House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time School Absenteeism School Absenteeism Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey School Absenteeism Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (15:02): My question is to the Minister for Education. What thought has been given to earlier interventions to avoid the punitive impacts of heavy fines and convictions, even as a last resort, on families in crisis having real difficulties in getting their children to school regularly? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Minister for Education School Absenteeism The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (15:02): I thank the member for Florey for her question. I am aware that this is a concern that she has maintained for some time since, indeed, the prosecution of two families last year. That was the first time I heard her raise this question. I would actually support the work done by the previous minister for education and the answers she gave at that time, which were, of course, that those families did benefit to the extent that those children are now spending a lot more time at school than they were prior. Her specific question is in relation to what work goes in prior to a fine being levelled under the government's approach to truancy. The legislation that is going to be in the house before very long identifies a series of measures that take place, particularly in what is called family conferencing. Family conferencing is tremendously important. It is an opportunity, at the lead of one of our attendance officers, for a child who is not attending school habitually or chronically—truant, if you like—to be brought in with their family to the school to work with the school principal, to work with the attendance officer, to work with whatever other structures may need to be in place, whatever other government or non-government service providers may need to be in place, to address the issues as to why that child is not attending school. It is tremendously important that they do attend school. Consequently, the family conferencing mechanism is tremendously important in the first instance. This is something that happens after schools have often done a lot of work to try to get the student to attend schools in the first instance. There may or may not be interactions with other service providers, government or non-government, along the way as well. The only circumstance in which it is proposed under the government's proposed new legislation to be introduced shortly—or, indeed, under the present legislation, which does enable the opportunity—for prosecution to take place is as a last resort after all efforts have been undertaken to try to get that student back to school. It's particularly in relation to family conferencing to try to get that family to engage with the family conference. Only in circumstances where that family is unwilling to engage at all with the family conference, or not in any serious way, would any prosecution be contemplated. It is worth identifying—and this is where I draw back to the experience of last year—that the sheer fact of having had a court appearance in the judicial system is an interaction that has led to those families, and particularly those children, being at school more than they were. It's not actually about the punitive mechanism of the fine but the quantum of the fine being increased from $500, at the moment, to $5,000, as will be proposed. This is only going to be the second increase, as I understand, in several decades. It's to ensure that there is a mechanism that will get the attention of any family that doesn't propose to take seriously their responsibility to ensure that their child is at school, which is one that I am sure every member of this house would take very seriously. It's worth noting that, at least in one of the examples where there was a prosecution last year, there were multiple cases of truancy identified. Indeed, I think there were several counts in one of the cases. It is therefore requisite on the prosecution to prove that there were multiple periods of non-attendance, rather than the one non-attendance. I think that the new legislation to be proposed by the government will have a significant positive impact on the lives of the families in question because, more importantly than anything else, our focus is on getting those kids to school.