SENIOR SECONDARY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2007. Page 983.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:22): I will not hold the house long on this matter. It is clear that the government has the numbers, and most of the debate will be in another chamber, where the government does not have the numbers. The opposition will raise a few matters in relation to this bill, a few amendments that will be dealt with swiftly. I will make some comments in relation to this bill.

The second reading explanation really does not give a great indication as to the detail of the bill. It gives a broad sweep of the government's claim to be reforming education. Essentially, there are two or three principles behind the bill. The SSABSA Act has been around for 25 years. To my knowledge, there have not been too many problems with the way the board or, indeed, the act have operated. We do not receive many cards or letters from parents, schools or education administrators about the board or the act and the way it is operated. In its words, the government seeks to 'modernise the board' by reducing its number from around 25 or 26 to 12 and giving the board a more defined and elaborate role, and I think that definition comprises 2½ or three pages.

It seeks to give the minister and, therefore, the government far greater control over the board and, therefore, the operation of the act by introducing things such as a ministerial power of direction, limited in two circumstances; the obligation of the board to take on decisions of ministerial councils and those sorts of issues; and the requirement of the board to send up to the minister any information requested by the minister in performing the role of minister.

So, there is a significant change in the way it currently operates as an independent stand-alone authority. Now it will be far more politicised and have far more intervention from the minister, the minister's office and the government. Those are two of the key principles involved in the bill. Another area is the way the staff of the board are employed. We think that the board should employ its CEO. The minister seeks to have an employing authority employ staff, which is part of the industrial relations argument that has gone on in this place over the past two years about where the employment responsibilities should lie. It is really a philosophical issue.

I want to run through these three principles: the principle of who should be on the board; how independent the SSABSA board should be; and who should have the power to employ. The minister has gone through what she will claim to be an extensive consultation. There has been a discussion paper. Bill Cossey wrote a paper in relation to the matter, and the bill is the result. The minister will claim that there were basic concessions from all sides to get the bill to this point. We sent the bill around as best we could over the last two weeks or so. I was in India during part of that time, and that is one of the reasons that some of the debate will happen upstairs, as we are still to hear back from some of the people to whom we have sent the information. However, we do know that some concerns have been raised and not accepted by the government, both by the current SSABSA board and by the Association of Independent Schools.

I should say as a starting point that I am suspicious about why the government is bringing in education reform bills piecemeal. I have been a minister and I know what departments do. They want to achieve a certain end in their powers and in those of the minister for a political agenda, a departmental agenda or a minister's agenda, or they want to make their lives easier, as they do not want the pesky parliament interfering in the day-to-day workings of the department. So, when three or four pieces of legislation come through the house, they word the provisions appropriately so that, when you layer the reforms in one act with reforms in subsequent ones, the cumulative effect is significant reform to the way the government or the minister's office may be interfere or run a particular policy through a particular office.

I am suspicious. I know that the minister will say that we need to get this through now so that it can start at a time of the minister's choosing. However, the reality is that the second reading explanation was about the delivery of the new SACE, which is still under negotiation. We are not quite sure what requirements that will have in it, but this board oversees it. If the bill is agreed to, we are giving significant powers to the minister and to the government that currently do not exist. I suspect that there is an agenda. Fortunately, the minister has decided to play this card now and then, after Christmas or later down the track, bring in another bill and yet another bill and slowly layer the accumulated change, rather than let everyone see the whole package.

As I said, we did consult with a number of groups. We have responses from the Association of Independent Schools. I want to deal with some of their issues, and they are happy for me to read parts of their letter into Hansard so that members have some understanding of their concerns. Of course, the Association of Independent Schools represents the 96 independent schools and has a 100 per cent membership across South Australia. It says it has raised a significant number of concerns during the consultation period, and their principal concerns, I guess, are outlined in three paragraphs.

First, there will be increased separation of the school sectors from the deliberations and the decisions of SSABSA because the former will not have representation on the board. School authorities and schools are responsible for the implementation of decisions made by the board, and SSABSA will have no accountability for the implications, that is, the resources, of their decisions that impact on the operation of schools. In relation to the disenfranchising of the non-government school sectors through proposed changes to the composition of the board, the government school sector is an instrument of the government policy.

In fact, officers of DECS advise the minister's office. Hence, the increased powers of the minister would ensure this provider has input into the deliberations and directions of the board. Regarding the unclear role of the board as a governing body, they say the bill makes no differentiation between the functions of SSABSA as an authority and the governance functions of the SACE board. The governance functions of the board are severely limited by the proposed enhanced powers of the minister. Further, they mention the lack of clarity and executive limitations of the powers of the minister, particularly in relation to the directions that can be given to the SACE board.

Then they go through the specific areas. In regard to the membership of the board, the opposition has an amendment. The government wants to reduce the board from 26, from memory, to 12. We have not increased the number in our amendment; we leave the number of board members at 12, but we think the three education sectors—Catholic, independent and government sectors—should be able to nominate their representatives on the board. The government does not believe that, and there is an amendment to that effect. The argument that the Association of Independent Schools puts forward in relation to this issue is as follows:

The proposed membership [of the board] does not guarantee that the three school sectors will have representation on the SACE board; this will lead to a separation of the school sectors from the deliberations and decisions of the SACE board. School authorities and schools are responsible for the implementation of decisions made by the board. The SACE board will have no accountability for the implications (e.g. resources of their decisions) that will impact on the operations of schools.

