Bills

Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2025.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Education, I think you had the call when we were last in the chamber.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (12:01): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and I was commenting on and thanking those other members of this place who made a contribution to the second reading in support, in particular the member for Colton who had indicated the opposition's support for the bill.

I want to flag—and I think I was in the midst of doing this when we paused—the intention of the government to move a number of amendments to the bill in the committee stage. Collectively, the amendments are aimed at or consequential to addressing an issue with the limits of section 95 of the act as amended by clause 11 of the bill. The intention of section 95 is to address more imminent risks to the safety of staff and students on the premises of schools, preschools, education and care services, and other relevant premises by providing authorised persons with the power to direct a person who is posing a risk to that premises or to persons who are on that premises to leave.

A person who is directed to leave is currently not able to return to the premises for a period of 48 hours, though the bill will change this period to two business days for the probably self-evident reason that if that were a weekend, then by Monday morning that person is currently entitled to return when that might not have been the intention. Making it business days makes sure that that 48 hours away from the premises is put in place as was intended.

Under current arrangements, a direction to leave would be given to address an immediate issue but may be followed by a decision to issue a barring notice to a person barring them from relevant premises for a longer period. As it stands, when a person who is not on premises has made threats about coming to a school or other service to do some harm or where they have misbehaved on premises but have then left and there is a risk that they might return, the bill would not provide for an authorised person to order them to not enter the premises.

The amendments I will be moving will seek to address this issue by enabling an authorised person to direct a person not to enter the premises or related premises in the circumstances above. A direction would be able to be given orally or by written notice. A person directed not to enter the premises must not do so for two business days after the day on which the direction is given. It will enable school leaders and other staff to respond quickly to protect their school communities and, sadly, there are occasions when this needs to occur.

While these types of instances may meet the grounds for the issuing of a barring notice, it may take some time to properly consider whether to issue a barring notice, the length of that notice and any conditions that should apply and to serve the notice itself. Again, I thank all members who have made a contribution. I look forward to taking this bill through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: Minister, the first question is to greater contextualise the issue in regard to instances for which these measures are being brought in to address. Through your speech and in other forums, there have been a couple of numbers quoted in terms of a percentage increase of incidences and barring notices being served. Are you able to provide some additional data in terms of the broad numbers that these relate to, in particular from 2022 and 2023, the year-on-year figures in terms of the total number of barring notices that have been issued across each of those school years, and any further context you would like to add to that issue?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I can provide some information in response to your question. Barring notices in 2020 were 38; in 2021, 59; in 2022, 46 (that would be accounted for by COVID, I would imagine); in 2023, 137; and in 2024, 108. Formal warning letters in 2020 were 61; in 2021, 109; in 2022, 81; in 2023, 232; and in 2024, 246. Respectful communication reminders in 2020 were 25; in 2021, 17; in 2022, 10; in 2023, 14; and, in 2024, 163. I think that gives a bit of a picture about the increases that we are seeing across all those categories.

