Education and Children's Services Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be disagreed to.

I think the easiest thing, potentially to assist the house, is to go through them one by one. I might offer some commentary, and I suspect the shadow minister will make some commentary as we go. Some of them are clustered, but the clusters are not necessarily in order, so I am sure we will make our way through them with good faith and goodwill.

I will open with a couple of words about the bill. It has been a long journey. I think the first seedlings of the concepts that have made their way to this bill were a result of a review that was commissioned two decades ago by then minister Buckby. Some of those ideas made their way into subsequent amendments in legislation: some of those amendments were passed; some were not.

A substantial bill was put forward by Jane Lomax-Smith in 2009, or possibly 2008. Jane Lomax-Smith continues her work in education as chair of the Teachers Registration Board, and I thank her for the role that she is playing there. I know the government and opposition are grateful for the work of that board. As the result of an election, that bill did not come to fruition. I think it was given further attention through the subsequent six years, until the current shadow minister (member for Port Adelaide) was the minister for education and put out for public consultation a bill that was the next generation of the initial bill.

There were some enhancements on what had been offered in the previous bill. From memory, this occurred at the beginning of 2017 or possibly late 2016. That bill was given significant public consultation. There were many improvements and enhancements, which were iterated in the second reading debates in 2017 and last year. Ultimately, that bill also fell just shy of passage in the Legislative Council. I think it was described as having 'run out of runway', as there were around 20 bills for the Legislative Council to deal with in its last week of 2017; education might have been seventh or eighth, and they only got through five or six, or whatever it was.

Some matters had not been resolved at that time and they have not been resolved since, but I hope that we are not far from being able to do so. The bill that was sent to the Legislative Council was supported, in most parts, by the Labor Party as well as, obviously, the government. There were a few changes from the 2017 bill, on which I focused in my second reading speech in 2018. I think those enhancements were substantial. Many of them mirrored the amendments that we had moved to the bill in 2017. I think these enhancements benefit the bill and will ensure that it is in its best form once it completes its journey to existence—hopefully, as I said, in the not too distant future.

The Legislative Council, through the Labor Party, the Greens, SA-Best and Mr Darley, all had suggested enhancements to the bill, which variously became amendments that were passed in four particular categories. One of those was in relation to corporal punishment. Amendments moved by Ms Bonaros, I believe, would enhance the status of the corporal punishment offence in this bill to include non-government schools as well as government schools.

It is, in fact, already an offence to have corporal punishment in a school, but this would be an enhanced offence. The drafting of the bill, as I recall, reflected the drafting of the original bill, which talked about corporal punishment in government schools. However, there is absolutely no reason why we would not want to extend that protection to students in non-government schools as well.

The non-government school sector, through Catholic Education South Australia and the Association of Independent Schools South Australia, confirmed that they support the measure. None of their South Australian schools would object to that measure in any way. Frankly, as a point of principle, it is a good measure. As such, the government will certainly be supporting those amendments from Ms Bonaros, which were supported by all the other parties. I think Mr Lucas indicated we would be likely to support them as well.

The three remaining categories are in relation to religion, and we can talk about that in a little bit more detail. The amendment that has come from the Legislative Council would effectively take the decision-making out of the hands of the principal, with the secondary decision-maker then being the parent, and put it into the hands of the governing councils. The government is not inclined to support that nuance in the bill. Governing councils are tremendously important. They are an avenue for parental involvement and engagement in schools and for the community to support schools.

Having a governing council as the decision-maker on religious activities in schools—whether that be through a school participating in an Easter service or visiting a synagogue or a mosque, or whatever that other religious activity is—risks having people attend a governing council meeting only based on that issue and potentially not thinking about their involvement in the broader context of what governing councils have to offer. We maintain the position that we believe that the decision-maker should be the principal and then the parents deciding in relation to their own child.

The question then comes back to the one where I believe there was a dispute in 2017 in the Legislative Council on whether it should be a situation of opt in or opt out. In effect, the form that parents are asked to sign in regard to whether they want their child to participate or not would be the same form, whether it is an opt in or an opt out. The question is what happens with those children whose parents do not return the form or do not click the box on the app. The reality is that I am sure that we can resolve this distinction.

The government will be opposing the amendments in relation to the governing council becoming the decision-maker and I am confident that in the Legislative Council or, if needed, in a subsequent conference of managers, we will be able to resolve the other one. I do not think that the tying of this amendment to questions about Christmas carols is relevant in this question because the bill already makes explicitly clear in another section, which has not been threatened in any way through the passage of this debate, that Christmas carols are an acceptable activity in schools, so I can give comfort to anyone who is concerned about that. I am sure that, as the shadow minister for education has pointed out, she is a supporter of Christmas carols and sings Christmas carols, and I have every confidence that the bill as it continues will protect Christmas carols.

I do think it would be better for it to remain, as the government's position has been stated, as an opt-out option. If children's parents wish them to opt out of being involved in one of those religious activities, it would be their right and it would be important for schools to have an alternative activity of purpose for the child to be involved in and for the child to suffer no detriment as a result of that opt out. That is the most sensible way forward and so the government will be opposing that amendment.

The next matters relate to the role of the Australian Education Union and staff representation on a couple of committees. One of them is the review committee, which is a committee established when there is a proposal to close a school or schools. The most recent example of this was in Whyalla. In order to build the new school in Whyalla, late last year as minister I commissioned a review of the three existing high schools in Whyalla, including the two 8-10 schools and the 11-12 school. That review committee comprised a range of people, such as the mayor and the principals of the schools. At the moment, in the current legislation, it includes an Australian Education Union representative. We are proposing to change that to a general staff representative, who could be an AEU rep or somebody else.

