House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Final Stages Final Stages The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly: No. 1. Clause 7, page 5, lines 4 to 19 [clause 7, inserted section 9(1) and (2)]—Delete inserted subsections (1) and (2) and substitute: (1)	The Teachers Registration Board consists of not less than 11 and not more than 14 members appointed by the Governor of whom— (a)	at least 6 must be practising teachers, of whom— (i)	at least 4 must be nominated by the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (ii)	at least 2 must be nominated by the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (b)	at least 1 must be a person nominated jointly by the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated and Catholic Education SA; and (c)	at least 1 must be a person employed in the field of teacher education nominated jointly by the universities in the State; and (d)	at least 1 must be a person nominated by the Chief Executive of the Department; and (e)	the remaining members are members nominated by the Minister, of whom— (i)	at least 1 must be a legal practitioner; and (ii)	1 must be a parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest. (2)	At least half of the members appointed under subsection (1) must be registered teachers. No. 2. Clause 7, page 5, after line 34 [clause 7, inserted section 9]—Insert: (5a)	The Minister must ensure, as far as practicable, that the persons appointed under subsection (1) consist of equal numbers of women and men. No. 3. Clause 8, page 6, lines 10 to 27 [clause 8(2)]—Delete subclause (2) No. 4. Clause 15, page 8, after line 24 [clause 15, inserted Part 3A]—Insert: 19B—Teachers Registration Board to survey teachers (1)	The Teachers Registration Board must, at least once in every 5 year period and in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations, conduct a survey of registered teachers in this State to ascertain their views on— (a)	the curriculum for initial teacher education in this State; and (b)	the quality and effectiveness of initial teacher education in this State generally. (2)	On completion of a survey under this section, the Teachers Registration Board must prepare a report on the results of the survey and provide a copy of the report to the Minister. (3)	The Minister must, within 12 sitting days after receiving a report under subsection (2), have copies of the report laid before both Houses of Parliament. (4)	Nothing in this section requires a teacher to take part in a survey conducted under this section (and, to avoid doubt, a teacher cannot be compelled to do so). No. 5. Clause 20, page 9, after line 37 [clause 20, inserted section 26A]—Insert: (2a)	Without limiting any other circumstances in which the Teachers Registration Board may reduce or waive an annual fee under this section, if a teacher pays the annual fee in advance in relation to the full term of their registration period, the Teachers Registration Board must cause the amount payable to be reduced by at least 5%. No. 6. Clause 26, page 12, lines 21 and 22 [clause 26, inserted section 31B(1)]—Delete 'or adopt codes of conduct and professional standards (or both)' and substitute 'codes of conduct' No. 7. Clause 26, page 12, after line 22 [clause 26, inserted section 31B]—Insert: (1a)	Sections 10 (other than subsection (1)) and 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 apply in relation to a code of conduct published under this section (and a reference in those provisions to a regulation will be taken to be a reference to the code of conduct). Note— These provisions allow Parliament to disallow a code of conduct. No. 8. Clause 26, page 12, line 25 [clause 26, inserted section 31B(2)]—Delete 'or adopted' No. 9. Clause 26, page 12, after line 25 [clause 26, inserted section 31B]—Insert: (2a)	Before publishing a code of conduct under this section, the Teachers Registration Board— (a)	must call for submissions from— (i)	registered teachers; and (ii)	the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (iii)	the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (iv)	the Chief Executive of the Department; and (v)	Catholic Education SA; and (vi)	the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated; and (b)	must have regard to any submissions made by a person or body referred to in paragraph (a) during the period specified by the Teachers Registration Board (being a period not less than 1 month); and (c)	must consult with— (i)	the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (ii)	the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (iii)	the Chief Executive of the Department; and (iv)	Catholic Education SA; and (v)	the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated, and may consult with any other person or body the Teachers Registration Board thinks fit. No. 10. Clause 26, page 12, line 26 [clause 26, inserted section 31B(3)]—Delete 'or adopted' Consideration in committee. The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The Legislative Council has seen fit to offer some suggestions to the house as to how they think that the bill the house recommended to them might be amended. We have a slightly different point of view, but in the interests of understanding the important position held by the members of the Legislative Council, and taking on board the wisdom of the members of the Teachers Registration Board administration, who have given further reflection on the amendments from the Legislative Council, the government is going to propose—I suppose you could call it a compromise—a new set of amendments in relation to some of their suggestions. We are going to agree with at least one of their amendments and we are going to seek that the committee recommend to the Legislative Council that they not pursue others. I would suggest perhaps the easiest thing is if we just go through the amendments one by one. The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: Minister, I am advised that you should move that we disagree, as a house, with amendment No. 1 made by the Legislative Council, and then move the alternative amendment. Amendment No. 1: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the House of Assembly disagrees with the amendment made by the Legislative Council and makes the following amendment in lieu thereof: Page 5, lines 4 to 19 [clause 7, inserted section 9(1) and (2)]—Delete inserted subsections (1) and (2) and substitute: (1)	The Teachers Registration Board consists of not less than 10 and not more than 14 members appointed by the Governor of whom— (a)	at least 6 must be practising teachers, of whom— (i)	4 must be nominated by the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch), of whom— (A)	at least 1 must be practising in the area of pre-school education; and (B)	at least 1 must be practising in the area of primary education; and (C)	at least 1 must be practising in the area of secondary education; and (ii)	2 must be nominated by the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and (b)	the remaining members are members nominated by the Minister, of whom— (i)	at least 1 must be a legal practitioner; and (ii)	1 must be a parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest. (2)	At least half of the members appointed under subsection (1) must be registered teachers. Amendment No. 1 made by the Legislative Council seeks to modify the proposed changes to the composition of the Teachers Registration Board in clause 7 of the bill. It proposes to retain the current situation in the Teachers Registration and Standards Act, whereby members of the board are appointed by the Governor on the nomination of various stakeholders, including teacher unions, universities, the independent and Catholic schools sectors, the chief executive and the minister. The government disagrees with this amendment. The government's bill sets out changes that ensure that members of the board are appointed based on the knowledge, skills and experience required for the board to carry out its functions effectively, moving away from the board membership being based solely on the nominations of representative bodies. However, in the interest of ensuring the passage of the bill, the government is proposing an alternative amendment that will ensure that the board will consist of between 10 and 14 members appointed by the Governor, as identified previously, but that at least six of the members must be practising teachers, of whom four must be nominated by the Australian Education Union (including at least one practising in each of the areas of preschool, primary and secondary education), and two must be nominated by the Independent Education Union. The remaining members will be nominated by the minister but will include at least one legal practitioner and one parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest. In addition, at least half the members of the board must be registered teachers. I believe that this amendment captures the concern that was raised by most of the people who raised concerns with the bill, particularly teachers who were concerned that while, even if there was to be merit in a skills-based board, which the government certainly believes, the concern was that, given that it is teachers' money for the benefit of teachers, it should be a board that reflects the voice of teachers very strongly. We are willing to guarantee that six of those positions are indeed directly nominated by the unions as set out. Mr BOYER House of Assembly Mr BOYER: Given that I do not intend on making any third reading contributions, should we get that far, which I am sure we will, I might take this opportunity to make a few comments about the process we have gone through with the minister in the intervening period and the amendment before us. I would like to start by thanking the minister for the collaborative way, I think it is fair to say, that he has approached this with both the member for Port Adelaide and myself. It has been refreshing, particularly as a newly minted shadow minister, who on the first day after the opposition announced its reshuffle received a call from the minister, which was greatly appreciated. He told me that that was what he received from the member for Port Adelaide when he took the portfolio, so I think that is a nice tradition we have kept going there. I would like to place on the record my thanks to the minister for involving me in this in a genuine and collaborative way. As the minister has already pointed out, amendment 1 deals with the composition of the board. In the first iteration of this bill, there was a pretty significant kind of change put forward by the minister that was going to look at a reduction from 16 members to not less than 10 and no more than 14. Previously, up to that point, there had been a combination of appointments from both the Australian Education Union and the Independent Education Union, as well as representation from the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia and Catholic Education South Australia. As the minister outlined, what is proposed in this amendment is for the board to consist of not less than 10 and no more than 14 members, and that new composition will include at least six practising teachers, with four coming from the AEU and two from the Independent Education Union. Those four positions from the Australian Education Union in this amendment, as I understand it, will include one who is a practising educator in preschool education, one who is a practising educator in primary education and one who is a practising educator in secondary education. I assume the fourth position—I will ask a question of the minister about this in a second—is probably for the union itself to decide who will fill that role and then there are the two Independent Education Union positions, which will be up to that union, I understand, to fill as well. Another comment I would like to make is in reference to the work that has been done by these two unions in the period between the bill being introduced and where we find ourselves today. It is a pretty incredible effort, in terms of the petition that was started by those unions, which saw in the end 11,606 signatures calling on an amendment like this to reinstate both those unions' representation on the Teachers Registration Board. In any event, I think that is a pretty incredible effort by those unions. Given that period has been across some of the worst of the COVID pandemic, at least in terms of what we have seen here in South Australia with all the challenges thrown up by that in terms of social distancing and hygiene practices that prevented those union organisers from being able to collect signatures for a petition in the normal way that they would, it is quite remarkable that they still managed to get close to 