Mr COWDREY: The next question is in regard to penalty provisions that are in the existing act. Are you able to identify of those barring notices or warnings that have been provided, was a penalty provision associated with each of those and, if so, was that penalty paid in each instance?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am informed that, generally speaking, we have very high compliance with the barring notice. In cases where the barring notice might not be complied with, currently the response of sites is to potentially issue a longer barring notice if someone comes and breaches the existing one. There have not been prosecutions for failure to comply with barring notices, but I think given the very large increases that we are seeing, if we were to compare barring notices in 2020, 38; barring notices last year, 108; formal warning letters, 61 in 2020; 246 in 2024; respectful communication reminders, 25 in 2020; and 163 in 2024, then taking into account those really steep increases, we feel it is important to not only extend the period of time for which someone could be barred but also in some respects commensurately increase the penalty for failing to comply with a barring notice, given that they are being used far more often than they were just four years ago.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the penalties, are you able to confirm whether a penalty has been levied against somebody across the last four-year period, for instance? If so, both in terms of historic and forward looking, where does that penalty money go? Is that put back into a fund for education? Does it go straight to general revenue in Treasury? Is it kept within the education department? Can you give clarity in regard to whether or not a penalty has been paid by somebody who has been issued a notice over the last four years and, if so, where those moneys are kept and where you intend for the moneys to be collected, and given the additional penalty and the substantial increase in it, where that money is going to be directed?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am advised that across that four-year period there have not been any paid because there have been fairly high levels of compliance with the existing barring orders. As I mentioned in my previous answer, the issuing of the existing barring orders at a maximum period of three months has obviously not been enough to see a reduction in the overall use of barring orders. Instead, we have seen their use continually go up and up, but there has not been a penalty paid in the four-year time period about which the member for Colton asks. But, given that what we are proposing in this bill is essentially a doubling of the period for which a parent can be barred, and given the large increase we are seeing in the use of barring orders, the department has anticipated that it would be prudent for us to have a monetary penalty for not complying with a barring order larger than what it currently is.

It sounds to me like what has been done by sites is that, instead of going down the path of imposing the monetary penalty for failing to comply with the barring order, they have just put another barring order in place. This would provide another means, in this bill, of not just capturing behaviour in different environments—not just on the school grounds—that can warrant a barring order and not just increasing the time period for which a parent could be barred but also increasing the monetary penalty if they fail to comply with one of those barring orders.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told into consolidated revenue.

Mr COWDREY: The final question in regard to this line is essentially in terms of site leaders. I assume in most of these circumstances they seek advice from the department about how to proceed when one of these issues is raised. In terms of the advice that is provided to site leaders about how to proceed in certain circumstances, has there been a tendency to avoid penalties in the past instead of an additional barring notice being effectively the advice that has been provided by the department about how to deal with some of these issues?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: No, I do not think so. The advice I have is that, no, there has not been communication or a persuasive effort from the education department, or at least the team that is there, to assist site leaders with how to go about applying for and enforcing a barring order to suggest they do not proceed with a monetary penalty.

I think the reason that it has not been done is that most parents, in terms of the adult who is barred, comply with that barring order. Often, I think potentially what we are seeing is that the response from the barred parent, which could possibly constitute cause to seek a monetary penalty for failing to comply with the original barring order, often also constitutes a reason to extend the barring order further. Schools are choosing to do that, I presume, because they feel that it is necessary to have that person away from the site for a bit longer because of the nature of the behaviour. We know of lots of pretty bad examples around the way that staff are being treated. That is more a decision that has been made locally.

We have made a commitment, though, on strengthening the central support around the application of barring orders. It is really important that they are done properly. I know there are cases currently under the act—and I do not think we are proposing to change this—where if a barred person asks for a review of the barring notice it will ultimately come to the minister of the day to either say that it has been done correctly and stands, to revoke it completely or to vary it. There has been at least one occasion, possibly two, where I have made the decision to revoke the barring order despite the fact that the behaviour that has led to the barring order being applied for was of real concern, because the necessary steps were not put in place.

Obviously, a barring order is a serious step to take—to prevent someone from going to their child's school. As I am sure my predecessors have, I have taken that process very seriously. When it comes to me to review I look at whether or not all the steps have been followed and, if not, then on a couple of occasions I have revoked them. In the most part they have been put in place correctly, but I think there is some more work we could do centrally to support principals to do that, because it is a relatively litigious process to do it, as it should be.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: While perhaps not directly relevant to the clause, in terms of the increase in barring notices that have been issued do you have any idea how many of those are, for lack of a better term, repeat offenders, where the actual quantum of people who are being addressed through this system is maybe reasonably standard but the instances of behaviour may have increased within individuals?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We are seeing if we can get it for you now.

