SENIOR SECONDARY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1340.)

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:09): This bill was introduced in the upper house last month and is somewhat more controversial than the other bill introduced during the same period, the Education (Compulsory Education Age) Amendment Bill, for which I have indicated my support. In essence, this bill seeks to establish a board, as well as to enhance systems, within a legislative framework, to reinvigorate the South Australian Certificate of Education.

The board will have the responsibility of overseeing the accreditation of the Future SACE and ensuring its credibility both interstate and abroad. As both the minister concerned and the Hon. Paul Holloway have stated, the reform stems from research and consultation, as part of the review of the SACE, and an independent examination of the current act. The independent review of the act considered issues raised by the SACE review report and examined similar legislation in other states.

The government is seeking the swift passage of this legislation so that it has time to appoint the board and allow it to make important decisions about the requirements of the Future SACE, which the government is aiming to introduce at the start of 2009. However, legislation that will affect the future of many thousands of our students should not be rushed.

I stress from the outset that I do not want my contribution today to be interpreted as overly negative. I note that the Rann government has committed $54.5 million to the introduction of the Future SACE. Obviously, initiatives that seek to strengthen the opportunities, skills, knowledge and values of South Australian children are to be commended. This money is welcome, but in its present form the bill does not guarantee that a large number of constituents will have guaranteed representation of their views and interests.

Opposition members and key stakeholders are also concerned about the prospect of a very significant assertion of political control by an education minister over the board and the South Australian Certificate of Education. I again express my disappointment in the consultation process conducted by this government. The government had the opportunity to include in this legislation many of the suggestions proposed by key stakeholders but chose not to do so. Even though the government met with stakeholders, I have the feeling that it never intended to take their concerns on board. Indeed, my office has frequently been contacted by parents and teachers, as well as the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, all of whom have concerns with the bill. They are concerned that there is a hidden agenda here. A common question has been: why the sudden lunge for power?

The Hon. Rob Lucas, of the Liberal opposition, indicated in the council last week that he was suspicious about what the government has planned. Whether the minister and her colleagues are willing to compromise and support at least some of the amendments proposed by the Hon. Rob Lucas will no doubt shed some light on that. The government has said that we need a firm legislative base which is relevant for today and which is flexible enough to provide for the future needs of South Australia's young people.

I strongly support the consolidation of the partnership between the board that oversees SACE, the education sectors that deliver it, and the education minister; these entities working together for the benefit of our high school students is certainly a positive thing. However, we need to cut through the government rhetoric and get to the nitty-gritty of this bill to ensure that the students and their future are, in fact, the priority, rather than the consolidation of political power by the minister and her government.

It is important to note that the SSABSA controls all year 11 and 12 students not only in government schools but also in independent and Catholic schools. A major concern is that there is no guarantee that a very large percentage of students, their parents and teachers, and those from the independent and Catholic sector, will have representation on the board.

Members would be familiar with the material provided on this matter by the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia and, no doubt, many have had briefings with Gary LeDuff, who has lobbied hard for guaranteed representation of the Catholic and independent schools on the new, trimmed-down board. There is certainly a compelling case.

In 2006, there were 22,020 year 11 and year 12 students attending state schools in South Australia; 7,051 students at independent schools; and 6,729 in the Catholic sector. Independent students in this age bracket represent 19.7 per cent of the total enrolments for South Australia, whilst the Catholic sector enrolment proportion is 18.7 per cent.

Together, the total non-government sector enrolments are approximately 38.5 per cent of total year 11 and year 12 enrolments. Such a large percentage of students deserve guaranteed representation in any legislation proposing such an important change in the SACE. At present, the independent sector alone has 49 schools which currently educate year 11 and year 12 students.

I do not intend to go into the private versus public school debate here. However, we should also acknowledge the trend of increased movement to the private sector and the number of students who attend these schools. They represent a very significant percentage of the high school population—and a growing population at that.

It is true that Labor members will say that they received input into this bill from the Catholic and independent school sectors. However, this seems to be another example of why this government has a poor reputation in relation to consulting and meeting community members, stakeholders and organisations with what appears to be no intention of taking their suggestions on board.

