, the aggrieved parties take the matter to another two students - elected peer mediators - to have it sorted out.

A peer mediation program is working in the schools.

Mr O'Doherty: Who brought that program in?

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Mills): Order! The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai will cease interjecting, as will the honourable member for Gladesville.

Mrs BEAMER: The honourable member for Ku-ring-gai spoke about four examples. On the one hand he said this Government is far too harsh; on the other hand he said this Government is far too lax. School bullying, a complex problem, needs time and initiative to be resolved. I believe that every member of this House would be aware that the shadow minister has offered no initiatives and no policies. He has not talked to schools, as this Government has done, about developing their discipline code by semester one this year. He has not talked about strategies to promote good discipline and effective learning or about practices to recognise and reinforce good student behaviour and achievement. He has not dealt with any strategies for unacceptable behaviour. It is obvious from the Opposition's denigration of teachers that all it is after is a bit of political pointscoring because it does not have any policies. It is atrocious and ridiculous to censure a Minister who has talked about effective, good discipline in our schools. This Government is developing programs which will create happy environments in the vast majority of schools.

The Government is developing strategies which will make bullying unacceptable. We have to have strategies to deal with that problem. Any violence in our community is unacceptable, but we have to have strategies in schools to deal with that issue. Censuring the Minister about this issue - something the Government has talked about for so long and which it is implementing - is the most farcical and hypocritical thing I have seen in this House. We have talked about counselling in schools and about people developing mediation programs that are working. Today's Daily Telegraph referred to them as "Peace Terms". How are these programs working within schools? How will students learn to deal with those problems in a way which will carry forth not just from the school but through their entire lives? What we need in our schools is an understanding of how people can deal with each other with words, not fists. That is what we are getting in our schools because this Government has an effective program. The Opposition has nothing to offer. [Time expired.]

Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone - Minister for Education and Training, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth Affairs) [8.25 p.m.], in response: The honourable member for Badgerys Creek concluded her contribution by saying that the Opposition has nothing to offer. That is absolutely correct. The Opposition had nothing to offer while in government; it has had nothing to offer over the last two years; and it certainly has nothing to offer tonight. It has contributed absolutely nothing in this debate. I have listened to a number of spurious allegations, mostly based on newspaper articles, but the Opposition has nothing to offer to back up the matters referred to in the articles. The honourable member for The Hills, who raised the issue of Hurlstone Agricultural High School, mentioned a letter he received in January this year.

I advise the honourable member that the Department of School Education received a letter from that school's council this term indicating great satisfaction with the way the whole matter has been working. It is all right for the Opposition to quote from correspondence and try to portray, through a tissue of misrepresentation, that things are bad when indeed things are going better. What would we expect from the Opposition? That is part of the negative way in which the Opposition approaches all issues relating to what is happening within our schools. Nothing can happen that is good; nothing can happen that is positive. It all has to be bad because we are the Government and members opposite are the Opposition. They are too small-minded to acknowledge that good things are happening in the schools of this State. Things are continuing to move forward and there are many pluses in what is happening in government schools in New South Wales. But all that the Opposition can do is drag down reputations, schools and the standard of teaching within our community.

The honourable member for Southern Highlands spoke about the McRae report as though it was some issue which the Government is working overboard to scuttle. I remind the honourable member, who has not been in this Chamber for long, that this Government commissioned David McRae to produce a report. This Government undertook a consultation process never before undertaken in this
Page 7239
State. This Government, at the request of all disability groups, extended the consultation period until 27 March this year to enable people to make submissions; and the Government received over 600 submissions. I inform the honourable member for Southern Highlands that at this very minute in my office in this Parliament none other than David McRae is waiting for me to get through this nonsense in the Chamber so that I can talk to him about something that really matters - how we deal with children with disabilities in our schools and how we deal with this integration program.