Mr Cowdrey: Even high-level commentary if you want to do so—

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Just while we are trying to find that information—I am told we do have it and if we cannot provide it to the member for Colton now we will take it on notice and provide it to you—I will perhaps provide a few background comments about my own experience. I would say that a fair portion is probably made up by repeat offenders.

I know there are some cases that are well known to my office, and would have been well known to the member for Morialta and the member for Port Adelaide's offices before me, where parents have been barred on multiple occasions—and not just at a primary school but at a secondary school as well, or sometimes multiple primary or secondary school sites if their child has moved. My gut feel is that it would be quite a high number.

Okay, the department has advised that only a very small proportion of people who have been issued with a barring notice are issued with subsequent notices. In 2024, only seven of the people issued with a barring notice in relation to a government school or preschool had been barred within the previous 12 months. A further two people were barred from multiple sites. That is the data from 2024.

I can probably think off the top of my head of a few examples of what we might call frequent flyers who have not only been barred from one site on multiple occasions but as their child has moved they have been barred from the subsequent or previous school as well. I think that is certainly an issue and probably speaks to why we feel we need to increase the penalty—not just the increase in the total number of barring notices being issued across that five-year period from 38 to 108 but also the fact that the current barring period of a maximum of three months clearly is not enough to disincentivise some parents from repeating poor behaviour.

Mr COWDREY: Just finally, in regard to a previous answer, you mentioned there was going to be additional support provided to site leaders in terms of the process involved. Given the changes that we are working through today, are you able to detail what that is going to look like?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I can give you a pretty good idea because I think it stemmed from one of the cases that I foreshadowed before where I had revoked a barring order, which is a serious step to take as a minister, particularly when you are reading information around the behaviour that led to the barring notice being applied for and in these cases that was serious. You get a very, very large briefing document going through all the steps that were taken and when I was not satisfied that those steps had been taken correctly, and when I thought that if it was to be further challenged in a legal sense by the person barred it would not stand up in a court, or wherever it might be that it would be challenged, I made the decision to revoke it.

In the conversations I had after that, the department agreed that it can be a difficult process because you do need to be very thorough, which is the right thing to do, and therefore more support needed to be provided from the team that handles it within the education department to work one-on-one with the site, in terms of making sure that, if they are about to move down the path of issuing a barring notice, they understand what they have to do and make sure it is documented correctly. So to be out there encouraging sites that that support is actually available is one of those steps.

Another step is having a team that can respond quickly, because these things often need to be done quickly, so that if a site has a new leader who has not put a barring order in place before and is not sure how, they can reach out and expeditiously get an answer from the department so that they can then take the next step. I think that was the upside of what came from a couple of cases where the process was not as rigid as it needed to be. We understand it is not always the fault of the school. They are dealing with a lot and understanding what is, as I said, quite a litigious process that needs to take place is something we should be providing more support for essentially and not leaving it up to our site leaders.

Clause passed.

Clauses 3 and 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: Just a very simple question in regard to the landing on the penalty provision. Are you able to outline why seven and a half thousand was the number that you landed on and how that compares jurisdictionally around the country with obviously similar but different systems that are in place in other jurisdictions?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I believe it was a recommendation of parliamentary counsel, because, of course, we often rely on their advice around trying to maintain consistency across different pieces of legislation, and looking at what penalties were in place in other parts of Australia as well is what guided us. The penalty increase was supported by the Law Society of South Australia, suggesting that the increased penalties may act as an appropriate deterrent while appropriately recognising, through the lack of minimum penalties, the necessity of discretion to ensure penalties are proportionate to the actual circumstances.

Mr COWDREY: This is a little bit in the weeds, but in terms of the information that is provided on the notice that is submitted to somebody that is under a barring order, or is provided with a barring notice, is the penalty provision mentioned as part of what is communicated?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes, it is.

Clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 6, lines 43 to 45 [clause 8, inserted section 93(1)(d)]—

Delete 'poses, or would pose, a risk of causing significant disruption to the learning or working environment, or to activities carried on, at—' and substitute:

, while on—

Amendment No 2 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 7, line 12 [clause 8, inserted subsection 93(1)(d)(iii)]—Delete 'premises;' and substitute 'premises,'

poses, or would pose, a risk of causing significant disruption to the learning or working environment, or to activities carried on, at those premises or related premises (as the case requires);

As I indicated at the close of the second reading, the government has filed amendments to the bill. They primarily pertain to clause 11, but I will speak further on the rationale for the amendments now. Amendments Nos 1 and 2, which amend clause 8, which we are discussing now, are technical and consequential to the amendments to be moved at clause 11. They will make new section 93(1)(d) consistent with new sections 93(1)(a) and 93(1)(b) and new sections 95(1)(a), 95(1)(b) and 95(1)(c) as amended.

Under clause 8 of the bill, section 93(1)(d) of the act would enable a designated person to issue a person with a barring notice if the designated person reasonably believes that the person poses or would pose a risk of causing significant disruption to the learning or working environment or to activities carried on at the premises or related premises of a school, a preschool or prescribed departmental premises or the premises of an approved learning program. The effect of amendments Nos 1 and 2 is to reframe new section 93(1)(d) to make clear that the designated person must believe the person poses or would pose this risk while they are actually on the premises or the related premises.

Amendments carried.

Mr COWDREY: I have a question in terms of the proximity of an event taking place and a notice being issued. Is there any restriction or requirement in terms of time that is too much to have elapsed between an event taking place and then a notice being provided? It does not seem to clarify.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The short answer is no. The longer answer is there is normally, we have found, not much of a gap at all, which is a good thing. Normally, a barring notice is applied for something that has happened very recently. I think if that was not done, if there was a big gap between the incident, act or behaviour that led to a barring notice being applied for and the actual application commencing, it would weaken the case if it were sought to be overturned by the person who was barred, if there was not recency.

That would potentially cause issues in terms of if it would hold up upon further scrutiny, but we have found a very high level of responsiveness from sites, normally because they feel there is an imminent risk, potentially, so they need to act quickly. That also speaks to why this is so important, because we are dealing with cases here of threatening behaviour, violent behaviour, abusive behaviour and stalking behaviour, including online, so sites are normally keen to get it in place very quickly.

Mr COWDREY: This is potentially something that is in place currently; I am not sure, hence the question. In terms of consistency across sites, is there any training or a framework that is in place at the moment for a site leader to understand that certain behaviour meets the threshold? Is there training that is actively provided to site leaders on a yearly basis, on a biannual basis, in terms of the setting of consistency of behaviour? Obviously, we have changed the interpretation of exactly what that is through this amendment bill, but is that something that is rolled out on a consistent basis, where you would have confidence that every site leader is well aware of what behaviour constitutes the line that we are dealing with?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: It is a good question, member for Colton. There are a couple of things I would say in relation to that. The central unit which manages this area, I think, is Conditions for Learning. They would be responsible for guidance to schools and advice—for example, 'I've got a parent who has done this. We are concerned. We are considering a barring notice. Would your advice to us be that that is consistent in terms of the kind of behaviour a barring order should be used to curtail?'

The bill itself will also provide for ministerial guidelines to be created. I think the intention is to use them, at least in part, to provide some of that consistency to sites around what behaviour is being exhibited by the adult and whether it potentially fits into the category of something where you should consider a barring notice. I think that will help in terms of making sure the process is right and rigid and stands up.

But I think it will also help sites in terms of understanding whether or not there might be other action that they could take below the barring order threshold to get the behaviour to reduce, which is the best outcome. It is not the best outcome to have a parent or a grandparent not able to go to their child's school. I want to say that quite clearly. I think those ministerial guidelines will help with the clarity, will help schools in understanding perhaps what other steps they can go through before they get to what is of course a very serious action.