Indeed, both bodies representing these sectors have contacted my office saying that this was one of the key amendments they want for this bill. I note that the Hon. Rob Lucas has proposed an amendment that would guarantee representation for both the Catholic and independent sectors on the board. Also, as the Hon. Rob Lucas noted, there is a history at both state and federal level of Labor education ministers with a very strong ideological slant on non-government schooling. This has not been as common in recent years, but this snub could be interpreted as a return to that.

With very few potential dissenting voices, I find the bill fails to ensure the independence of the board and, as the honourable member noted, it is impossible that a minister with an ideological slant against non-government schools could take decisions and require them of the board which would disadvantage them. By implementing something and requiring the board to do it, the honourable member noted that it would place the Catholic and independent schools at a very significant disadvantage and potentially have significant resource implications for those schooling sectors.

I do support the reduction of the numbers on the board as, at present, it is somewhat cumbersome, but there should be some guaranteed representation for the non-government sector. The Liberal Party (which is regarded as being the party of choice for the majority of parents of non-government children) is no doubt concerned about a return to Latham-style policies in the future and wants to safeguard against this. A suitable amendment could go a long way to putting the opposition's fears at ease, and we can get on with establishing a South Australian Certificate of Education that will provide the best opportunities for all young South Australians who intend on studying year 12.

As I said earlier, legislation that seeks to achieve positive outcomes for our young people through our education system should be supported. The second point I will address is concern over the reintroduction of ministerial and political control over the SACE and the SSABSA, which this minister and this government are seeking. Last week in the council, the Hon. Rob Lucas raised concern over the independence of the board. The shadow minister (Hon. Iain Evans) has done the same in the lower house. He pointed out that, at present, we are one of only two states in the country where the education minister does not have formal control over curriculum within schools under the education act.

The CEO of the department is formally in control of the curriculum within the schools, whereas, in the other states, the education minister is in control. In South Australia, the tradition has been that politicians do not control the curriculum. Under the bill, if the government and the minister decide that there should be a particular course, they would have the power to direct the board to provide that course for a secondary school. As well as the examples already pointed out in this council, there is also the potential for controversial areas such as drug and sex courses to be directed.

There is nothing to stop this, according to the Hon. Rob Lucas, and I will be looking into this further. This would represent a drastic change in the operation of the SACE and the SSABSA. Does the government need the power to have political control over the SSABSA? Maybe this is why it wants to silence the independent and Catholic schools, as has been alleged. I certainly hope not. Will the minister reassure us that that is not the case?

I am not convinced that clause 16 (as well as other clauses in the bill) provides an adequate safeguard against the minister from directing that, if she wants to have a course on an issue or project in which the government has invested, she needs the power to direct the SSABSA to have a course on it—for example, the biotech innovation investment fund, as the minister indicated. This provision would prevent the minister from dictating the content or the accreditation of that subject, but the minister would be able to direct the board to say that it shall have a certain subject, or whatever ideological viewpoint a future education minister might have. Clause 14, (which amends section 15) outlines the functions of the board and states 'and to perform other functions assigned to the board under this act or any other act or by the minister'.

I am hesitant to approve certain functions of SSABSA and any other function the minister thinks should be a function of the board. It is the minister's decision alone as to what additional functions the board might have. It is my understanding that that is what could happen if this bill is passed in its present form. The Hon. Rob Lucas has already indicated that he will be asking questions about this clause during the committee stage of the debate, and I will be interested to hear the government's response. In conclusion, potentially some very big changes are being introduced in the future SACE which are being underpinned by this legislation.

I will be interested to see how the government addresses our concern that this legislation raises the prospect of a very significant assertion of political control by the education minister over the board. I will also be interested to see whether it will support the amendments of the Hon. Rob Lucas for guaranteed representation on the board for Catholic and independent schools for which they have heavily lobbied. As I stated, this is a very important piece of legislation and I am hoping that the major parties will put their political differences aside to work for a board and a system that will provide the best outcome for all senior secondary students, regardless of their background.

The Hon. A.L. EVANS (12:20): I rise to indicate Family First's view regarding this bill. The government's briefing notes on this bill talk about establishing an 'expert panel' to replace the current SSABSA. In reality, we are talking about a government appointed board taking over the current representative board. There are many parallels between this takeover and other recent government takeovers.