Those are the real issues, and it is this Government and I as Minister who will proceed with them. All that people such as the honourable member for Southern Highlands can do is drag the situation down and belittle the very real and positive efforts being made by the Government on behalf of many thousands of young and disabled people. The honourable member for Southern Highlands had the hide in the Chamber today to raise allegations - unproven allegations - made in newspapers about the so-called mistreatment of disabled students. In one instance the honourable member talked about someone having sustained brain damage as the result of a beating. That allegation has been found to be demonstrably false. Although there has been nothing said in the newspapers about this, the lady in question had an operation a year later that was completely unrelated to the abuse referred to by the honourable member for Southern Highlands.

Specific details and facts are unimportant to Opposition members, because they are all about the gutter, they are all about dragging people down and they are all about dragging down the public education system. They are the people who stand condemned and they are the people who deserve to be censured, because of the way in which they approach the whole issue of education. At a time when, for a whole range of reasons, public education in New South Wales, the teachers, the parents who send their children to public schools and, most important, the students require support, assistance and encouragement, Opposition members are nitpicking, going through the newspapers and bleating at every allegation made, and using allegations to drag down the public education system.

The shadow minister for education stands condemned because he cannot come up with anything positive. In two years I have not heard him come up with anything positive. He keeps quoting the so-called O'Doherty report, the only issue he speaks about positively, because it bears his name. That is the only contribution he wants to make towards education in New South Wales - his report is supposed to go down in history perpetuating the name of O'Doherty as having done something original about education in this State. Frankly, this Government is about more important issues than that. If people wanted examples of positive policies, the Government has an endless range of them. I could go through pages and pages of Labor Party commitments and actions, policies that have been implemented and fulfilled.

Mr Cochran: Give us just one.

Mr AQUILINA: It is obvious that the honourable member for Monaro is not the product of a public school education - with his mentality I do not think he would have been allowed to finish.

Mr Cochran: What a rude little man. What school did you go to?

Mr Jeffery: A reform school.

Mr AQUILINA: Precisely. The honourable member for Oxley has said what school the honourable member for Monaro went to, a reform school. Reform schools are something that the present Government will not have a bar of, because it is about providing special schools to make sure that it helps students who are in real need. In 1996 the Government introduced phases 1, 2 and 3 of "Strategies for Safer Schools". Other positive policies are "A Fair Go for All", which relates to personal safety and positive relationship lessons for kindergarten to year 2 students; revised "Resources for Teaching Against Violence", which also includes a section on bullying; and crime prevention workshops, run in conjunction with the police.

Those are positive policies that have been introduced and are being implemented; they are not just claims that have been made. The shadow minister for education spoke about school counsellors. Counsellor allocations for every school are being reviewed this year. The Government wants to make sure that counsellors are allocated to the schools that need them. The previous Government, on the contrary, allocated counsellors on a per capita basis, irrespective of whether they were needed, with the result that schools with relatively few social problems in Sydney's north shore took counsellors away from schools in Sydney's west and south-west and rural New South Wales.

The issue of what the Government is doing to help students has been raised. The shadow minister for education indicated that the Government intends to cure bullying in schools by wielding a big stick. Consequently, he would have us believe that he would adopt a softly-softly approach; he would have
Page 7240
us talk to school bullies and say, "Naughty school bullies, you shouldn't do that"; he would have us think that if we talk nicely to school bullies they will somehow correct their ways and change their character. Obviously, both claims are extreme. The Government is allocating in excess of $80,000 a year for welfare programs in our schools - a record allocation designed to ensure that students who, because of the shortcomings of society and because of their home background and the problems they experience with dysfunctional families and the like, require support and assistance in schools are provided with it.

Of course the shadow minister for education is quiet about that allocation, because it is well in excess of the amount spent on welfare programs by the previous Government under whose administration he was chairman of the education committee. The support material "Student Welfare, Good Discipline & Effective Learning" lists a number of good proposals. Yes, where needed the Government has established isolation rooms to enable schools to make decisions in such a way as to remove troublesome students from a class and at the same time provide them with the additional support they need in a quiet environment.