Mr COWDREY: Finally in regard to clause 8, when do you expect to have those ministerial guidelines in place?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: If the bill successfully passes the parliament, I think that is work that will start straightaway. We will then work with stakeholders, like we did with this, to get their feedback, and that has to include schools as well as representative groups and parent bodies. It is important to get their feedback, so we will get that underway. But I think it can be a useful tool for schools to understand the steps that they need to take, understand what behaviour might meet the threshold, what behaviour may not meet the threshold and, of course, whether or not there might be other action they could take that does not involve barring a person that might get that behaviour to reduce.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 9.

Mr COWDREY: In terms of the review process that was mentioned in an earlier answer, ultimately it appears on occasion that the review of these decisions comes to you to either endorse or otherwise—the other options that were presented were to vary or revoke. Is that always the case with a barring notice, or is that power delegated at any point?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The current process is that the designated person, most likely the principal, will issue a barring notice. The parent, if they are in disagreement and believe it was issued unfairly or erroneously, will speak to the principal about having it overturned. This bill would formalise that process of applying to the designated person to revoke, vary or keep in place. Of course, if the principal then says, 'Okay, on second thoughts I will vary it,' or 'We won't do that,' then that is the end of the matter.

If the principal says no, that it is going to be kept in place as it is, then the person who is proposed to be barred applies to the minister. That is not a delegated power: that is a power that is retained by me and my predecessors, where it will come to me with a formal written briefing from Conditions for Learning, setting out advice around what took place leading to the barring order being put in place.

I think post those couple of examples I gave, where I decided to overturn them because the correct steps, I felt, were not taken, those briefings I get now, which include advice from the legal unit, are much more thorough around whether or not the correct steps have been taken and whether or not it would stand up to further scrutiny. This will formalise that process.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to the existing process, for roughly what proportion of those barring notices that have been put in place is a review sought?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: With me? Yes, I can probably take it on notice and tell you, but off the top of my head, in three years I have had fewer than 10, I would say. It is not many, and as I said, most are done properly. As I said, I have not yet had a case where the behaviour that has been explained or demonstrated to me has not, in my view, perhaps warranted that action, but on a couple of occasions the steps taken to put it in place, I felt, were not done as they should be, and that is what led to me revoking them. It is a very small number.

In 2024, we had 108 barring notices put in place. Across three years, I think I have had fewer than 10. We will find out. That is my gut feeling. We will see if I am right or not. A very small proportion of those actually make their way to the minister. I expect some would be overturned, possibly, or varied by the designated person. In a lot of cases, to be perfectly frank, the person barred probably understands that they are not going to be successful because of what has taken place.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 13, lines 20 to 37 and page 14, lines 1 to 27 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (1)]—Delete inserted subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) Subject to this section, if an authorised person in respect of premises to which this Part applies—

(a) reasonably believes that a person—

(i) while on those premises poses, or would pose, a risk to the safety or wellbeing of any other person on the premises; or

(ii) while on any related premises of a school, preschool, children's services centre, approved education and care service or prescribed departmental premises poses, or would pose, a risk to the safety or wellbeing of—

(A) in the case of a school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service—any person related to the school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service on the related premises while they are being used by, or for an activity conducted by or in connection with, that school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service (as the case requires); or

(B) in the case of prescribed departmental premises—any person related to the prescribed departmental premises on the related premises while they are being used by the Department, or for an activity conducted by, or in connection with, the Department, that relates to the prescribed departmental premises; or

(iii) while on—

(A) in the case of a school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service—the premises or related premises of the school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service (as the case requires); or

(B) in the case of an approved learning program—the premises of the approved learning program; or

(C) in the case of prescribed departmental premises—the prescribed departmental premises or related premises of the prescribed departmental premises,

poses, or would pose, a risk of causing significant disruption to the learning or working environment, or to activities carried on, at those premises or related premises (as the case requires); or

(iv) has engaged in vexatious communication with, or regarding, a member of staff or other person employed at the premises; and

(b) in the case of paragraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii)—reasonably believes that the risk is imminent,

the authorised person may direct the person—

(c) to not enter the premises or related premises; or

(d) to leave the premises or related premises.

