Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Canberra's experts selling valuables
150,000+ buyers nationally

Liberals to strip discrimination protection to target waggers [With poll]

By johnboy 21 September 2011 31

The Liberals’ Zed Seselja has announced plans to legislate a right for shopkeepers to turn away customers they think are students who should be in school.

“Last year, the Lanyon High School Principal tried to stop wagging by asking local shop keepers not to serve students during school hours.

“ACT Labor, together with the Human Rights Commissioner, branded this as discrimination, effectively creating a “right to wag.?

“We should be doing everything we can to ensure students get a proper education, not threatening legal action against shopkeepers who work with school communities to try to dissuade wagging.

“Our amendments to this Bill will not force shop owners to refuse service to students during school hours, but will remove the threat of legal action if they do.

Removing the right to wag

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Liberals to strip discrimination protection to target waggers [With poll]
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
2604 8:19 pm 22 Sep 11

Jim Jones said :

And yet Australian literacy and numeracy rates are extremely high, and the Australian populace is – as a whole – becoming more and more educated at higher and higher levels, with the ACT generally in the top percentiles … crazy, isn’t it?

Literacy and numeracy are declining on the whole:
http://www.acer.edu.au/media/pisa-identifies-challenges-for-australian-education

zippyzippy 3:13 pm 22 Sep 11

Mysteryman said :

p1 said :

steveu said :

I gotta say I feel for the shopkeepers – you would have presumed that they had the right to refuse service to anyone – its their shop isnt it? I didnt realise we all had the right to enter any shop we choose and demand service, regardless of how obnoxious we were being at the time.

I always thought this was a massive grey area. You have the right to refuse service to who ever you want BUT you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, hair colour, height, smell, accent, shoe size, preference for apple products, brand of V8, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth…..

It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? I would like to think that shop keepers have the right to refuse service in a shop they own. I would support the legislation on that ground alone – not because I think it will have any effect on truancy.

Oh, and could they refuse service based on race, sex, age or disability too? Isn’t what you’re suggesting the same as the “No Aboriginals” hotels 50 years ago?

Jim Jones 2:46 pm 22 Sep 11

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

Do you *really* think anyone would sue the shopkeepers anyway? The whole thing is just a game of political football (not even a particularly interesting or high stakes one), with the shopkeepers playing the part of the ball. Honestly, these guys probably have enough to worry about without being embroiled in minor squabbles about truancy.

Oh, of course they’re playing politics with it and I don’t actually think that someone would sue a shopkeeper. But the fact that it could even happen in the first place is ridiculous. I can’t possibly see how a shopkeeper refusing to serve someone because they think the kid is wagging school is a breach of their human rights.
And I fully agree that they should be worrying about much bigger things than a few kids wagging school.

But then the Liberals saw an opportunity to remove some human rights legislation and there so much drool that they had to put up one of those ‘Warning: Slippery Surface” signs.

milkman 1:51 pm 22 Sep 11

Kayellar said :

breda said :

Students at the (public) senior college near my place are allowed out in their lunch break. Many go to the local shops to buy lunch. The college has a long waiting list and is in the top 5 every year for HSC results.

When did the ACT start doing the HSC???

I only know of one college that does the HSC in Canberra. It’s not public.

Kayellar 1:33 pm 22 Sep 11

breda said :

Students at the (public) senior college near my place are allowed out in their lunch break. Many go to the local shops to buy lunch. The college has a long waiting list and is in the top 5 every year for HSC results.

When did the ACT start doing the HSC???

Clown Killer 1:03 pm 22 Sep 11

This arrangement has been around for a long time in many places in Western Australia (its a voluntary arrangement supported by the State Govt. and local Councils). As far as I’m aware it hasn’t caused any significant issues. Shop keepers certainly don’t seem to have a problem with refusing school kids service as I’ve witnessed it on a number of occasions.

In some places the shopping center itself implements the ban, making it a condition that all businesses that are tenants must refuse children service during school hours.

chewy14 12:32 pm 22 Sep 11

Jim Jones said :

Do you *really* think anyone would sue the shopkeepers anyway? The whole thing is just a game of political football (not even a particularly interesting or high stakes one), with the shopkeepers playing the part of the ball. Honestly, these guys probably have enough to worry about without being embroiled in minor squabbles about truancy.

Oh, of course they’re playing politics with it and I don’t actually think that someone would sue a shopkeeper. But the fact that it could even happen in the first place is ridiculous. I can’t possibly see how a shopkeeper refusing to serve someone because they think the kid is wagging school is a breach of their human rights.
And I fully agree that they should be worrying about much bigger things than a few kids wagging school.

Watson 12:06 pm 22 Sep 11

chewy14 said :

I don’t think the point of the legislation will to be to get kids to go back to school.
It’s to stop the threat of legal action against shopkeepers for breaching kids “human rights” if they won’t sell to them during school hours. How ridiculous is it that a shopkeeper could be sued because he didn’t serve a little turd who was wagging school?
If a shopkeeper is assisting nearby schools enforce discipline, why should they face prosecution?

“I don’t think the point of the legislation will to be to get kids to go back to school.” and “If a shopkeeper is assisting nearby schools enforce discipline”. So what is this discipline they will assist to enforce if it won’t stop kids from wagging school anyway? As if the kids care one iota when some shop assistant tells them they cannot buy a can of coke from their shop?

All it will mean is a few more clients for businesses like Kingsleys who have already said they would not cooperate.

I am a parent and I would not expect nor want shopkeepers to help ‘discipline’ my child. I would prefer them to just stick to what they are good at: selling stuff to people. Whether kids are at school when they’re supposed to be is none of their business. FFS, this is not some village of 200 people, so why do we insist on acting like one!