The...bill will effectively disenfranchise the independent school sector through proposed changes to the composition of the SACE board. The proposed consultation process outlined in the bill is not an acceptable alternative to direct representation on the SACE board.

The government school sector is an instrument of government policy: in fact, officers of DECS advise the minister's office; hence the increased powers of the minister would ensure this provider has input into the deliberations and directions of the SACE board.

So what they are really saying is that the minister has a whole department to advocate to the minister's office and, through the minister's new powers of direction in this bill, the government sector would have far greater influence than the independent and Catholic sectors on the SSABSA board; therefore, they argue that the three sectors should be equally represented and nominate their own representative. They say:

It is a strong view that at the very minimum the three school sectors should be able to nominate separate representation on the SACE board. This will strengthen the link between the decisions of the board and the implementation at the school authority and school level.

It is recognised that the bill does include an obligation on the SACE board to consult with a wide range of groups, including schools and the three school sectors, to the extent the board believes appropriate; however, this does enable the school sector authorities to be involved in the deliberations and processes of decision-making at board level. Representation on key standing committees of the board also does not guarantee adequate involvement in the decision-making process at the highest level.

That is the argument around the principle of who should be on the board. When I had the briefing from the minister's office, and I thank the minister for supplying officers for a briefing, I asked, 'This board has been around for 25 years: why do you want to change the board?' The answer I got was that they are hesitant to take the hard decisions. I asked for an example of a hard decision that had not been taken and they could not give me one. So, I am still not convinced of the argument for change. Where is the hard decision that this board has not taken or has not delivered, or what has been requested of them that they have not done?

The Hon. P.L. White interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have spoken to Malcolm Buckby and Rob Lucas, former education ministers, and asked them about the bill. There was one incident I am aware of, but when I asked whether the minister needed the power to direct they did not indicate that the minister needed that power. So, I have consulted with past education ministers. That was the argument put by the minister's advisers and, as I say, if there are any examples of decisions that should have been taken but have not been taken, the committee stage is the opportunity to inform the house of that.

Further, there are provisions in relation to extending the powers of the minister and also of the board. For instance, the independent schools sector raises concerns about the minister's power to collect, record and collate information on any matter relating to the participation or non-participation of children of compulsory education age in secondary education or training or development programs and opportunities (the clause goes on and I will not quote it all). Essentially, the independent schools sector argues that there is no limitation on the minister as to what information can be published or on the distribution of the information. The independent schools sector and its member schools are strongly opposed to any information being made available to the minister that identifies individual schools and the publication of information that identifies individual schools. This really comes down to an argument about the publication, if you like, of what is commonly known in the industry as league tables about comparing schools.

The other issue about this principle of the increased powers of the board and the minister is the increased powers of the functions of the board in relation to ministerial directions and functions of the board. The independent schools sector considers that the powers of the direction given to the minister throughout the bill have the potential to greatly undermine the independence and therefore the government's responsibilities of the SACE board in comparison with the existing board. Section 17A provides:

...the minister may give the board a direction about any matter relevant to the performance or exercise of a function or power of the board.

Although it is not stated explicitly, this provision could be interpreted to mean that the board is required to follow a ministerial direction. Such a direction would evidently not be subject to disallowance by the parliament. This is the concern the independent schools sector has about the independent authority losing its independence. They would argue that the government has not made a case as to why it should lose its independence.

They also seek a limitation on that ministerial power in relation to students' records—and we may come to that at the committee stage. Their general view of the independent schools sector is that, when you take the bill as a collective, their concern is that the SACE board has the potential to become simply an administrative arm of government rather than an authority, with a high degree of independence from political interference. By contrast, under the current legislation, the board cannot be required to follow ministerial directions. They would argue that it should remain independent. They are some of the concerns raised by the independent schools sector.

The minister's office was kind enough to forward to me the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia's submission of 4 July. If there is a later submission, it has not been provided to the opposition, so I can only assume that there is not a later submission than that of 4 July.

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith: There is.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: When I asked the minister's office for the submission from SSABSA, I was hoping I might get the latest one. Maybe the minister could provide me with the latest submission in between the houses. The submission we have and given to us by the minister is the one dated 4 July. I am not sure what the latest submission says. The submission of 4 July raises a number of issues in relation to the bill. Some of them are only minor in the scheme of things. I notice that some of them have been picked up in relation to the redraft of the bill. The interesting thing that SSABSA talks about is that it specifically requested the minister to amend to the bill to include the words 'publishing' in the restriction of the minister's power or direction so that the minister cannot publish the results. This comes down to an issue about league tables.

SSABSA has specifically made a submission to the government that the minister's power of direction be limited so that the minister cannot produce league tables in a published form. The independent schools sector has specifically raised that issue with the minister. One can only assume that, given the minister has not amended the bill in line with those two submissions, the government's intention, indeed, is to use the power of direction to enable it to construct information and put out league tables against the wishes of SSABSA and the independent schools sector, otherwise why would you not have put that particular prohibition on your own ministerial direction?