More than 30 additional teachers are now developing programs for students with behaviour disorders. As I have said before, new specialist centres for students with behavioural disorders are also being established. Some centres have already been established and others will follow. As the honourable member for East Hills has said, the Department of School Education and the Police Service are collaborating in the establishment of a pilot program to make sure that we target areas of high youth problems. Crime prevention workshops are being run across the State. The list of initiatives is endless, and the shadow minister for education knows it well.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [8.35 p.m.], in reply: The New South Wales Opposition believes that there is nothing wrong with education in this State that cannot be fixed by a change of government. That is the focus of this attack tonight and of the Opposition attack on education in general. I have said earlier in the debate that I am not critical of the efforts of the teachers, who are doing their best trying to cope day by day with the difficult situation in which they find themselves.

Mr Watkins: That is absolute rubbish.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member for Gladesville, who did not contribute to the debate, is chattering away like an inane parrot. Already he has been called to order on a number of occasions. On this round we shall ignore him, as we ignored him previously. I wonder why, as chairman of the Government's education committee, the honourable member for Gladesville did not speak in the debate. To me, that indicates a lack of confidence in his own Minister. Opposition members believe that the teachers who are battling the problems in our schools deserve better support than they get from the present Government and from the Minister for Education in particular. The Government criticised the previous Government for having no policies. Labor's Policy For School Education of March 1995 states at page 30:

Nearly 200 different school violence approaches are currently in operation in New South Wales.

About five minutes ago the Minister told the House that under the previous Government there were no policies, yet in March 1995 he said there were 200 policies. I ask the Minister whether it was no policies or 200 policies. The reference in Labor's Policy For School Education to the 200 different school violence approaches continues:

They have titles as diverse as "Stop, Think, Do", "Fresh Start", "Reality Therapy", "Youth in Groups", "Talk Sense to Yourself", "Peer Mediation", "Alternate High School" and "Wilderness Enhanced".

The highlight on page 30 of Labor's March 1995 education policy is peer mediation, which is recognition of one of the policies in place under the coalition Government. I hope that the honourable member for Badgerys Creek, who has left the Chamber, is listening to the debate in her room, because she told us about a wonderful program of peer mediation in operation in her electorate. More strength to the school that is running that program, because the Minister for Education has taken away the money that schools can use to develop peer mediation programs, peer support programs and other school-based antiviolence initiatives.

The Minister has taken that money away. Schools used to be paid $150 per teacher per year to send their teachers to training development programs identified by the schools as appropriate. How much is the Minister paying schools today? He is paying them $25 per teacher per year. Will schools be able to afford to send their teachers to in-service training in these excellent programs - such as peer mediation - which were operated and supported by the previous Government? No, they will not. The Minister and a number of honourable members have referred to the Hurlstone Agricultural High School.

Mr Watkins: You raised it.

Page 7241

Mr O'DOHERTY: The Opposition raised the issue because the Government failed to deal with the issues that the school had been raising with the Government for a number of years. I refer to a newsletter addressed to all parents and friends of the Hurlstone Agricultural High School:

It was with disbelief and mounting anger that Denis Simond, President of the School Council, viewed the Nightline program on Channel 9 on the evening of Tuesday, 12 November, 1996 and later that we both read the full page article on page 13 of that morning's Sydney Morning Herald.

Both the newspaper article and the Nightline program were dealing with the problems of violence in schools. Enquiries made revealed that the newspaper article had been placed in the paper by a freelance journalist at the behest of the Department of School Education. The Nightline feature could not have been shown without the consent of the Department.

In dealing with this issue, both forms of media promoted Campbell House School at Glenfield as being "a school which acts as saviour".

The Hurlstone Agricultural High School said that it was the promotion by the department of its school situation as a positive that led to its absolute fury in raising it publicly. After years of going to the Labor Government and being denied any substantive action on its complaints, it finally went public. I spoke to the president of the school council at some length about whether he wanted the Opposition to raise the issue publicly. I said, "Do you realise that this will involve publicity for your school?", and he replied, "We understand the implications of that, but we have no choice because the Government has been failing us."

