Bills

Education and Children's Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2020.)

Mr BOYER (Wright) (12:00): I indicate from the outset that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and that the opposition is supportive of the bill. I do not intend to take up much of the house's time this morning speaking about it or making any kind of exhaustive contribution on it.

I place on the record that when an act like this one is completely rewritten, as was the case with the Education and Children's Services Act 2019, which replaced both the Education Act 1972 and the Children's Services Act 1985, there are usually some unintended consequences that arise from such a large change to some pretty significant acts such as those two. It is not any great surprise that we find ourselves here to tidy up a few of those unintended consequences that occurred.

I know the Education and Children's Services Act had been worked on by those in the education department for a number of years. A lot of work had gone into that bill and early iterations began when the member for Port Adelaide was still the minister. I thank the current minister for continuing that work and for the constructive way in which he engaged with the opposition and me through that process. I think what we came up with in the end was a good compromise.

I have received a briefing from the department. Thank you, minister, for arranging that. I accept what the minister has outlined in his second reading speech on this, that the changes being considered in the bill are largely legal, technical and consequential, dealing with pretty heavily operational kinds of issues in need of a pretty simple legislative fix, which we will support. I conclude my remarks by flagging with the minister that I will ask a couple of questions in the committee stage. As I said at the outset, the opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (12:02): Thank you for the opportunity to again commend the bill to the house. I thank the member for Wright for his comments. I think that is one of the best speeches by a shadow minister on a bill I have ever heard. I commend him for his approach.

It has genuinely been the work of many hands over an extended period of time to reform the legislation in the Education Act and the Children's Services Act. As the shadow minister identified, I do not think there are too many examples of reforms of entire pieces of legislation, let alone two big ones, where there have not been what are sometimes referred to as 'rats and mice' pieces of legislation that follow. Usually you can pick them by the word 'miscellaneous' in the title, and these wrap up those issues.

That is not to say that these are not important issues. As the shadow minister described them, they are operational issues, they are unintended matters and they are no reflection on any of the drafters or the legislators who provided the work to get those massive reforms through. There are thousands of pieces of information in reforms of entire acts such as these and there are a very small number of unintended consequences that are able to be wrapped up in legislation like this. I am happy to clear up any questions in the committee stage and look forward to the bill's uncontroversial passage through the parliament. I thank the opposition once again for their support.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr BOYER: On the insertion of new section 26A, I note that it talks about the clause requiring the minister to conduct consultation before making such a declaration. I was wondering if the minister can give us just a brief outline of who that consultation might be with in the event of a declaration.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If the member is happy for me to provide some brief background in the lead-up to that, I think the intent will become slightly more clear. Standalone preschools and children's services centres that were formerly registered under the Children Services Act were continued under the act in a way that preserved their model of governance whereby the preschool or service is itself an incorporated entity overseen by a governing council that is not incorporated.

The act has introduced a new model of governance for standalone preschools and children's services centres that is similar to schools whereby a standalone preschool or children's services centre can be established by the minister with an incorporated governing council. This clause will provide a means of transitioning preschools and centres continued under the act from their current mode of governance to the new model of governance without the need to formally close and re-establish the service.

A standalone preschool or children's services centre would only be transitioned following consultation with the preschool or centre and full consideration of any relevant issues associated with the transition. There is no immediate intention—and I think this is useful for the member's specific question too—to make any declarations under this section. Any declaration in the future would only occur after consultation with the governing council of the standalone preschool or children's services centre, as the case may be, in accordance with section 26A(2).

Not that I anticipate necessarily needing this, but I think this is a futureproofing clause. Were I the minister, I would probably err on the side of broader consultation rather than just using the letter of the law and 'consultation' being with one person; that is not consultation. Explicitly, the governing council is involved, but as minister I am sure the opposition would agree that you take into account the views of anybody who has a point of view.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr BOYER: On this clause, minister, if I could play devil's advocate just for a second with regard to the minister's powers to declare a school a special purpose school. If we were, for instance, to take the example of Springbank or a school whose future has been uncertain at different times, what is there to prevent a minister from declaring a school like Springbank a special purpose school and stopping mainstream enrolments and having that enrolment process changed?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Firstly, the amendment of this section provides a simple way for the minister to transition an existing school to a special purpose school under the act without the need to close the school first, dissolve its governing council and re-establish it under the act. It is anticipated that this is one where the governing council would want to do it, but it would mean that you do not then have to close the school in order to then reopen it.

What is a special purpose school? I think that is worth putting on the Hansard as well because, while ministers, shadow ministers and former staff in senior positions in education might be familiar with that definition, I suspect many are not. A special purpose school is a school established for a particular purpose—for example, the provision of education to children detained in training centres or the provision of education to children in hospitals. There are a number of other really specific things that can be found in our education system and some wonderful work is being done in them.

The provisions allow the governance arrangements and other relevant provisions of the act to be tailored to the specific needs of the schools. We would be talking potentially about a very small number of schools. Prior to any transition, the minister or the delegate would need to make appropriate effort to consult with the governing council of the school. All schools have governing councils in one mechanism or another. That governing council in almost all cases, if not all cases, has a significant parent body, as well as staff and potentially community representatives, who would have the opportunity to have input into that.

The minister must consult with the governing council of the school before making such a declaration, and the regulations may make further provision in relation to declarations under this clause. Obviously, that is the purpose and that is the intent. We do not have any particular items in mind. Again, this is one where we are looking to futureproof the legislation. Were such a case to arise, then this would enable such a transition to be made without having to go through the process of closing a school.

The process in the example cited by the member is one where we explored whether it would be beneficial to the community. While that process did indeed return a result that would have left the closure of the school available to me as an option, as the member will recall I certainly formed a view that the community and the students there were best served by keeping that school open. That is a view I will maintain throughout my term in this position.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 23 passed.

Clause 24.

Mr BOYER: Clause 24 talks about deleting the words 'and without negligence' in regard to protections, privileges and immunities. I accept if the minister needs to take this on notice, as it is a little bit more specific than my previous questions. I am wondering why those three words 'and without negligence' are going to be deleted from that subsection.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am happy to provide an answer. Clause 24 of the bill amends section 138 to remove specific protections from civil liability provided to the chief executive, an authorised officer or any other person for acts or omissions done in good faith and without negligence in the exercise or purposed exercise of functions or powers under this act.

Clause 24 also amends section 138(2) to remove the term 'and without negligence'. This ensures a member of the governing council or affiliated committee is protected from civil liability for acts or omissions done in good faith in the exercise or discharge of a power or function of the council or committee, whether or not the act or omission was negligent.

The protection from liability set out in section 138(1) did not feature in the Education Act 1972. Given that the Public Sector Act 2009 already sets out relevant protections from liability for public sector employees and relevant persons, I am advised that the matters set out in subsection (1) are not required to be included in the Education and Children's Services Act 2019.

In respect of the proposed removal of the term 'without negligence' from section 138(2), which provides protections from civil liability to members of governing councils, this will revert to the situation that existed prior to the commencement of the act. We are basically returning to the same level of protection that existed prior to the new act, which I believe was the original intent.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (25) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (12:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.