I want to put those comments on the record by way of a general discussion. The opposition does have some amendments that deal with board numbers, the employing authority and the make-up of the board. With respect to the issues around the minister's power to direct, we want to hear from the minister about why the government needs that power, and we will consider our position on that in between the houses. In other words, at this stage, we do not think the case has been made. We want to give the minister an opportunity to make the case to the house as to why, after 25 years, suddenly we need the power to direct this board and to have the other powers that the minister so seeks. The opposition will have some amendments in committee, and a number of other issues will come up in committee by way of question.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Adelaide—Minister for Education and Children's Services, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:43): I would like to respond to some of those comments. In particular, I think it reflects the honourable member's relative newness to this portfolio that he would suggest, 'There are no problems so why would we want to change the SSABSA Act?' In reality it has served us well over many years, but there has been a tectonic shift in education in the last decade which the current act has not been able to accommodate fully. The department has been very flexible in allowing small pilot studies and small projects to occur in terms of some extended learning initiatives, some in-depth studies and some flexibility and involvement in terms of allowing SACE recognition of activities such as life saving or CFS activity, as well as accreditation in those minor areas.

However, overall, for the majority of young people we are currently in a position where we have a massive growth in job availability. We have a relative skill shortage, and some of the statistics that were in the original SACE review were unnerving. I start by saying that there are no jobs for the untrained and early school leaver. In the future, there will be no jobs for manual labourers, no jobs for those who leave school early. All the jobs growth is in Certificate III diplomas and university-trained students and graduates. There was information in the SACE review which pointed out that 55 per cent of year 8 students reached a year 12 completion certificate.

That statistic alone is unnerving because it demonstrates that 45 per cent of year 12 students have insufficient qualifications to get them a higher certificate or an apprenticeship. We currently face a shortage of young people going into apprenticeships, even though there has been a dramatic increase in school-based apprenticeships, but when one considers that only approximately a third of young people go into a university entrance situation, then we are looking at two-thirds of school leavers not being in the university stream and yet being required to get higher levels of certification and qualifications.

The problem in South Australia is with the relatively low population growth, with high employment and relatively underskilled youth. Our school leavers are increasingly becoming underemployed and have difficulty in becoming highly employable. The issue for us, as a state, is the need to increase the skills of school leavers, and that is why we are introducing a whole suite of reforms. I have to laugh at the suggestion (and the major criticism) from the member that the problem is that we might have a policy agenda. I have to say, with some degree of confidence, that I would have thought that is what a government wants. We are being criticised for having a policy agenda. We are being criticised for having policy and we are being criticised for wanting to reform our senior secondary education system. I take that as a compliment; I thought that is what governments were supposed to do.

With regard to the changes to the act, we have had independent reviews of both the senior secondary system and the legislation, and the status quo is not adequate to take us into the 21^st century. We need to make sure that as close to 100 per cent as we can get of our young people have the skills to get employment. There are certain limitations to the current act and the way the board functions. Nobody who has chaired a committee of 26 people can honestly say it functions well. One of the problems with a large representative board is that it represents industry, unions, schooling sectors, every university in the state, and Business SA.

What has happened over time, I think, is that initially there were the most senior representations on the boards but, over the decades, it has slipped to be proxies and substitutes, so that the high level of involvement is no longer true. Very often the board does struggle to have a reform agenda. Anybody who has operated with a large board knows that smaller numbers on a board are more effective and, in particular, a skills-based board will always outshine a representative board. The detail about some of the underpinning philosophy of the way the act has been written is that this is no longer a board that will just be assessing—that is, I am saying it is no longer a board whose role will be to write curriculum, to mark exam papers and to release results. It has a broader role in the future and that role is actually in accreditation as well, because it will be involved in taking certificates from the VET sector, taking non-school-based programs and saying whether they should be credited with SACE points.

The reason for that is that if we want to increase school retention and we want to increase the skill levels of school leavers, we cannot expect the children who are now dropping out, who are disenchanted and who are voting with their feet, to want to stay at school studying physics, chemistry, maths and a whole range of subjects that they have already become disenchanted with. In the old days (the good old days which everybody harks back to), in reality, the non-academic stream of student would have got into an apprenticeship or employment for which they are now no longer qualified, because the world has moved on.

In relation to the programs that are envisaged and are being changed around the world—it is not just us taking this attitude—there is accreditation for a more broad range of activity and a recognition that the schooling system is, if you like, more permeable in that it will involve young people completing a year 12 certificate, but at the same time having experience of VET, school-based apprenticeships, even part-time employment and community service, so that they can stitch together a smorgasbord of skills that will give them a credible certificate of leaving that will allow them to then go on to further training or employment.

The reason we have several bills being presented to parliament is that there are several specific issues. The SSABSA review is only part of the reform package. Again, I make no apology—we have a reform agenda, shocking though that may be. We have a very clear reform agenda, because we want every young person to be skilled. I have said before that the worst brain drain is a child not reaching their potential. Our agenda includes lifting the age of compulsory education to 17, and that is the bill we will discuss next week, as well as introducing our Trade Schools for the Future.

So, this is a package that we are introducing in single elements for clarity and to make clear which part of the package it is. They fit together, but the reason we need (timing wise) to put this bill to the house early on is that the school leaving age, which we have already increased, has allowed children to stay at school until 16. The Compulsory Education Act will allow them to stay until they are 17. That will not kick in for another two years, but we need to have a transitional arrangement for the SSABSA board now so that the new SACE board can pick up the responsibilities of the previous SSABSA board. We can have transitions of staffing and we can have them take on the leadership in this area.