Jim Jones 11:51 am 22 Sep 11

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

Another storm in a teacup. If they cannot buy stuff at certain shops (how many shopkeepers would actually bother to cooperate with this anyway?) will they really just go back to school indeed?

If it would be likely to make one iota of difference, maybe it would be worth discussing. But to change the legislation for a token effort?

Move on, nothing to see here.

I don’t think the point of the legislation will to be to get kids to go back to school.
It’s to stop the threat of legal action against shopkeepers for breaching kids “human rights” if they won’t sell to them during school hours. How ridiculous is it that a shopkeeper could be sued because he didn’t serve a little turd who was wagging school?
If a shopkeeper is assisting nearby schools enforce discipline, why should they face prosecution?

Do you *really* think anyone would sue the shopkeepers anyway? The whole thing is just a game of political football (not even a particularly interesting or high stakes one), with the shopkeepers playing the part of the ball. Honestly, these guys probably have enough to worry about without being embroiled in minor squabbles about truancy.

chewy14 11:33 am 22 Sep 11

Watson said :

Another storm in a teacup. If they cannot buy stuff at certain shops (how many shopkeepers would actually bother to cooperate with this anyway?) will they really just go back to school indeed?

If it would be likely to make one iota of difference, maybe it would be worth discussing. But to change the legislation for a token effort?

Move on, nothing to see here.

I don’t think the point of the legislation will to be to get kids to go back to school.
It’s to stop the threat of legal action against shopkeepers for breaching kids “human rights” if they won’t sell to them during school hours. How ridiculous is it that a shopkeeper could be sued because he didn’t serve a little turd who was wagging school?
If a shopkeeper is assisting nearby schools enforce discipline, why should they face prosecution?

Watson 11:03 am 22 Sep 11

Another storm in a teacup. If they cannot buy stuff at certain shops (how many shopkeepers would actually bother to cooperate with this anyway?) will they really just go back to school indeed?

If it would be likely to make one iota of difference, maybe it would be worth discussing. But to change the legislation for a token effort?

Move on, nothing to see here.

Jim Jones 10:57 am 22 Sep 11

KaptnKaos said :

Never seen a wagging student actually buying stuff from a shop, shoplifting, that’s another rant.

Keep saying on numerous rants and raves in this fora, ACT Public Schools are just useless, teachers have no rights, schools have no “real” policies on bullying etc, schools are powerless to do anything to repremand pupils, so called on-site “social workers” at schools tell the students how to suck money out of the government and how their parents have been abusing them all their lives. Someone tries to enforce something like learning (gasp) onto students, like this principal from Lanyon, and they get railroaded by moronic civil libitarian twats and branded a monster for trying to do what a school is supposed to do, teach kids.

And yet Australian literacy and numeracy rates are extremely high, and the Australian populace is – as a whole – becoming more and more educated at higher and higher levels, with the ACT generally in the top percentiles … crazy, isn’t it?

breda 10:34 am 22 Sep 11

Students at the (public) senior college near my place are allowed out in their lunch break. Many go to the local shops to buy lunch. The college has a long waiting list and is in the top 5 every year for HSC results.

Leaving school grounds to go to the shops does not automatically equal underachievement or truanting. This is just a cheap and easy way to pretend to do something about truanting, instead of actually getting the education authorities out there doing their job by following up on unauthorised absences.

KaptnKaos 10:20 am 22 Sep 11

Never seen a wagging student actually buying stuff from a shop, shoplifting, that’s another rant.

Keep saying on numerous rants and raves in this fora, ACT Public Schools are just useless, teachers have no rights, schools have no “real” policies on bullying etc, schools are powerless to do anything to repremand pupils, so called on-site “social workers” at schools tell the students how to suck money out of the government and how their parents have been abusing them all their lives. Someone tries to enforce something like learning (gasp) onto students, like this principal from Lanyon, and they get railroaded by moronic civil libitarian twats and branded a monster for trying to do what a school is supposed to do, teach kids.

poetix 9:47 am 22 Sep 11

What if a student needs to buy lunch, or as someone said, tampons? What are they going to do, sit hungry or bleeding onto their clothes all day? That sort of thing is hardly going to cut truancy rates and improve concentration for those who are in class. Not all students are provided with everything they need by their parents and have to go to the shops. Crude populism from Zed Seselja.

PigDog 9:05 am 22 Sep 11

Buying tampons during free periods?

DarkLadyWolfMother 8:53 am 22 Sep 11

So presumably the idea is that a student wags school, goes to a shop, is rejected and suddenly are enlightened? From this point on they return to school, become a straight A student and cure cancer!

Zed has my support!

Watson 7:42 am 22 Sep 11

Watson said :

wooster said :

Proper schools dont let students out on so-called ‘free’ periods.

Good to hear there are plenty of menial workers coming out of Lanyon, though…

Free perionds can mean that college students start an hour later or finish an hour earlier on some days. I know that happened in my strict, old-fashioned catholic school 20+ years ago.

Periods even.

Watson 7:42 am 22 Sep 11

wooster said :

Proper schools dont let students out on so-called ‘free’ periods.

Good to hear there are plenty of menial workers coming out of Lanyon, though…

Free perionds can mean that college students start an hour later or finish an hour earlier on some days. I know that happened in my strict, old-fashioned catholic school 20+ years ago.

steveu 6:47 am 22 Sep 11

Yep Im with you Mysteryman,

That all being said – perhaps if there was a effective behaviour management policy from the ACT government then kids wouldnt be skipping school as much? Dont get me wrong wagging has been around since the invention of school I am sure – but if it is such a problem then perhaps they should look at the policy and their ability to implement the policy? personally, I think that instead of suspension they shoudl be spending their time in Binberi to get an idea of what their future could be like.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site