This bill will extinguish the current 27 member board, which is made up of representatives from all education sectors to control the curriculum. In its place, an 11-member 'non-sector' board will be appointed by the government. The notion of the Minister for Education and Children's Services hiring and firing the people responsible for setting our curriculum—that is, setting the total agenda—concerns me. Why is this change necessary? The minister's stated reason during the second reading debate was that changes to the board were necessary to 'enable the introduction of future South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE)'.

During our briefing, I asked why the current board would be unable to introduce the new SACE. There is some merit in the argument that the current board is too large, with 27 members—most boards are smaller than that—but is this an attempt to disband a board that is unlikely to accept the ongoing changes of the SACE? I am left wondering what will be in the new SACE if the minister needs to hand-pick a board in order to approve it. Will the SHine SA Share or RASH sex education program be mandatorily rolled out to all schools under the new SACE? Let me remind members that SHine SA has been organised under the banner of the AIDS Council of South Australia, with shared premises and, despite all its efforts to remove references to the AIDS Council from its website and vice versa, they are linked.

How we can let people with these links be responsible for teaching our children about sex, or anything else for that matter, is beyond me. The AIDS Council, despite its noble name and charter, is an organisation that seems to operate in a bubble of total unaccountability. It was reported last year that it refers its disabled clients to prostitutes (The Advertiser 15/9/06); and it publishes magazines extolling the wonders of using drugs with statements such as, 'Children are a blessing, you never know when you need someone to go out and score for you', as reported in The Advertiser of 25 June.

If you want a job with that organisation, its employment criteria list drug use as a requirement (The Advertiser 19 October). Most recently, as reported in last Saturday's Advertiser, it has been caught using taxpayer funds to print pictures of men whipping a woman on a cross. In fact, all these activities have been funded by the taxpayer. This is the organisation which the minister wants to teach our children about sex! Family First is therefore concerned that the dissolving of the current board and the replacement of that board with a hand-picked board may pave the way for the introduction of any radical agenda that the minister or future ministers may deem fit.

I acknowledge the proposed amendment to allow for one representative each from the Catholic, independent and public schools. However, three members out of 11 is still very low. Family First believes that a more modest change would have been more appropriate.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:24): I thank members for their contribution in relation to this very important piece of legislation. The Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia Act has provided the legislative basis for the management of senior secondary education in South Australia for nearly 20 years. However, the way we deliver education has changed significantly from the traditional classroom settings. We therefore need to ensure that the legislative framework we have in place supports the education of our children. That is why this government has embarked on a significant legislative reform process for education, care and children's development.

This reform process has been the subject of extensive ongoing consultation with the public and with education and training stakeholders. The proposed amendments to the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia Act will underpin the future South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) which will commence from the beginning of the 2009 school year. The new SACE board will have a much broader role which will focus on accreditation, certification and quality assurance of courses and subjects to effectively oversee the Future SACE.

The board will have responsibility for accrediting and certifying equivalent qualifications that will enable students to achieve their SACE through study in trade schools, apprenticeships and VET, or other training through providers such as TAFE or registered training organisations (RTO), as well as any qualification awarded through these courses. The aim is to ensure that the SACE is responsive to the needs of all students who will have expanded options to pursue learning and training in the traditional classroom and a range of other settings.

This initiative is part of this government's school to work reform agenda. The new SACE board needs to be appointed by the end of April 2008 at the very latest to ensure a smooth transition from the current board to the new board, which will take over when the changes detailed in the bill come into effect on 1 July 2008. I have just noted that the Hon. Andrew Evans raised some question in relation to the board composition. I do want to foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment which essentially says that at least four of the appointed members of the board must have specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education.

Of these members at least one must be a person who has specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education in the Catholic schools education sector; at least one must be a person who has specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education in the independent schools education sector; at least one must be a person who has specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education in the public schools education sector; and at least one must be a person who is currently engaged in or who has been recently engaged in the provision of senior secondary education.