I agree that there are areas that have been contentious, but we put out a discussion paper earlier in the year and went through a massive consultation process. One of the risks of the opposition now picking people they want to consult is that any organisation would have hundreds of members of staff, such as a university, and there are clearly some staff with a personal view. But we have gone to the organisations and we have spoken to the heads of the organisations and those who have been charged with the responsibility of giving their opinion.

So, I am not discrediting the other people who might be consulted, the friends of the member who might wish to be consulted about this issue. They have had an opportunity to put in submissions, but we have had a consultation program which has included the people whom we regarded as stakeholders. We did not just ask that they put in a submission, but we have had them, around a table, debating and discussing the submissions put by the other parties. We have had them sitting around the table and going through all the issues. At the end of the day, where there have been problems that have been raised, we have incorporated them and included them in the legislation.

The groups we have had on this stakeholder advisory committee have been: the Association of Independent Schools of SA, the Australian Education Union, Catholic Education South Australia, the Chief Executive of DECS, the Chief Executive of DFEEST, Childcare Australia, the Children's Services Consultative Committee, the Ethnic Schools Board, the Federation of Catholic School Parent Communities, Flinders University, the Independent Education Union, the Ministerial Advisory Committee of Students with Disabilities, the Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Multicultural Education Committee, the Non-Government Schools Registration Board, the Preschool Directors Association, the South Australian Primary Principals Association, the Public Service Association, the Association of School Parents Clubs Incorporated, the Association of State School Organisations (SAASSO), the Isolated Children's/Parents Association, the Secondary Principals Association, the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of SA—I know that the member has been given its original submission when the discussion paper went out, but time has moved on—the Small Schools Principals Association, the Special Schools Principals Association, the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia, the Social Inclusion Board, the Teachers Registration Board, the Non-Government Schools Secretariat, the Independent Schools Secondary Principals Groups and the Independent School Primary Principals, as well as the Future SACE office.

So, the level of consultation has been enormous. If you thought that we did not speak to them once, you would be in error, because the Reform Stakeholders Advisory Group has met on seven occasions, after being established late last year. The next meeting will be on 31 October, because we do not believe this matter is concluded; we are still consulting with them and working with them on our other legislation because we think it is important to include stakeholders. The point I make is that we have the nominees and the official representatives—not a teacher with a view who might be in a school or an academic who might have a view. I advise the member that he may take up the cudgels on behalf of some individual but be at odds with the actual bodies that are being represented within the community.

We met on 22 January, 19 February, 27 March, 12 June, 27 June, 6 August and 27 August to discuss this bill. There was a whole range of meetings also on the compulsory education agenda as well. So, there has been a massive consultation which has resulted in discussions leading to a massive number of amendments. That is why the current bill is so different from the first bill: because we believe in genuine consultation, not a consultation whereby we get submissions and say, 'Thank you, we're doing what we want to do.' We collected the submissions, we listened to what was said and we have made subsequent changes.

In fact, we recently received a letter from SSABSA dated 17 October, which is the most recent documentation following the submission you received. It is signed by the presiding member and it reads as follows:

I write in response to the tabling of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (Review) Amendment Bill 2007 and the further changes made to the draft bill following the response submitted by SSABSA. Changes made to directions where concerns were previously raised, in particular regarding the composition of the board, the role of the chief executive officer in relation to the board, the ministerial powers of directions and transitional arrangements for SSABSA staff are supported.

I congratulate you on these further changes which, in my view, strengthen the framework of the legislation. That was the way we adopted our consultation. We took on every matter that was raised.

The one issue that was not taken on board was the wish by one group that there be representation on the board. As I said, we, like every other professional group around the country, are moving toward no longer having representation on boards but having skills-based boards. The reason is that, clearly, it is much better always to have people with a professional background, with the knowledge and the academic understanding. In doing that, we recognise that various bodies are not getting a seat at the table. We do that with the knowledge that, if we go back to representation, we will have all of the universities—and you might say we need Carnegie Mellon and Cranfield as well, so there will be five of them. We need all the school sectors. There are three main sectors but there are others as well. We would end up having Business SA and a whole range of industry sectors and, before we know where we are, we are back up to 28, 29, 33 and, again, an unwieldy and unworkable board.

Only one organisation has still demanded a seat at the table, and that is AISSA. To them I would say: we have an advisory board which advises the new SACE board, and that comprises the CEOs of each of the main sectors. Below the main SACE board, we have a whole range of advisory groups. Clearly, there will be specialist groups for mathematics, for extended learning plans, for literacy, for numeracy and for accreditation.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the sitting of the house be extended beyond 17:00.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: Of all the advice that was given to us by representations, only one organisation still wishes to have representation on the board. Beneath the main board, of course, are the advisory groups that do the work. The SACE board will not be in the position to actually write curriculum, accredit courses or recognise projects. The SACE board will be the policy decision maker. In fact, it is quite obvious that every schooling sector will be represented because there is a massive level of skills available within the private school sector, both within AISSA and the Catholic education sector, and there is every opportunity for those skills to be called into play by being on those subcommittees.

The next issue is—and I do rather resent the scathing attitude to consultation because I think the consultation was very thorough—the comment that has been made that the power of direction will be very dangerous. It is true to say that currently there is no power to direct the SACE board, which means should the government invest in, for instance, a biotech innovation investment fund—and we have invested enormously in Technology Park at Thebarton—we have no capacity to request that the SACE board consider courses that may be appropriate for that skills area. We have no capacity to suggest that the SACE system should have programs that would get people into the air warfare defence industry or even into the mining sector.

