Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Your convenient chemist with the biggest range of Beanie Boo’s in CBR

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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site