We need to remind members that, under common law, all nominees to boards are required to act in the best interests of the body to which they are nominated, not the body that nominated them. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for any stakeholders to seek representation on the board on the basis that this would give them a perceived opportunity to influence the board. I look forward to members supporting this amendment that I will move in committee.

As I said earlier, the bill before this council is a simple but significant one. It is the culmination of consultation and examination of the best way to oversee the future of secondary education in South Australia. The changes proposed in the bill will enact the recommendations of the in-depth independent SACE review undertaken in 2003 and the subsequent independent SSABSA act review undertaken in 2006. The bill reflects the extensive examination and consultation undertaken during these reviews and a public discussion paper released in January 2007, as well as an examination of the bill itself since mid this year with a view to delivering the best legislation to underpin the future SACE for the young people of South Australia.

Before I outline some significant aspects of this legislation, I must take issue with comments made by the Hon. Rob Lucas and, in particular, his misinformed comments in regard to the bill and the SACE review. Under parliamentary privilege the honourable member impugned the professional reputation of Professor Allan Read, one of Australia's most distinguished educators. In particular, the honourable member implied that Professor Read's capacity to participate as a panel member of the SACE review was somehow impaired by the fact that he opposed the introduction of basic skills testing in South Australia. I believe that this tenuous connection demands a response. Professor Read has a national and international reputation in education as both a scholar and an administrator.

His work is quoted extensively in scholarly journals and has influenced educational policy in a number of jurisdictions in Australia and overseas. His contribution has been recognised often. For example, in 2003 he was awarded the federal Department of Education Science and Training National Research Fellowship, which involved working in the federal department in Canberra for 12 months, providing policy advice and engaging in a major research project on the national curriculum.

In 2004 he was awarded the inaugural MacKillop Medal for his distinguished contribution to education by the Australian College of Educators, the leading professional association in education, and in the same year he was named by the national Bulletin magazine as one of the nation's top 10 educators.

It is not only the Labor Party that has sought to use Professor Reid's services. His expertise has also been recognised by the Liberal Party in this state. In 2002, when he was Dean of Education at the University of South Australia, he successfully led the tender bid to write the state's compulsory curriculum (the SACSA), and he was co-director of the writing project.

The honourable member's claims about Professor Reid's opposition to the basic skills test are based on crude over-generalisations. It is surely the role of an academic to subject government policy to critical scrutiny, provided that the scrutiny is based on evidence. Professor Reid, like many others in the education community, has been concerned about the nature and effects of standardised tests on the quality of teaching and learning. Many of these sorts of concerns have been borne out by overseas research into the use of standardised tests. They have enabled us in South Australia to adjust our system-wide tests in order to avoid making similar mistakes and to ensure the quality of information that these tests provide.

The claim that someone who is concerned about standardised tests lacks interest in improving standards in literacy and numeracy is patently absurd. Professor Reid was instrumental in developing a SACE review recommendation which proposed a compulsory diagnostic assessment of literacy, numeracy and IT skills in order to provide important information to students, parents and students at the start of SACE. The government has already implemented this proposal and, for the first time this year, year 9 tests have been added to the tests in years 3 and 5 to provide this information.

It is clear that the Hon. Rob Lucas's attack warrants an unreserved apology to Professor Reid, and I urge him to do so as soon as possible. He has unfairly impugned one of the nation's most eminent educators.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Another one to the list, says one of my colleagues. The review of the current SACE was extensive. It involved exhaustive consultation with interested parties, including school communities; the Northern Territory, where students also undertake the SACE; as well as parents, business, unions and our university sector. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the Hon. Ann Bressington was actually commenting on the consultation.

Indeed, I am advised that there were more than 200 meetings involving more than 1,600 individuals, 170 written submissions, more than 600 responses to an online survey and a major conference during the review in 2004. Not only did the honourable member attempt to discredit one of the SACE Review panel members, but also his criticism of the title of the SACE Review report, 'Success for all', reveals the paucity of his educational philosophy.

The honourable member's whole speech was premised on an assumption that the SACE certificate is about preparation for a single pathway: the university pathway. He seems to have no interest in the 75 per cent of students who do not take that pathway. Like the title of the earlier Gilding report on senior secondary education in South Australia which established the SACE, 'Within the reach of all', the title 'Success for all' reflects an aspiration that every young person has the right to expect that their talents and capacities will be developed to the fullest extent in whatever pathway they wish to pursue.