Clearly, they generally do that, and we recognise that they generally take up those options, but we have no power to request them to do that. We also have no power to get data from them in regard to achievements in the SACE. They are completely independent with no capacity to give us any data. We, unlike the Liberal Party, are absolutely opposed to league tables, and we will absolutely be opposed to any delivery of identifying data from schools. But where a school system wants to get reports from the SACE or SSABSA, there are times when it would be reasonable to have some reporting back and, in fact, as to the league table idea, I am very pleased to hear the member oppose it because then he would be in alliance with us because we are opposed to league tables as identifiers as well.

I believe that the member's criticisms are not valid. We have gone to considerable lengths to support the amendments and suggestions put forward by our advisory group. We have made every amendment that was reasonable, and they were generally reasonable. We found every suggestion from SSABSA entirely reasonable, and we made amendments. So, I think the bill before us now is one that has been negotiated, consulted upon and that will lead the way to a new era in senior secondary education. I urge the member to contemplate the failure that many young people face in our society when they leave school early with no qualifications and they are unemployable. Many of the changes that you have been critical of are just the ones that will lift the job opportunities and skills set of young people and make them employable, because the range of changes that is occurring will, for the first time, require young people to pass mathematics and English in year 11. There has been no requirement in the current SACE to do that.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Say that again.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: There has been no requirement in the current SACE—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Before that. You were saying something about year 11.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: There has been no requirement until now in the current SACE for a child to get a credit in year 11 maths or English. One of the changes in the new SACE will require a pass in those subjects. We are introducing a range of changes. I have to say that I am rather surprised that the member would attack us for not knowing what the new SACE was about. We know exactly what the new SACE is about. We have already introduced year 9 testing for diagnostic purposes and we will be putting remedial processes in place. The year 10 reforms will be implemented within the next couple of years and the agenda for reform is moving apace. That is why the reform of the board and the legislation has to occur to enable those changes to progress.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 3, lines 24 to 29—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 4(1), definition of employing authority—delete the definition.

Page 4, lines 2 to 5—Delete subsection (2).

This is about the issue in relation to the employing authority and the principle of who should employ the CEO. The opposition believes that the board should be the employing authority of the CEO. The government wishes for some philosophical reason to nominate someone else as the employing authority. Under clause 11 of this bill the CEO is responsible to the board but will not be employed by the board, so there will be a conflict in duty in that one person employs the CEO, but the CEO is responsible to the board. The opposition thinks common sense should apply: the minister should appoint the board and the board should then employ its CEO. The same argument applies to staff other than the CEO.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I think the member is confused. The CE is not employed by the board now.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: I didn't say he was.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The situation has somewhat changed. Currently there is an anomaly in that the CE of DECS is the employing authority for the CEO of the SSABSA board. This followed implementation of the statutes amendment act, which protects all South Australian government employees from the scope of the commonwealth government's WorkChoices legislation. The bill makes the appointment of the CEO consistent with the appointment arrangements of other chief executives within the Public Service. Further, the CEO is accountable to the board for the delivery of the board's operations. The bill addresses a concern raised by stakeholders that it is not appropriate for the CE of one of the schooling sectors to be the employing authority of the CEO and staff of the SSABSA board, and I entirely agree with that. It is quite inappropriate, and that is why we seek to amend the situation so the CEO is in a separate position. The appointment by the Governor puts the CEO of the SSABSA board in the same position as CEOs of other statutory authorities.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Only because the government changed the law through general statute amendment legislation in the past two years. As a result of the federal WorkChoices legislation this government decided to move an overarching bill about who would be the employing authority on a whole range of statutory authority boards. We make the point, as we did at the time (and not every board is the same, as there are different circumstances), that we do not see any reason why the board should not have the power to employ its own CEO. It would not necessarily be from one school sector, but would be up to the board.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The member is trying to push his own ideological and political views and his support of WorkChoices, which we know to be intense. The reality is that the stakeholders and the board are happy with this amendment, as all our representations indicate. Whilst he may be scathing of the mere concept of consulting people—I know it is anathema to him that we would listen to what people say—the community of interests and people involved in this process are happy with these clauses. The member is going off on a tangent, on a junket of his own views, not those of the education sector.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We will not hold the committee a long time. Minister, I did not criticise the consultation process. Go back and read the Hansard overnight, and you will see that I have not criticised the consultation process. I have actually been a minister as well. It might come as a surprise that you are not the only minister in the history of the state. I was a minister for four years. I have gone through the consultation processes. I understand that you have done that. But the opposition is allowed to have a view. It may not be a view that you like, but we are entitled to a view. If you read the Hansard tonight, you will see that no-one raised the issue. The minister just said that no-one raised the idea of having sectors represented on the board.

That is false. Your own consultation documents show that that is false. The letter that I read to the parliament shows that what you just said is false. And you talk about your consultation process! You put yourself in my position, minister. I sat in my electorate office with your staff. I asked for one piece of information. I asked for the submission from the SSABSA board, and the submission that your mob gave me was the old submission. They did not give me the latest submission. So, your great consultation process denied the opposition the one piece of information that it requested.