There is a secondary committee, which is in relation to promotional positions, but it is the same principle. We were proposing to change the existing AEU rep to a general staff rep. The amendments that have come back to us from the Legislative Council in their design might have been suggested to be the best of both worlds and include an AEU rep and a general staff rep. We are talking about fairly small committees in relation to the promotional panel. Having an extra representative is unnecessary, and it would be preferable to just remain with the original staff rep.

If the house rejects these amendments today, I encourage legislative councillors to return to that original bill's premise and just have a general staff rep without giving the AEU a particularly privileged position in the legislation. That said, obviously we will have a look at what the Legislative Council chooses to do and, if the Legislative Council wishes to continue having the AEU on, then we will give consideration to that in a conference of managers. I think it would be more sensible to have one position rather than two, and the government will be opposing the amendment certainly as presented.

I note in relation to the last matter, which is to do with an education ombudsman, that there has been some movement here. The education ombudsman proposal has been around for some time. It particularly gains traction when there are heightened levels of concern about complaints-handling processes in schools and in the Department for Education. The complaints-handling processes in schools are an important body of work. It is not always an easy body of work. It is tremendously important that when something goes wrong in a school, and policies are not followed in the way in which they are supposed to be, the rights of children and their parents be utterly respected.

It is also important that the management of schools be done in a way that is also in the best interests of the school. I think our principals and our teachers do an amazing job, but it is a large system. We have 30,000 employees in our education system, 500 schools and 400 other sites, mostly preschools—900 sites across South Australia—and it is a large and diverse system. Our expectation at the moment is that, if there is a complaint, it be dealt with at the local level first, and then if it needs to be escalated to the education director, then that can be the case.

There is an education complaints line within the education department and, if people are not satisfied, they can go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman at the moment deals with a reasonable number of education-related complaints. The education department effectively pays the Ombudsman a significant amount of money, I believe in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to fulfil that work, but there are reasonable questions that can be asked and have been raised by Tammy Franks, by the opposition and by the Liberal Party when we were in opposition about this process.

The Debelle inquiry made some recommendations in relation to this that the Ombudsman then explored. The Ombudsman made some recommendations, I think in 2016, and the member for Port Adelaide as minister asked her department to implement those recommendations. By the time I was briefed as an incoming minister at the beginning of last year, those recommendations had been taken up and I think were completed during the course of last year.

They were important recommendations, and I am very confident that the systems and structures in place in the education department are adequate. They are hardworking people who do a good job, but we always want things to be better, and reasonable questions continue to be asked, as is to be expected in a system so broad. I am very pleased to be able to share with the house that, through the positive and constructive good faith discussions we have had with the Greens, with the Labor Party and with Mr Darley and with the SA-Best group, but particularly I acknowledge Tammy Franks as having led this as they are her amendments in the bill—

An honourable member: The honourable.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —the Hon. Tammy Franks—that the government has come to an agreement of supporting Tammy Franks' very sensible suggestion—I appreciate the role played by the member for Adelaide, the shadow minister, in indicating that the Labor Party will support it as well, although I will let her speak for herself in a moment obviously—to ensure that this Ombudsman matter is given due consideration but that that consideration not unduly delay the bill and the benefits of the broader bill being available for our schools, our teachers, our students and our families.

The government is indicating that we are happy to have a significant inquiry into a number of the matters that have been raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks and others. Particularly, this will be a substantial inquiry that will be seeking to report during 2020, and there will no doubt be recommendations that the government will give consideration to, and the public and the people of South Australia and the parliament may give consideration to. It will look at issues including those relating to suspensions, exclusions and expulsions. It will look at some matters that were related in the Select Committee on Access to the South Australian Education System for Students with a Disability.

It will also give consideration to that complaints-handling process, including whether the current arrangements with the Ombudsman are satisfactory, whether the scope of what the Ombudsman could look at should be expanded, whether the powers should be expanded, whether there should be policy recommendations coming from the role and whether there should be a specific education ombudsman.

We are not presupposing what the inquiry will suggest. We will take it as a very substantive inquiry that we will give due consideration to in time, but it will have the opportunity and the time to really investigate what is best practice, what is going to work best for families, for students and for our education system as a whole.

It is easy to think of that education system as one large behemoth of an organisation, but it is an important one. If we can get that organisation firing on all cylinders, then it will be giving the best support to our children across South Australia. Everyone in this chamber, I am certain, has an ambition that every child, whatever their circumstance, whatever their abilities, whatever their interests and whatever their physical location, will be able to achieve whatever they can in life and live a successful life, which is, in my view, one where they look forward to what the day has to hold when they wake up in the morning and are able to find the job they want and be given the skills and the capacities to do that job. If this inquiry will help us get there, then we value it.

I will be seeking that that inquiry be hosted by the Child Development Council, which has a suitable infrastructure to do so. It will give the inquirer or reviewer—we will work on who that will be in the coming weeks—a sounding board, if you like, through the Child Development Council, which is a group of experts in child development from a range of different practices and professional backgrounds. It will give them a sounding board as they conduct their inquiry and also give them some infrastructure and some independence. They are a statutory authority, effectively. They are at arm's length from the government and will assist that inquiry in its deliberations.

With that in mind, regarding the particulars of the education ombudsman amendments that have been put to us by the Legislative Council, my understanding is that they will not be insisted on when it gets back, because obviously we will be looking to conduct the inquiry first before consideration of those other matters, and so we will obviously be opposing those amendments.

I think that I have probably gone through in broad conceptual terms the detail of the different amendments. If it assists the house, I will indicate that the first amendment is in relation to the education ombudsman, so it is one that the government will be disagreeing to. I suspect the member opposite might have some broader comments to make as well.