Amendment No 4 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 14, lines 28 and 29 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (1a)]—Delete 'an imminent' and substitute 'a'

Amendment No 5 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 14, line 31 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (1a)(a)]—Delete 'is behaving' and substitute 'has behaved'

Amendment No 6 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 14, lines 35 to 39 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (1a)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) has used abusive, threatening or insulting language to a prescribed person acting in the course of their duties (whether on premises to which this Part applies or related premises, or elsewhere); or

Amendment No 7 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 14, line 40 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (1a)(c)]—Delete 'is trespassing' and substitute 'has trespassed'

Amendment No 8 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 14, after line 44—After inserted subsection (1a) insert:

(1b) A direction under subsection (1) may be given orally or by written notice to the person to whom the direction applies.

Amendment No 9 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, before line 1—Before subclause (2) insert:

(1a) Section 95(2)—after 'premises' first occurring insert:

or related premises

Amendment No 10 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, line 2 [clause 11(2), inserted paragraph (b)]—Before 'return, or' insert:

having left the premises—

Amendment No 11 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, line 5 [clause 11(2), inserted paragraph (b)(i)]—After 'days' insert:

after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1)

Amendment No 12 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, line 11 [clause 11(2), inserted paragraph (b)(ii)]—After 'days' insert:

after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1)

Amendment No 13 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, line 17 [clause 11(2), inserted paragraph (b)(iii)]—After 'days' insert:

after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1)

Amendment No 14 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, after line 19—After subclause (3) insert:

(3a) Section 95—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) A person who has been directed to not enter premises or related premises under subsection (1) must not enter, or attempt to enter, such premises within—

(a) in the case of premises that are related premises of a school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service—2 business days after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1), or until the related premises are no longer being used by, or for an activity conducted by, or in connection with, the school, preschool, children's services centre or approved education and care service (as the case requires), whichever is the shorter; or

(b) in the case of premises that are related premises of prescribed departmental premises—2 business days after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1), or until the related premises are no longer being used by the Department, or for an activity conducted by, or in connection with, the Department, that relates to the prescribed departmental premises, whichever is the shorter; or

(c) in any other case—2 business days after the day on which the direction is given under subsection (1).

Maximum penalty: $7,500.

Amendment No 15 [EduTrainSkills–1]—

Page 15, lines 24 and 25 [clause 11(6)]—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) Section 95(3)(b)—delete 'the premises under this section during the previous 48 hours' and substitute:

or not enter the premises under this section for the period that the direction operates to prohibit the person from entering the premises (as contemplated by the operation of subsection (2) or (2a))

As I noted at clause 8, the proposed government amendments primarily amend clause 11 of the bill, which amends section 95 of the act. Section 95 of the act empowers an authorised person to direct a person to leave the premises of a school or preschool if particular grounds are met. A person who has been directed to leave must not remain on the premises or return to the premises within 48 hours. This power to direct a person to leave enables principals and other education staff to respond on the spot to an immediate threat, which is often, unfortunately, necessary.

In the 48-hour period that follows, such a direction provides a window of time to consider whether the person ought to be barred from the premises for a longer period of time and to enable a barring notice to be prepared and served on the person if required. However, the power can only be used when the person is actually on the premises.

The bill retains this provision but amends the grounds on which a person may be directed to leave so that they align with the grounds for issuing a barring notice; that is, where the authorised person believes the person poses a risk, or where the person has engaged in vexatious communication, the bill also changes the duration for which the person must stay away from the premises from 48 hours to two business days. As I said in my second reading remarks, that is important because, if the intervening 48 hours is a Saturday and a Sunday, then under the current legislation they are able to come back on the Monday morning, which was not really the intention of having the 48-hour break in the first place.