Had I had that information before we came to the chamber, I just might have asked the SSABSA board why it changed its mind. Then I might have been able to consider that in drafting my amendments. So, do not talk down to the opposition about the consultation process, because your officers took the decision not to provide the opposition with the most recent advice. It might have been an error, but the reality is that that is what happened. I will not wear the attitude coming from the minister. I said to the minister in my office this afternoon that this would be a short debate, and it will be. I understand that we have a different view, but the Independent Schools Association did write to us and did write to the minister arguing about sector representation. So, do not advise the house that no-one did it, because they did. Let us get to the clause; put it to the vote.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I think the member is getting excited unnecessarily. He asked, as I understand, for the comments and submission related to the consultation draft of the bill. At the time, that was a very reasonable thing to do. I have said, and my office explained, that there had been massive consultation. I have read the dates of the meetings that were held that included all the participants on that list which I read. I have explained that all the complaints were listened to, all the suggestions were incorporated, and all the compromises were made. This was a matter of compromising to make everybody happy. But I do not think that however brilliant my office staff are they have psychic powers. I do not think that however clever they might be they can predict the future. When the member asked for the submission following the consultation draft, in good faith he was given it, with the comments and the accompanying email, as I understand, saying that the views had been incorporated and the final bill was different from the consultation bill. I have seen that email.

Maybe if the member had listened to the letter that I read out, he would have heard that before I read the letter from SSABSA I gave its date. I will repeat it again for the member, because I realise that he was not listening. The letter is dated 17 October and it states:

I write in response to the tabling of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia (Review) Amendment Bill 2007 and the further changes made to the draft bill following the response submitted by SSABSA. Changes made to directions where concerns were previously raised, in particular regarding the composition of the board, the role of the chief executive officer in relation to the board, ministerial powers of direction and transitional arrangements for SSABSA staff are supported. I congratulate you on these further changes, which in my view strengthen the framework of the legislation.

It was exactly what I read a few minutes ago.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let us get on with the vote. We have things to do. I have a kid in hospital, and I want to go. The reality is, if you read the Hansard, you accused me of asking for the comments from the SSABSA board on the draft bill. The letter you just read specifically refers to the draft bill, its comments on it and congratulates your making changes. Why did I not get the letter? Because it arrived yesterday? You could still have passed it through to me. Let us just get on with the vote and stop playing games.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am very happy to vote, but I do not think that a game is being played. When this letter arrived—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Does that letter refer to the draft legislation?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: It says 'the changes made'.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: This was not a submission; this was a letter. You asked for the submission. As I said, brilliant though my staff are, they cannot predict the future.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What reason did the SSABSA board give the minister for withdrawing its submission on the word 'young'?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am sorry, I could not hear.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What reason did the SSABSA board give the minister for withdrawing its submission on the word 'young' in clause 7?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am sorry; I misheard you. The vast majority of people undertaking the SACE are young people to whom this government has a strong commitment. This principle does not preclude older people from undertaking the SACE, but the principle makes explicit this commitment.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The SACE board plays a key role in the design and delivery of senior secondary education in South Australia. The performance of the board is crucial to the reputation of the state's education system both here and overseas. Can the minister outline the 'broad range of backgrounds' that will be evident among the prospective SACE board members?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am sorry, the member is mumbling and I cannot hear him.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Koutsantonis): I think it is the acoustics.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am sorry, I could not hear what he said.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You accused me of not listening two minutes ago; now you know what it is like. I will repeat the question for the minister. The SACE board plays a key role in the design and delivery of senior secondary education in South Australia. The performance of the board is crucial to the reputation of the state's education system both here and overseas. Can the minister outline the broad range of backgrounds that will be evident among the prospective SACE board members?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: At least four of the appointed members of the board must have specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education, and of these members at least one must be a person who is currently engaged or has recently been engaged in the provision of senior secondary education. They should come from a broad range of backgrounds that are relevant to the activities and interests of the board, and together have the abilities, knowledge and experience necessary to enable the board to carry out its functions effectively.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The three school sectors have expert knowledge and experience in the delivery of the curriculum. How can a board that contains no direct representation from the three school sectors make informed decisions about educational matters which impact directly on schools and young people in South Australia? Will the minister tell the parliament how she will ensure the proposed SACE board, which requires only one board member to be currently or recently engaged in the provision of senior secondary education, will be able to adequately represent the diverse views and needs of the three schooling sectors? Will the minister tell the parliament how she will ensure that the proposed SACE board will have the relevant up-to-date and practical education experience and knowledge to adequately address the issues of senior secondary education that will have a direct impact on schools and students?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: As I explained previously, education in the senior secondary years is not just a matter of what happens in schools. The system is a much more open and permeable one whereby it is envisaged that there will be educational attainment, certification and involvement in the VET sector, school-based apprenticeships, the volunteer sector and the community sector. Not all the activity will be within schools. Currently, when board members are nominated they do not take allegiance or instructions from their nominating organisation. They bring their personal experience and they should owe allegiance to the strategic objectives of the board. Similarly, the board consults with the sectors when developing new policies and subjects. However, the board also does consult with individual schools (where they have special expertise) and other bodies. So other consultations might well occur with industry sectors, technical areas that are evolving and also the university and TAFE sectors. Of course, there would be the use of expert committees for particular projects and activities.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 5, lines 27 to 29—