The fact that such an aspiration has never been fully achieved is not an argument to lower our sights, as the honourable member was implying. Rather, it is a motivation to redouble our efforts. That is the aim of this government, and it is why we have accepted the bulk of the recommendations of the SACE Review report.

In our view, it is possible to combine equity and standards, and one of the strengths of the report is that it bolsters the preparation for the university pathway and, at the same time, opens up opportunities to pursue a range of other pathways.

The general public have supported the reforms proposed in this bill. The Education Committee supports the thrust of these reforms and the current board supports the bill. The overwhelming majority of the schooling sectors support this bill. In one area, one schooling sector has sought a further change to the bill and, in response to that, the government will be moving to make one amendment to the bill to make it explicit that the new expert board must have specific knowledge and ability to work with the three schooling sectors in this state. I have already placed on record what the amendment (which is already filed) will be expressing. The independent sector has also raised a non-specific concern about ministerial power. No other stakeholder is dissatisfied with the bill as it stands.

Members of this council are now being asked to enact this bill and enable the appointment of a SACE board to oversee and implement the Future SACE. This bill modernises the current act and enshrines legislative principles that will underpin the operation of the board and the legislation. The bill establishes an effective expert board with enhanced functions, responsibilities and powers. The bill embeds the responsibility the board will have as a service organisation to work collaboratively and in consultation with the education sectors and the responsible minister in the best interests of all young people in South Australia.

The opposition will be seeking to move a number of amendments to this bill. These do not reflect the recommendations of the SACE review, the independent legislative review, or the public and stakeholder consultants. With regard to the appointment arrangements for the SSABSA CEO and staff, the bill before the council will see the CEO of the SACE board appointed by the Governor on terms and conditions set by the Premier. This is consistent with the appointment of chief executives across the Public Service in South Australia. A proposed change was put in place to address the concerns raised by some stakeholders that it appears inappropriate for the CEO of the SACE board to have the CE of one of the schooling sectors as its employing authority.

The Chief Executive of the Department of Education and Children's Services became the employing authority following the passing of the Statutes Amendment (Public Sector Employment) Amendment Act 2006. This legislation was necessary to ensure that no state government employee would fall within the scope of the federal government's WorkChoices legislation. However, as a result of these changes, the CE of DECS replaced the board as the employing authority for the CEO of SSABSA.

This raised a concern with stakeholders that the CE of DECS would have a conflict of interest as head of a schooling sector and employer of the CEO of the board. In response to these concerns, provisions have been proposed in this bill which will remove the CE of DECS, whilst retaining the essential safeguards provided by the Statutes Amendment (Public Sector Employment) Amendment Act 2006. The bill also addresses the desire of stakeholders to have the staff of the board employed by the CEO of the SACE board.

Members are reminded of the importance of the sentiment behind the Statutes Amendment (Public Sector Employment) Amendment Act 2006 and the fact that they voted in this council in favour of protecting all South Australian public sector employees from the federal government's unfair WorkChoices legislation. I remind members that they need to understand that supporting the opposition's proposed amendments (numbered, I understand, 1, 2, 5, 6, 13 and 14) will remove the protection this council provided to the CEO of the SACE board and the 76 staff from the scope of WorkChoices.

In regard to the composition of the proposed new SACE board, the existing SSABSA is a large 27-representative board. The SACE review report indicated that during consultations many, including the existing board members, advised that the nature and size of the board needed to change. I quote from the report, as follows:

In its consultations, the panel heard frequently about the cumbersome nature of the SSABSA board and its processes. The panel heard that a major cause of SSABSA's difficult decision-making processes was the size and complexity of the board membership, which is a product of the representative nature of the board. This suggests that the board's role needs to be defined in more strategic terms.

I understand that was chapter 10, page 171. It is fair to say that any board of this size could have problems in decision making, as found and recommended by the SACE and independent legislation reviews and, as provided for in this bill, a proposed smaller 12-person expert board that includes the CEO as a non-voting ex officio member is a far more efficient and effective way forward. A significant issue discussed during the extensive consultation has been the composition of the board, and the concern raised by some that the changes remove the direct representation schooling sectors.