12,000 people sign that petition. It would be remiss of me today not to offer my thanks on behalf of the opposition to those two unions for the hard yards they have done at the coalface to push for this change. Yes, I am pleased that the minister and the government have come to the table and we have agreed on this amendment, but I think that, without the huge body of work that was done by those unions to make it clear to both the opposition and the government that that representation was important and vital and to be maintained, we might not be in the position that we find ourselves in today. I want to thank all those people who put their name to that petition for making sure their voices are heard. I hope some of them take some pride, or solace I guess, in the fact that, in our kind of democracy, it is still possible for a petition to have some effect, which is a good thing, and a very old-fashioned form of democracy it is too. I might conclude my remarks there, Chair. Am I now able to just ask a couple of questions of the minister? The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: Certainly, yes. Mr BOYER House of Assembly Mr BOYER: To clarify, if I could, minister—and I alluded to this in the comments I just made—in terms of the positions to the Education Union, there are four spots that will be provided to them; three are for preschool, primary and secondary. Is it right that with the fourth position the union will be able to decide who that person is without the conditions that apply to the other three positions? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question and his understanding is correct. I should have placed on the record earlier my congratulations to him on the very important role as shadow education minister. I hope that we have many, many years where he is able to fulfil that important role, which I enjoyed previously. I know that he will do an outstanding body of hard work. I thank him for the collaborative manner that we have been able to discuss these too. Yes, we were very committed to the proposition that was put to us by a number of people that we should actually ensure that in the teachers who are serving on the Teachers Registration Board, the different impacts of practice and life in the early childhood years, the primary years and the secondary years should be relevant. The fact that we have settled on there being four positions from the AEU provides some flexibility for the AEU, however they want to go about their processes, potentially in either having an extra individual on top of those three areas of merit they see fit to put forward or potentially somebody who represents an area of the membership they feel is useful to have represented, so long as they are practising teachers nominated by the Australian Education Union. With regard to the corresponding question obviously relating to the Independent Education Union, I would hope that there would be collaboration between the unions so that there is also some thought given to the skills matrix, the background matrix of the composition of their suggestions, so that there is a diverse set of experiences on the board. Hopefully, the IEU and the AEU will give some mind to who the other is nominating so that there is that diversity but, inasmuch as the legislation proposes, the IEU will have absolute flexibility to nominate who they would like so long as they are practising teachers. The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON House of Assembly The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I want to ask a question to the minister about the remaining members who are actually nominated by the minister. One must be a legal practitioner and one must be a parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest. How will you go about seeking that nomination? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The wording in the bill in relation to those two positions reflects the current wording in the current act and, while it is a matter for cabinet who cabinet considers, I will give you the hot tip that the people the member for Port Adelaide nominated to these two very positions I am going to keep seeing if they are interested for as long as they want to keep doing it. Mr BOYER House of Assembly Mr BOYER: Minister, in the back and forward you and I have had we have had a couple of conversations about what might happen in terms of being able to offer the Association of Independent Schools and the Catholic Education association some kind of voice on that board. I am wondering if you can shine any light on how you might make sure that those two very important employer groups that cover a very large working sector of our school sector can still be heard in terms of this board? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In the interests of answering the member quickly, I think I captured the essence of the question. If I miss anything, I hope that the Chair will not hold us to the three question rule, if that would otherwise provide. I am keen for there to be a little bit of flexibility in the other nominations. Our government has a tendency to prefer smaller boards to start with. Ensuring that the skills that are necessary for the board to function very effectively will be met. We are starting with six positions being locked up for those nominations. Two people I think every member in the house—certainly anyone in the education portfolio—would have a strong understanding of the need for are a legal practitioner and a parent representative and the need to have those definitely locked away as positions, and then you have a chair and potentially between one and five other people on the board to fill up the rest of the skills matrix and the certain things that are useful on a board. The position of employers of teachers is certainly a high-level priority. At the moment, the board is very large, I would say so large as to reduce the impact of its functionality. One of the things we are looking to do is reduce the size of the board but ensure that those representative bodies—those bodies such as Catholic Education SA, the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia and the Department for Education, which is of course the largest employer of teachers in South Australia—are given every opportunity to put nominations forward. They are in the list of designated entities at schedule 1. There are 24 