This will enable an authorised person to respond quickly to protect their school community when the person is not on the premises, but it is believed they would pose a threat. I know these circumstances do arise if they were to come onto the premises based on, for example, their behaviour on the premises earlier that day or recent threats that have been made over the phone or online. These situations do arise when the designated or authorised person you might be seeking to bar is at that time not at the school for instance, but has done something at the school earlier that morning or has made threats from elsewhere.

Of course, this is a very good example of the effect of things like social media and online platforms, which did not exist when this legislation was first countenanced. They now have the ability to make those kinds of threats online when they are not on the premises or necessarily physically able to carry out that threat at that time, so this will change that.

Amendments Nos 4 to 7 amend the grounds on which a person will be taken to pose a risk to reflect that the response may now be used after the behaviour has occurred. Amendment No. 8 provides for a direction to be given orally or by written notice to reflect that the person may not be on the premises when the direction is given. Amendments Nos 9 to 15 clarify the period during which a person must not attempt to return to or enter the premises or related premises, as the case may be, after having been directed to leave or directed to not enter the premises. The amendments make clear that where a period of two business days applies, that period will commence on the day after the day on which the direction is given.

Amendments carried.

Mr COWDREY: I have a question in regard to clarity around the amended clause, in particular amendment No. 8. I refer to that document to make it slightly easier: the direction can be provided orally or by written notice. We have discussed in passing, obviously, the reason for a written direction as opposed to in the circumstances that the site leader may not feel comfortable providing the direction orally. I understand the operative word here is 'or', but is there any requirement or expectation that a written notice will need to be provided to somebody who has had an oral direction provided to them?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Our intention, member for Colton, is that in the guidelines we will include a requirement for sites to follow up in writing if the direction has only been given verbally.

Mr COWDREY: Just a final point of clarification: is it necessary that the delegated person is the person who provides that written direction, or can that be delegated to another administrative support officer or somebody else within the site?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that any person who is an authorised person under section 95 would be able to issue that follow-up written notification.

Clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (12), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (12:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I acknowledge the support of the member for Colton and those opposite for this bill. I think it is an important bill. One of the real challenges that we have as parliamentarians and legislators is how to make sure we keep those laws that are in place to protect people like our teaching staff up to date, modern and current. That is made particularly challenging by the advent and increased use and reliance on the internet. With that, there has been a big change in terms of the way that people, unfortunately, seek to abuse, stalk or harass school staff. The simple fact was that the existing legislation was not fit for purpose for the year 2025, especially when we have seen huge increases in that kind of behaviour carried out online.

There have also been changes around where in the physical domain that bad behaviour was occurring: for instance, just outside school grounds in a kiss-and-drop scenario, school camp, school sports days and things like that where, to be honest, we had seen some of the worst examples of this abuse occurring that I am aware of.

I want to thank all those who were part of designing and drafting the bill, those within the education department and, of course, those from the non-government sector as well. We need to remember that this act and legislation is used by them as well. I have had strong feedback from both Neil McGoran from Catholic Education South Australia and Anne Dunstan from the Association of Independent Schools South Australia about the need to do this because they are seeing the same things that are being seen in the public system, as is the case in other states and territories as well.

To all those stakeholders who provided feedback, I want it to be known that we listened and changes were made based on their feedback. That is important. It is always important particularly in the area of service delivery, which is a huge component of what we do in education, that we listen to the people who are at the coalface doing the work around what they are seeing and making sure we test the things that we are proposing to put in place for their use with them so they can tell us if in practicality they will actually work or if they are something that, unfortunately, sometimes we think up in a silo in ministers' offices and in head offices.

I thank the member for Colton again for very sensible questions. I look forward to a speedy passage of this bill. Hopefully we can have something in place soon that will do a bit more not just to protect the school staff at public, independent and Catholic schools but also act as a strong disincentive, I hope, for other parents, caregivers or grandparents to exhibit that kind of behaviour. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a third time and passed.