The SACE review was clear in that the consultations and deliberations found that 'a more strategically oriented board would need fewer members and be cognisant of the principles of good corporate governance (chapter 10, page 171). In developing a final draft of the bill, enhancements were made that sought to address this concern and entrench in the bill the requirement that members of the board will have sufficient expertise, knowledge and experience to undertake the role of overseeing the future SACE. Under the proposed changes in selecting nominees for the government to appoint, the minister must consider the combined skills and abilities of potential members, in particular, at least four of whom must have specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education, with one of these currently or recently engaged in providing senior secondary education.

The overwhelming majority of the schooling sectors and all other stakeholders supported the changes. However, the independent schooling sector remains concerned. This government seeks always to work collaboratively with stakeholders and to ensure their interests are considered. In order to address the independent schooling sectors' residual concern that the board must have expertise and specific knowledge of each of the three schooling sectors to enable it to undertake its work, and to protect the interests of these sectors, as I have foreshadowed that the government will be moving an amendment to clause 10. This will ensure that members appointed to the board have that specific knowledge and expertise in the independent, Catholic and public school sectors, while retaining the vital role of all stakeholders in recommending to the minister suitable candidates they put forward for appointment by the government to the expert board.

The strategic import of the proposed legislative changes detailed in the government's bill is to place an obligation on the board to pay specific consideration to the requirements of the sector and to report formally on the associated consultation process in addition to its form of consultation and collaboration. Embedded throughout the bill are provisions that affect the collaborative relationship and shared responsibility that the board, the education sectors and the responsible minister must have to underpin the future SACE and better support all young people in South Australia. Passage of the bill will see a new SACE board appointed that will be able to maintain and draw upon the cross sector collaboration which has been the hallmark of the work of the SACE implementation steering committee, established by the Minister for Education and Children's Services, and which has representation of the three schooling sectors and the CEO of SSABSA working together.

As members would be aware, the Minister for Education and Children's Services has responsibility for not only the government school sector but also for the Catholic and independent school sectors and for ensuring that all young South Australians are supported to undertake and achieve SACE, accredited and administered by SSABSA. A significant flaw in the current 24 year old legislation identified by both the independent SACE review and the independent review of the SSABSA Act is that the responsible minister currently has no ability to direct the SSABSA.

By introducing the limited power proposed in the bill for the minister to direct the board, an appropriate relationship is further embedded in the legislation. As a SACE review report stated, 'The panel believes that there should also be a strengthening of accountability.' Currently the only formal accountability requirement prescribed in the SSABSA legislation is that which obliges SSABSA to submit an annual report to the parliament. Consistent with a strengthened accountability, the review panel believes that the act should include a power to enable the minister to direct the board.

This proposed power would not extend to direction in relation to changes to curriculum or assessment and certification of any individual student's work (chapter 10, page 172). In disregarding the findings of the SACE and SSABSA legislation reviews and the current board who support the bill, the opposition through its flagged proposed amendments Nos 7 to 12 will seek to remove all appropriate connections between the minister responsible for all education and the board responsible for the South Australian Certificate of Education.

There is nothing untoward or sinister in the proposed limited powers provided to the responsible minister. The minister does not have any power to direct the board in relation to the content or accreditation of subjects or courses. The minister will not have the power to direct the board in relation to the assessment or recording of student achievements or learning.

This bill safeguards the proposed limited power of direction with the requirement that the minister must report to parliament on any direction given and the board must publish details in its annual report. Such a limited power is found in all corresponding acts in other jurisdictions across Australia, except New South Wales, where all decisions of the board must be approved by the responsible minister.

A similar power to direct the South Australian Teachers Registration Board was enacted in 2004. The opposition argued at that time against such a power. There have, however, been no problems with this clause that I am aware of. The Teachers Registration Board is working very effectively and in consultation with the responsible minister and, while I understand that no direction has been given by the minister to that board, the limited power remains should it be needed in the public interest. The proposed provision in this bill will likewise be there if needed, as recommended by the SACE review and the consultations.

