Teacher, teacher, leave em kids alone!

A contact - thankyou - has pointed me to the Discrimination Amendment Bill 2010 (ACT), which would take ACT retailers outside the Territory's Discrimination Act by allowing them to refuse service to minors. The rationale for that change? Refusal will supposedly have a meaningful impact on truancy.

The Legislative Assembly Hansard (page 5100, 27 October) features the Leader of the Opposition as stating -

I rise today to bring forward an important amendment on an important issue. The amendment bill I am presenting today has only one clause but it is a very important one. It is a clause that goes to a much deeper issue and exemplifies many of the values that we as Liberals hold to. It is a clause that highlights some of the extremes and absurdities that can arise when good intentions go astray. It is a change that needs to happen to bring some common sense back to the territory.

Mr Seselja went on to explain that -

On 7 September this year, Lanyon high school principal Bill Thompson was reported in the Canberra Times for his imaginative attempt to keep kids in class. This teacher of 32 years attempted a very simple solution. He asked the shops in the nearby centre not to serve kids during school hours. In return he offered to promote the names of the shops that helped prevent truancy in the local school newsletter as a sign of community support. Mr Thompson is reported to have said, "In Sydney there are signs up saying 'we will not serve students'."

What must have shocked Mr Thompson was that this simple attempt at local community collaboration to do the right thing by the kids of the neighbourhood had drawn the ire of none other than the human rights commissioner, who launched an all-out media assault on the issue.

Dr Watchirs issued a statement saying that such action would be unlawful, that it is illegal to refuse service to someone on the basis of age, race, sex or disability under the Discrimination Act. She is reported as saying:

A shop is a service provider and refusing service is unlawful. There are other ways to do it, including monitoring students' movements between school and out of school grounds.

Obviously, Dr Watchirs had not read the original reports, in which the principal states, "It's sort of a neighbourhood watch concept as we can't see where 640 students are all of the time." Further to this, the human rights commissioner told the public that shopkeepers and Mr Thompson may in fact be aiding and abetting an unlawful act.

Aiding and abetting an unlawful act — all for trying to get the community behind an idea to keep kids in school.

Mr Seselja went on to ramp up the rhetoric, perhaps unsurprising in the ACT's deeply parochial legislature. He said -

Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It is not the intent of the discrimination or human rights legislation that it be used for this sort of purpose — to threaten a school principal who is trying to keep his students in school and local shopkeepers trying to uphold standards for local children. ... The outcome we saw with the human rights commissioner — with all the issues of the AMC, of Bimberi, of the education gap — was Dr Watchirs putting this principal on notice. Far from being a local hero, he was a law breaker. Enough is enough

"All out assault"? 'Threatening' a principal? If the principal was indeed 'put on notice' isn't that a function of the Human Rights Commissioner, the Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act? Notions of 'neighbourhood watch' do not displace all human rights concerns. What of a recognition that some minors might not be truanting, eg because they were home-schooled (a principle espoused by the Opposition), were from interstate (not all schools run the same timetable) and so forth? Should minors provide retailers with a signed note from mummy, a dubious authorisation given the forensic skills of most retail staff?

The Bill would amend the Discrimination Act through a new section (s 57JA) dealing with "premises, goods, services and facilities in school hours" -

Section 19 … or section 20 … does not make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against someone else on the ground of age in relation to access to premises, the use or availability of facilities, or the provision of goods or services if the person reasonably believes that—
(a) the other person is a student at a school; and
(b) the school is open for attendance.

Mr Seselja explained -

Mr Speaker, you can see from our amendment that we seek a reasonable belief that a person is of school age and it applies only during school hours. Most importantly of all, it is crucial to note that our exemption does not impose a positive obligation. That is, it does not seek to force a shop owner to refuse service. There may be many instances in which it is reasonable to do so. It merely makes it open for a shopkeeper to choose to do so without fear of legal prosecution. This is an important distinction, so I will repeat it. This bill allows shopkeepers to choose not to serve if they have a reasonable belief that the person is a truant and not be prosecuted for doing so.

I really hope some common sense can prevail here today. I implore the government and the Greens to put aside prejudice and see this for what it is, a circumstance that is not supported by the community, a circumstance that has exposed a flaw in our current legislation, and a simple solution that allows teachers, students and business people to get on with giving our kids the best opportunity possible without any incomprehensible interference.

Once again, the Canberra Liberals are prepared to stand with the community, side by side, and stand up for the children who are being taught by this debacle that the law is actually there to defend waggers when, indeed, it should not be. Once again, the Canberra Liberals are prepared to bring common sense to the debate and propose a practical solution.