designated entities. It goes up to paragraph (x). I am pretty sure that is 24. I had some cause in recent times to be thinking about these things. There are 24 designated entities. What tends to happen when boards call for nominations from designated entities is that some will thank you for the letter and decline to make a suggestion, some will make a series of suggestions, some will put forward a case for one person and sometimes you get five different letters making a case for the same person. This is not going to be a representative board, but I think that as a matter of principle it will be useful for any minister for education to take into account that employer bodies, the department and the independent and Catholic schools, obviously have a significant interest in these issues, so their nominations will be taken very seriously, as will all nominations. I think it would be a likely outcome that you would want in most circumstances at least one of the employer bodies to suggest to cabinet for the Governor's consideration that somebody of that background be nominated. Given that we are trying to reduce the size of the board while at the same time putting in place six locked-in positions for the unions, it was certainly my view that we want to provide a bit of flexibility there rather than prescribe who has those remaining couple of spots. Dr CLOSE House of Assembly Dr CLOSE: I would like to follow up on that question about the absence of the representation that is currently in the legislation. As the minister will be aware, we on this side sought both to fulfil the desire to see a smaller board and to make sure that there were people around the table who were part of those organisations. In our suggested amendment, we suggested combining the catholic education and independent schools associations, to have one between them, and then of course have someone from the education department, which the minister points out is the largest employer of teachers in this state. There have obviously been some negotiations and a determination that we will not seek to insist on that, although, should there be a restoration and a reversal of the roles, I think the shadow minister has indicated he would be interested in having another look at that in the legislation. I appreciate a lot of the detail you have just given, minister. My question is: should you determine that the positions you have ultimate discretion over are not filled by anyone who is associated with management or leadership in those three organisations, how will you ensure that those organisations are kept closely informed about what is occurring at the Teachers Registration Board level and have an avenue to provide input on what they are seeing in the trends of teacher employment and education? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question and also indicate that, in relation to the universities, I think for the other group that the opposition had previously suggested should continue to have a nomination the Vice-Chancellors' Committee remains one of the designated bodies in the way I described earlier. I think the point that the member makes in asking the question is a good one, but it probably underlines one of the reasons why I am keen for us to focus on having a skills base for the board, rather than the remainder of the members who are not union nominees only considering themselves as there to represent necessarily the interests of a particular group. When we are talking about public schools, Catholic schools and the independent sector, there is much that those three employer bodies have in common, and there are many different circumstances that are unique in any of those. I do not think it would be possible for any one person to effectively gather all the information from those three anyway. If we were to accept the principle, which is certainly this government's view, that 16 or 18 is too large—and that is the feedback I have had from many who have been on the board too—then you have to look at the engagement that the Teachers Registration Board as a whole has with those employer groups. Every registrar, and certainly Dr Lind and Leonie Paulson are the two I have had the privilege of dealing with, and every chair—and Dr Lomax-Smith of this chamber's memory is the current chair and has been since I have been the minister—would both engage regularly with those employers. The passage of this legislation, with no longer having those representative members of the board, would probably incentivise them to do so more and I think that would be welcomed by all employer groups. The engagement that the Teachers Registration Board has of course is on behalf of all teachers in South Australia, and I think that the positive collaboration between the board and the employer organisations is critical to its functioning. Having members who are on the board whose duty is to the board as nominees of the organisation I do not think necessarily adds value to the processes that they can put in place through the registrars, the chairs, and other members of the TRB's engagement with the employer organisations. Motion carried. Amendment No. 2: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 be agreed to. Amendment No. 2 seeks to modify clause 7 to insert a provision requiring the minister to, as best as practicable, ensure gender balance on the Teachers Registration Board. The government will support this amendment, noting it reflects the general government policy of ensuring gender balance on government boards, where practicable. Mr BOYER House of Assembly Mr BOYER: I have a couple of questions for the minister. Minister, what kind of commitment, if I can use that word, can you provide to the house about how you will use the remaining positions that will be appointed at your discretion to ensure that that gender balance is actually maintained? Can you give us any insight into what you might be able to do to ensure parity? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. As much as practicable is an important part of it. Of course, the member may recall—I suspect that some of his colleagues do recall—that this is in the existing legislation and has been more honoured in the breach on this board than in the observance for the simple reason that, with all of these people being nominated, there is limited impact that the minister can have. The chair being the key role—the minister has continued to have the opportunity to influence the current chair appointed. Dr Lomax-Smith is a woman, and the board is mostly women. There have been incidents in the past where gender equity on the board was not taken up to its full extent, but I do not think that was a mistake because I think Dr Lomax-Smith was a good appointment in this role, and I think that she has done a good job. Mr Boyer interjecting: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I know. In this case, representation of men is what is sought if you talk about gender equity. The simple fact is that we are committed to ensuring there is as much gender equity as possible across government, and I am pleased that we have as many women in our cabinet as there were in the last Labor cabinet as well. We would like to see more. We would like to see more women role models across society in all sorts of ways, people in positions of prestige. That is a commitment that our government has: to seek to have equality in the number of women on government boards. That is a great outcome. Of course, there are certain fields of endeavour where, of the many people who are eligible for appointment to these things, a majority may indeed be men, and there are certain fields where a majority may be women. The caveat I would put on the search for gender equity on this board is that the truth is that a significant majority of the people who are appropriate and eligible for these positions, if we are talking about the highest flyers in many areas of education, are women who work in this area, rather than men. There are more women than men who have been appointed to this board in the past. While we would seek to ensure, as the former shadow minister pointed out when we were discussing this debate last time, that the proposition of gender equity on the Teachers Registration Board might indeed have the perverse impact of reducing the number of women in high positions in government—I do not want to see that—it does send a reminder to us to reflect on the fact that there are questions raised by a number of people in the community about boys' education and that there are certainly areas in our schools where the workforce balance in certain schools is so significantly lopsided in gender that the need for male role models in those schools is important. I think on the board that is probably less important. There is also the question to reflect on to whether all the positions become vacant at once. Quite often on a board somebody will resign, create a vacancy or get appointed for three years, so the positions are not always going to come up at the same time. We are not going to have any control over who the unions nominate. So will I commit to guaranteeing that we will appoint more men to this board? No, but it will be a constant reminder for us, as much as practicable, to ensure that there are men on the board. There should be some men on the board at all times, and I think there always have been. I would want to see some gender diversity reflected there. I certainly would not want a good female candidate to miss out on a position just as a result of her gender. Motion carried. Amendment No. 3: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the House of Assembly disagrees with the amendment made by the Legislative Council and makes the following amendment in lieu thereof: Page 6, lines 10 to 27 [clause 8(2)]—Delete subclause (2) and substitute: (2)	Section 10(4)—delete subsection (4) and substitute: (4)	The Governor may appoint a person to be the deputy of the following members of the Teachers Registration Board: (a)	a member appointed in accordance with section 9(2)(a); (b)	a member appointed in accordance with section 9(2)(c), and the deputy may act as a member of the Board during any period of absence of the member. Amendment No. 3 removes clause 8(2) of the government's bill that sets out that the Governor may appoint a person to be the deputy of one of the four specified members appointed to the board under clause 7 of the bill. This returns arrangements for deputies to those set out in the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004, which enables deputies to be appointed in respect of all board members. The government disagrees with this amendment. The government does not see the need for the appointment of a deputy for every member on the board as is current practice. It is important, however, that provision be retained for a small number of deputy members to be appointed to the board to ensure the board is availed the expertise of practising teachers and a legal practitioner in the temporary absence of relevant board members with that expertise. Therefore, the government has proposed an alternative amendment in lieu of amendment No. 3. Motion carried. Amendment No. 4: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 4 be disagreed to. Amendment No. 4 would require the Teachers Registration Board to conduct a survey of registered teachers on the curriculum for initial teacher education in this state, and the quality and effectiveness of initial teacher education in this state generally. The survey would have to be completed at least once in every five years, and a report on the results would have to be provided to the minister and tabled in both houses of parliament. The bill already provides the board the function to undertake research relating to the teaching profession, and this could extend to the seeking of views of registered teachers on the quality and effectiveness of initial teacher education. I would hope that members might be persuaded that, given we have given the unions six guaranteed spots, 50 per cent of the board at least—and I think in practice, the way it is set out, it would usually be more than 50 per cent of the board—will indeed be registered practising teachers. That should comfort any in the teaching profession, who might have suggested this original amendment might not be needed, that the interests of the teachers of South Australia are guaranteed to be represented at board level. So they do not need this protection, which I suppose would impose some constriction on the other flexibility the board would have to do the research that it wants to undertake that it sees as being high-value, high-impact research that it might want to undertake instead. Motion carried. The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: Minister, so that I am clear, do you want to deal with each of these individually? The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I do. I think that it would benefit members who might be reflecting on this in the other chamber to have the reasons as to why the government is preferring not to pursue their amendments, so I would like to briefly explain rather than moving them en bloc, if that is allowed. The Chair House of Assembly The CHAIR: Perfectly fine. Amendment No. 5: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 5 be disagreed to. Amendment No. 5 sets out that if a teacher pays their annual fee for registration in advance for the full term of registration, the board must reduce the amount payable by at least 5 per cent. The setting of the annual fee for registration and provision for it to be paid up-front will be set out in regulations under the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004. The board has yet to advise the government of its recommended annual fee and any associated arrangements. The government is not inclined to fix a discount on a fee not yet recommended or prescribed. A clear benefit of paying the annual registration fee up-front for the full term of registration would be that a registered teacher would not be subject to any adjustment to the annual fee that may occur over the course of the registration period such as an adjustment in line with CPI, for example. So the benefit sought by this amendment is, in effect, something that would provide a discount to somebody for paying up-front on what would already, in effect, be a discount on the fact that, if they pay every year one year at a time, then they would be subject to whatever increases happen in the fee one year at a time, and that yearly payment is a new feature that would be allowed here. Whereas having the full payment up-front, you would already get around the impact of any of those CPI increases, for example, that might happen every year. So there is already some level of discount and, to provide a further discount to those who are paying up-front—and, of course, this is a board whose costs are covered by its fees. So the impact of providing a further discount would only be to increase the costs for those teachers who potentially are not in a position to pay their full fee up-front, and we do not think that is reasonable. I think the Teachers Registration Board has outlined why it is also impractical. Motion carried. Amendment No. 6: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 6 be disagreed to. Amendment No. 6 removes reference to adopting codes of conduct or publishing or adopting professional standards from the new section 31B that is to be inserted by clause 26 of the bill. The government opposes this amendment. New section 31B provides for the board to publish or adopt codes of conduct and professional standards. If the board, following consultation with teachers and other relevant stakeholders, determined that it should adopt an existing code of conduct or professional standard under the act, rather than developing and publishing one itself, it should be able to do so. The board already, in effect, adopts the Australian professional standards for teachers in South Australia. The new section 31B will formally recognise the board's role in adopting these standards. Motion carried. Amendment No. 7: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 7 be disagreed to. This amendment provides for any code of conduct published by the board under the new section 31B to be subject to sections 10 and 10A of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978. Under these sections a code of conduct would have to be laid before the parliament, considered by the Legislative Review Committee and could be disallowed by resolution of either house of parliament. I do not believe that there is any benefit that would arise from allowing the parliament to disallow a code of conduct published by the board after consultation with the profession and other relevant stakeholders, and so the government seeks the concurrence of the house and the council to disagree with the amendment. Motion carried. Amendment No. 8: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 8 be disagreed to. This amendment is consequential to amendment No. 6, and therefore the reasons for opposing amendment No. 6 apply equally here. Motion carried. Amendment No. 9: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 9 be disagreed to. This amendment proposes to further modify new section 31B to include a requirement for the Teachers Registration Board to undertake consultation with specified stakeholders prior to publishing a code of conduct. The government supports the notion that the board should undertake consultation in relation to publishing or adopting new codes of conduct or professional standards, and the presiding member and the registrar of the board have indicated that it would absolutely be their intention to do so administratively. They give that commitment. They gave it to the shadow minister, they have given it to me, and on their behalf I am sure they will not mind me sharing that with other members of parliament. The process, however, proposed under the amendment as suggested by the Legislative Council is unlikely to be practical in all circumstances, particularly as there are no exceptions to the requirement to consult in relation to even any minor amendments or corrections to a code or standard that may be needed from time to time. I reiterate that we are talking about a proposition where the code of conduct is supervised by the Teachers Registration Board, a body of people which now includes—if the amendments proposed are passed as suggested—direct representation from the unions. So, their interests should be understood, and indeed the expectation is that they will be consulted on widely. I know that certainly the government supports the motion that the House of Assembly disagrees with this amendment. Motion carried. Amendment No. 10: The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I move: That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 10 be disagreed to. This is another amendment that is consequential on amendment No. 6. I explained the reasons why the government supports the disagreement with that amendment, and they may be again read in relation to amendment No. 10. Motion carried.