Another appropriate authority provided to the minister in this bill relates to the board providing the minister with any information or report that the minister reasonably requires in connection with the minister's portfolio responsibilities for education in the state. To request and receive information of this nature will enable the minister to carry out her responsibilities as minister. This is not about ministerial power over the board.

The opposition, in their proposed amendment 11, would remove this subclause. Members would note that this reduces the ability of a minister for education from accessing information—not about what the board does, not about its operations, but about what the minister reasonably requires in connection with the minister's portfolio responsibilities for education in this state. The exercising of any of the limited powers provided in this bill would be used only where they are in the public interest and the interests of quality education provisions in South Australia. The SACE review commented on the supply of information to the minister by the board and recommended:

In order to plan effectively and to take up the continuous improvement challenge discussed above, schools and school systems require access to reliable, detailed information about their own performance and the performance of the state's senior secondary system as a whole. It is reasonable to expect that the SACE authority will be a primary source of such information.

Further, in regard to legislative implications, the review panel made the following comments:

In that regard, the review panel considers that there should be a provision in the legislation requiring the authority to release data to the minister for the purpose of policy review and formulation, planning and other purposes consistent with the responsibilities of the minister for all education in the state.

Regarding concerns about the possible release and misuse of data held by the board, I reiterate what the Minister for Education and Children's Services said in the other place: this government does not support league table or the inappropriate release of data. To this end, as signalled in the SSABSA legislation reform discussion paper released in January this year, and to address concerns raised by stakeholders in the education sector, the government will be moving to amend the FOI regulations before this bill is enacted.

The draft regulation amendments will be consulted on before being made to ensure the legitimate protections are in place for comparative school and student data. The government will be consulting with all stakeholders. This measure will provide for a considered change and greater protections in regard to information in line with those stakeholders are seeking than the opposition's proposed amendments numbered 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 to this bill.

I also draw members' attention in particular to the opposition's proposed amendment No. 8, which relates to clause 14 and section 15(1)(m) of the act. In concert with the proposed changes to the Education Act, this provision will enable the SACE board, as recommended by all stakeholders, to collect, record, collate and report information about 16 year olds who will be subject to the requirement to enrol and participate in an approved program. The opposition's proposed amendment No. 8 will preclude the training, university and other sectors from rightfully receiving information about the cohort of young people enrolled with them.

Another appropriate authority provided to the minister in this bill relates to the minister being able to ensure that decisions taken at a national level, in forums such as MCEETYA and COAG, can be implemented in South Australia. As is the case currently, the SACE board will work in collaboration with the minister and will inform the minister in formulating the South Australian position on relevant matters regarding decisions at the national level.

The minister must be confident in the SACE board's ability to implement any national decisions taken. As reflected in the bill, it is anticipated that the board will give effect to any decisions taken at the national level to which South Australia has agreed. However, it is imperative that the responsible minister is able to specify that a decision that South Australia has endorsed is effected. Under the bill, the board will retain its existing functions, including determining the requirements for completion of the SACE and certifying students' learning achievements.

The bill re-focuses the role and functions of the board in directions recommended by the SACE review report and the independent review of the SSABSA legislation. The emphasis will be on the board's role in accrediting and ensuring the quality of curriculum (that is, determining whether and to what extent a particular program or piece of curriculum counts toward the SACE); recognising students' learning achievements for the purposes of the SACE across a wider range of learning experiences; assuring the quality of assessments rather than necessarily assessing students' learning per se; and working cooperatively and in collaboration with the schooling sectors and the responsible minister.

I hope I have reassured the Hon. Ann Bressington, who raised some concerns in relation to consultation, as well as board appointments and functions. The Hon. Andrew Evans also raised issues in relation to board appointments. As I have said, this is a very important piece of legislation. I know the Hon. Rob Lucas has waxed lyrical about several other issues that do not, in any shape or form, form part of this legislation, including comments about the Minister for Education and Children's Services in the other place. I do not believe that his comments are worthy of a reply; I think he was just indulging himself. Nonetheless, this debate is about this very important legislation. I urge all honourable members to support the bill, and I commend it to the chamber.

Bill read a second time.