PRINCE ALFRED COLLEGE INCORPORATION (CONSTITUTION OF COUNCIL) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the committee.

A quorum having been formed:

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise briefly to reaffirm Liberal Party support for the passage of this legislation. The committee met and took evidence from the chair of the school governing council, the school council or the board, whatever is the correct phrase—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The school council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —my colleague the Hon. Mr Dawkins informs me that it is the school council—and also the Moderator of the Uniting Church. It was a relatively brief meeting. Advertising having been conducted in the normal way for a select committee, no other person came forward to present evidence. From my viewpoint, it was useful to have the hearing of the select committee, albeit brief, as it clarified one particular issue which, whilst it was not significant enough for the Liberal Party to oppose, was nevertheless one we wanted to pursue or at least have clarified; that is, in briefing notes provided to opposition members by the government in support of the legislation, there was reference to this legislation having retrospective effect in some aspect to September last year when, on one reading of the briefing notes, the school council had adopted a new constitution.

Some members, myself included, wanted to know why the school council had proceeded on that particular reading of the briefing note with an amendment to the constitution without waiting for the passage of the legislation. I am pleased to inform the council that the hearing of the select committee clarified that issue and that the school council chair, in particular, confirmed that, in essence, the amendments to the constitution for the school council had been adopted in principle but that the school had continued to operate under the terms of the old constitution and that the school had appropriately, in my view, waited for the passage of the legislation through the state parliament.

Whilst it was not sufficiently an issue for the Liberal Party to flag opposition to the legislation, it was an issue that one or two of us had raised in our joint party room debates and I had intended to ask some questions because I could not see a logical reason as to why the school needed to proceed down a particular path. I thought that what might have happened is that they amended the constitution and just did not realise that it was in contravention of the state legislation. That was a possible explanation but, in the end, that was not the case. The school did clarify the issue for me and for any other member who might have had that particular concern about the legislation.

The only other issue (which I think is important to raise with these hybrid bills) is that we took evidence and asked whether or not there were any dissident elements of the school community or the church community that were strongly opposed to what might have been the majority view of the school and the church. It is entirely possible for a school community and a church community to come to a majority view but that there be dissident minority elements who are passionately opposed to what the majority might have been doing. Through the good offices of the Hon. Mr Dawkins and others we were not aware of those prior to the select committee but, nevertheless, we were able to take evidence formally and on the record. The representatives of the church and the school indicated that they were not aware of any opposition to the proposition that was before the parliament. Again, I think that is important.

Whilst they are not completely analogous to this situation, there were some passionately different views in relation to previous issues this parliament has addressed in relation to the Netherby Kindergarten and the Waite Trust (the arboretum and related issues) where there were majority views but, nevertheless, there were passionate minority views being expressed by people on the Adelaide University Council and others in relation to what the majority wanted to do. It is appropriate, with these hybrid bills, that the parliament is fully informed through this select committee process. On this occasion, there was no dissident minority view that needed to be aired but, for future reference (and for members who will be in this chamber longer than I will), there may well be occasions in the future where a majority interest comes to the parliament wanting to push a particular line and there might be a minority or dissident view that is not being reflected. The parliament may still agree with the majority view, but the hybrid bill select committee process is there to allow the minority or dissident view to at least be aired, to be expressed and to be considered and possibly, in the end, disagreed with by the majority and the parliament. That, of course, is our democratic process.

With that, I have no further questions of the minister in relation to the bill and, as we flagged in another place, we are pleased to support it. I am also pleased to acknowledge the role of the President of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Mr Sneath. Based on the appropriate advice of the clerk, I believe the President behaved appropriately in relation to this in terms of ruling that it was a hybrid bill and needed to be referred to a select committee. I am pleased to see that all of the chamber, I think, eventually accepted that ruling.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I say, I will make a short contribution as the chairperson of the select committee. As has already been noted, the committee met on two occasions; an advertisement was inserted in The Advertiser inviting evidence from interested persons and organisations and, in addition, an invitation to provide oral evidence was made to the chairperson of the Prince Alfred College Council and the Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, the SA Synod. The committee heard evidence from Mr Bruce Spangler, the chairperson of the Prince Alfred College Council, and the Reverend Graham Vawser, Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia (SA Synod). The purpose of the bill is to remove some prescriptive detail relating to the composition of the school council from the legislation in order to modernise the school's incorporating legislation and enable the school community to make changes to the composition of its council without reference to parliament in the future.

As we have heard, while no objections to the bill were received, the committee considered the issue of retrospectivity and whether the bill gives retrospective effect to changes made to the school council constitution on 24 September 2006. I understand that some members opposite may have been of the view or misunderstanding that that was going to be the case, and that may have arisen from a briefing note that was provided to the opposition. That is actually not the case. As we heard, the chairperson of the council advised the committee that, while changes to the constitution were approved in principle by the council and the South Australian Synod of the Uniting Church, the council has been operating under the existing constitution and those changes would not take effect until the provisions in this bill are enacted. I take this opportunity to thank the two witnesses who appeared before the committee, placing on record some good history of the school. The committee is of the opinion that the bill is an appropriate measure and recommends that the bill be passed without amendment.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment; committee’s report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.