Leave out all words in these lines after 'must be' in line 27 and substitute:

a practising teacher

This amendment simply requires that one of the board members be a practising teacher rather than someone who is currently engaged or has recently been engaged in the provision of senior secondary education. We recommend or suggest that it would be better to have a practising teacher. The minister raised with me in our brief meeting this afternoon that my definition of 'practising teacher' leaves it open for the minister to appoint a primary school teacher. That is true, but I could not see any reason why our minister would ever do that; so I have not amended it.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Currently, the future SACE steering committee, which is made up of the chief executives of the three schooling sectors and the department of education and training, is advising the minister on the implementation of the future SACE. These positions are held by people who are widely recognised and respected for their expertise in education. If this committee is playing such a vital role in providing advice to the minister, what is the rationale for excluding positions, or indeed their delegates, from representation on the SACE board?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I think the proposed amendment the member wishes to put suggests that there should be a nominee from the sectors, not necessarily the CEs. And the advisory group he has named are the people who are responsible for finding a collaborative approach for many of the complex issues that we have worked through to date. I am particularly indebted for their activities because it has made sure there is fairness and equity across the systems.

I know the member believes all the advice comes to the minister from the department and not from the other sectors but, in the matter of the SACE system, I recall the member saying there was a massive department feeding me advice and opinions, but it would be entirely improper for me to take advice only from the department because the SACE is a vehicle for all South Australians. It is a certification system that is essential for every South Australian family, and it is fair to recognise that many other people are stakeholders and therefore the three sectors are on the advisory committee because I think it is proper that there should be advice from all the sectors. In terms of getting advice, however, the bill includes designated entities, which are those people from whom I should seek advice, and they include the education sectors, universities, training skills commission, such organisations as unions, the teachers registration board, the non-government schools registration boards, and so on. So, there is a very extensive list of entities which also give advice.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 5—

After line 29—Insert:

(ab) 1 of the appointed members of the Board must be a person specifically nominated by the South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools Inc.; and

(ac) 1 of the appointed members of the Board must be a person specifically nominated by the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia; and

(ad) 1 of the appointed members of the Board must be a person specifically nominated by the Director-General of Education; and

Line 33—After "to the Board" insert:

(other than for the purposes of subsection (3)(ab), (ac) or (ad))

These amendments simply relate to the principle that the three school sectors—that is, the Catholic, independent and public school sectors—should have the opportunity to nominate their own representative on the board. If members refer to my second reading contribution they will see the argument put forward for this. It is not increasing the size of the board: it is still only 12. We argue each sector should be able to nominate its own person. I suspect the minister will say it is the intention of the government to have those sectors represented and, if that is the case, it is a protection for those sectors that they offer up their own nominee rather than have a politically appointed nominee of the minister to represent them or speak on their behalf. It would be a nonsense to suggest, and I am not saying the minister is suggesting this, that those three sectors will appoint anyone other than an expert. Do you think they are going to appoint a non-expert to represent their interests? Of course not. They are going to appoint experts to represent their particular sectors. This bill says the government can politically appoint a friendly out of the sectors to represent the view, and I am not sure that is in the best interests of those three school sectors.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: New section 15(1)(i) provides that one of the functions of the new board will be to provide students and former students with copies of their results upon request. Does that mean, in the way in which it is drafted, that parents and guardians cannot obtain copies?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Koutsantonis): Can the member please repeat the question?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am talking about clause 14 which amends section 15 of the act and which relates to functions of the board. I am referring to page 9 of the bill, new section15(1)(i), which, in layman's terms, talks about giving the power to the board to provide, on request, the records of students and past students. As a parent, I wonder whether that prevents me from obtaining copies, on request, of my child's results.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: My understanding is that the results now come to the child, addressed to the child, not to the parent. I am not sure that the parent can currently obtain results from the SSABSA board. I have been informed that there is no change of the wording there: it is as it is now.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, then answer the question: does that clause, as it stands now, prevent parents from obtaining access to their child's results on request?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I have been informed that a parent can exercise that right for a child under 18, but currently the results are addressed to the child.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I move:

Page 10, line 2—Delete ', or by the minister'