The Minister wrote to the Hurlstone Agricultural High School on 5 February 1996, after it had spoken to its local member - the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, and Minister for Housing - and to the department. The Minister wrote to the high school saying that a local investigation of concerns had been carried out by the district superintendent and that local initiatives had been put in place to help alleviate the problems. However, the high school's newsletter stated:

Sadly, since that time the problems have escalated. The Minister's promise has not been kept, as no effective response has been received from Richard Booth.

The issue was raised by the parents and by the Opposition reluctantly, after discussion, because the Government failed to act - that is the whole point of the motion: we are seeking to censure the Minister because he acts only when he is provoked to do so by negative publicity; only when he is shamed into doing so. His policy represents a dog's breakfast of tough rhetoric on one hand, and the desire to look as though he is supporting progressive programs on the other. The Minister talks about progressive programs, but he does not give them necessary resources.

The Minister said that major inroads have been made and that the number of incidents in schools has decreased. He also claimed that the previous Government kept no figures in this regard. In 1994, under the then coalition Government, statistics were compiled and released for the first time in relation to violence in schools. The Government released the figures and the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday 28 June 1994 reported that fact. The biggest drop in the figures occurred between the first year of reporting this system, 1994, and the next time that the figures were reported, in the middle of 1995. In other words, the biggest drop occurred due to the policies of the previous coalition Government. What has happened under the Labor Government? The number of incidents has steadily increased. The biggest drop occurred between 1994 and 1995, and since 1995 the number of incidents of serious violence in our schools has increased.

As I demonstrated earlier in the debate, a report released by the Minister showed that the number of suspensions in schools has increased. The Minister said that nothing occurred under the previous coalition Government. I have mentioned the 200 programs that the Labor Party mentioned in its election document in March 1995, and I will tell honourable members about some of the initiatives of the previous Government. For example, I refer to the addition of extra counsellors in schools - the ratio of counsellors to students was the best that it had ever been in the history of public education. The then Government provided 671 new and 158 enhanced programs in the areas of alternative education, behaviour management, community participation, mediation and staff development. It had mandatory recording of all incidents. It had the expulsion, on the recommendation of the principal, of any student caught with a weapon on school premises or at activities conducted by the student off school premises.

The then Government had a warning system for repeat offenders, and it banned school gangs and gang colours in schools. The then Government reported behaviour that threatened other students or teachers to the principal, and the principal reported that to the police for action, if necessary. Unwanted intruders were reported to the police; principals were given the power to declare vacant any place occupied by a student who demonstrated that he or
Page 7242
she should not be there; and there was alternative placement for excluded students in a compassionate way that allowed them to make some restitution for what they had done. Schools had the right to refuse the enrolment of a student with a history of violence. The then Government produced a kit - one of many developed; I have mentioned a number of them - with resources for teaching against violence, and it won an award for that initiative. The coalition Government had many programs.

The current Government has tough rhetoric - five-year-old students are being suspended from school. The Minister spent the first part of his speech criticising and undermining the principal of the Mannering Park Public School. The principal said that the Minister's policy made him do what he did - that he had no choice. Whether that is right or not, the Minister's policy stands on trial today, not the principal of the Mannering Park Public School. The Labor Party's policy and the increasing nature of violent incidents in schools are under scrutiny today. Students deserve to feel safe at school, but they do not feel safe under the Labor Government. Staff deserve to be safe at school, but they are not safe under the Labor Government. Teachers have expressed this view publicly, as I have already stated in my speech. [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Armstrong Mr O'Doherty
Mr Beck Mr D. L. Page
Mr Blackmore Mr Phillips
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Kinross Mr Windsor
Mr MacCarthy Tellers,
Mr Merton Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr

Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Ms Moore
Mrs Beamer Mr Moss
Mr Clough Mr Nagle
Mr Crittenden Mr Neilly
Mr Debus Ms Nori
Mr Face Mr E. T. Page
Mr Gaudry Mr Price
Mr Gibson Dr Refshauge
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rogan
Ms Hall Mr Rumble
Mr Harrison Mr Scully
Ms Harrison Mr Shedden
Mr Hunter Mr Stewart
Mr Iemma Mr Sullivan
Mr Knight Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po' Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Dr Macdonald Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Mr Peacocke Mr Carr

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.