Currently, under 'Functions of board', the bill reads that the minister will have the power to allocate extra functions to the board without consulting the parliament. The opposition is of the view that, with respect to this board (and we know that all boards are different), given that we are re-writing all the functions of the board as the parliament, the parliament should have a say if any future new functions are given to the board. We are moving an amendment so that, if there are changes in that sense, we are taking away the minister's power to change the functions of the board.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: This is to simplify matters in the future, and I think it is not uncommon to suggest that a clause might be there to facilitate inclusion of functions that may not have been contemplated at the time the bill was passed, without having to return to parliament to have the functions of the board amended. Left in its original form, the clause would not allow the minister to assign functions to the board that are outside of its intended purpose.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In relation to new section 15(1)(m), can the minister explain what becomes the legal position of information passed from the board to the department or the minister's office in relation to FOI? Currently, the SSABSA Act is an exempt act. This provision gives the board the function to the extent determined by the minister—we do not know what that is; whatever the minister of the day wants—to collect, record, or collate information on any matter relating to the participation or non-participation of children of compulsory education age in secondary training or development programs or opportunities. At the moment, I understand that SSABSA is an FOI exempt agency. The minister is not an FOI exempt agency; the department is not a FOI exempt agency. You ask for information from an exempt agency and it goes to a non-exempt agency. I am asking about the legal position on how that information is protected; or is it the intention for it not to be protected?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: My understanding is that FOI legislation does not expect that material identifying individuals will be released, and it is not a permissible use of the FOI information. Where information about cohorts and numbers are passed on to the minister, that would assist in retention data. One of the issues that is significant is tracking the children to prove that they are engaged in education and are part of the cohort undergoing further training, but any information would not allow an FOI request to release names or identify young people.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I understand the FOI laws. Everyone knows that you cannot FOI someone's private details, but in relation to the development of league tables, what the minister is doing through this is opening it up for the media, because the media will not FOI what Johnny Smith student or Mary Smith student did. They will FOI all the information that the minister requests from SSABSA that is currently FOI exempt. All the FOI officer has to do is cross out the individual names and send it out. Everyone has received FOIs with the names blanked out. The minister will have information available that is collated data about school performance that is not individually based and that becomes 'FOIable'. I am wondering whether that is the intent.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: It is absolutely not the intent, and we do not wish to have collated data (as the honourable member calls it), 'FOIable' data or league tables. I know the initiative that is being pushed by the Liberal Party. This relates to compulsory education age students in secondary education or training and development programs. This is about keeping data on the numbers in the cohort, not about individuals.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Will the minister explain why the minister needs the power of direction, and specifically what difficult decisions have not been taken by previous boards which she thinks should have been taken and which warrant the new power to direct?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am not in a position to understand what the member is talking about. I was not party to any of the discussions he might have had. There are ministerial powers of direction in significant acts around the country. I understand that there is one in the SA Training and Skills Development Act, which is substantially as was envisaged by the previous Liberal government. There is one within the senior secondary acts of Victoria, the ACT, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland. New South Wales does not have the power of direction, because in New South Wales the minister has oversight of board decisions and therefore is party to them much more actively.

The proposal is for a very limited power to direct. It provides for a public interest safeguard consistent with all the other legislation that I have named. It might involve, for instance, undertaking investigation into the impact of the SACE on particular aspects of young people's lives or groups of young people. It may involve requesting the board to look at why there are lower completion levels for Aboriginal students and devising ways that that might be alleviated. The board is able to undertake research, and ministerial direction would occur only when the minister considered a matter required urgent attention. The power would be used only in really quite unusual circumstances where consultation and discussion with the board failed to achieve the desired outcome. Clearly, the first priority is consultation and discussion with the minister. It is likely that this will be used rarely, but it may involve new industry sectors and activities such as that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the minister please explain how this power of direction will interplay with the requirement of the board to give effect to any decision made by a minister or council?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: My understanding is that a minister would not direct under those circumstances. A MCEETYA board might well make a decision based on, say, school-based apprenticeships or VET programs, which may relate to the types of courses that were accredited in various ways, and perhaps it would be possible for the minister to make a direction on each of those matters but, in terms of having consistency, it would be sensible if those decisions were enacted as a matter of course.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am just wondering why you need the power in relation to the ministerial council. Mr Chairman, I understand that I can speak for 15 minutes. For the committee's benefit, the minister is seeking two powers: one is the power to direct, and one is a legislative instruction to the board that it must give effect to a decision made by a ministerial council, which is not defined. The ministerial council is not defined. Whether it is the MINCO or whether it is MCEETYA, I am not sure, or indeed whether it is any other ministerial council. However, the way it works is that the minister gets to pick and choose which decisions of the ministerial council the board gets to implement. At the same time the minister can direct, so why does the minister need the power to implement ministerial council decisions if he or she has the power to direct?

I think the reason they need it is this: decisions made by ministerial councils are not advised to the house: ministerial directions are advised to the house—and the member for Enfield has always been a great enthusiast of ministerial councils imposing requirements on the chamber. Under this provision the ministerial council will make a decision and the minister will decide whether he or she wants to implement that decision, and then advise the board that they have to give effect to that decision because the minister has nominated that ministerial council under the clause. There is nothing in here regarding consultation with the board about items on the ministerial council in relation to what might be decided.

So, I am wondering why you need both powers. Surely a ministerial power of direction covers the earlier power, which is to give effect. If the minister has to pick and choose which ministerial council decisions will be picked up by the board the minister has to make that decision anyway, so the minister may as well simply direct. If the minister does specify that certain decisions by ministerial councils are to be given effect by the board, is that a ministerial direction, and does that have to be tabled, as per other ministerial directions? If not, why not?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I think the member is unnecessarily suspicious. As I understand it, this clause has been inserted in the bill at the request of the stakeholders. I know that the member does not think that the consultation has been effective, but this clause has been inserted only at the request of the stakeholders; they believe it would expedite information if this clause was included. The wording is 'must': without limiting any steps that the board may take on its own initiative, it 'must' give effect to decisions made by the ministerial council. I believe it is specified by the minister because, from time to time, these councils change their name.

My understanding is that it is MCEETYA at the moment, and there is also MINCO, but it may well be that it has to be named if they change their titles. In fact, this is quite different from ministerial directives, and the difference largely is that, rather than being reported to the house, it is reported in the annual report. Whilst the ministerial councils may not publish their agendas and minutes, any decision that has been taken up by this board will be reported in an annual report. It will be part of a nationally agreed initiative, and I think it is good that we should be involved in nationally agreed initiatives. I think it would be for the benefit of South Australians.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (17 to 20), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.