EDUCATION (COMPULSORY EDUCATION AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not intend to pursue a number of the issues that I raised in the second reading in relation to what I claim to be the political spin on this issue, which the government has obviously denied. Our positions are established, and I do not intend to waste the time of the committee.

First, the minister, in her reply, and the minister's reply in another place, referred to the government's trade school initiatives. Can the minister briefly indicate whether all decisions have been taken in relation to the location of those trade schools and whether all decisions have also been taken in relation to the resources to be provided to each of those trade schools?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I can advise the honourable member that the ones that have been announced are the Northern Adelaide Trade School for the Future, the Western Adelaide Trade School for the Future and the Eyre and Upper Spencer Gulf Trade School for the Future. The Northern Adelaide Trade School for the Future will operate from Parafield Gardens High School and will specialise in areas including electronics, advanced manufacturing, engineering, construction, information technology and robotics. It will build on the strength of the Northern Adelaide State Secondary Schools Alliance.

The Western Adelaide Trade School for the Future will operate from Le Fevre High School and will target skills shortages in the areas of engineering, electrotechnology and construction, especially in relation to air warfare defence. It will also include trade programs in transport, health and community services. The Eyre and Upper Spencer Gulf Trade School for the Future will operate from Edward John Eyre High School in Whyalla and Peterborough High School. It will focus on skills needed by the mineral resources industry and transport, health and community services. The funding, I am advised, is $28.4 million over four years.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We are talking about approximately $7 million a year amongst 10 schools. Is it fair for us to assume that about $700,000 per year is being provided to each of the trade schools that are being talked about?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that we will have to take that question on notice and bring back a response.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am prepared to accept that undertaking from the minister. Can the minister indicate whether she can obtain an answer now, or perhaps also take this question on notice: if it is about $700,000, or whatever that is, does it include one-off capital contributions for schools and additional staffing requirements that the school would require?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it would include capital costs and costs for brokers, but no specific allocation for additional teaching staff in schools.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not prolong the committee stage, but I make the point that, if we are talking about approximately $700,000, we are talking about an extraordinarily modest contribution to the cost of secondary schooling for something which is to be called a trade school. I know an auction is occurring in the federal arena at the moment between both the federal government and the federal opposition in relation to technical training, trade schools or whatever, but certainly the dollars being offered by the federal parties to individual schools on the basis that they need at least this amount of money is many millions of dollars.

The point being made by both the federal government leader and the federal opposition leader is that, when one is talking about skills-based training in some of the areas that the minister is talking about—not all of them, I concede—in particular anything to do with defence, automotive and minerals skills processing, you are talking about extraordinarily expensive equipment needing to be provided to young people. Again drawing on my now receding history as minister, I can remember the time in the mid-1990s when schools were seeking to upgrade to cad cam equipment. It was seen to be the cutting edge but extraordinarily expensive for individual schools to purchase, and schools were unable to purchase it at the time.

We now see the 2008 equivalent of that in terms of schools being able to access training. If we are seriously talking about skills development for South Australia's future, particularly if we are to call something a trade school—and that is what the government is doing—we have to look at exactly what we mean by calling a school a trade school. I refer to my experience in discussions with New South Wales ministers of education when, at one stage, they went through a process of calling every fourth school almost a technical school or a trade school. It was in vogue.

If you do market opinion poll research, when you ask, 'Should we reintroduce technical schools or trade schools,' everyone nods yes. They tell the market researchers that and the politicians say, 'We will provide tech schools or trade schools.' The reality is that it is easy to say that and, as I said, certainly with the New South Wales experience, the shingle went up outside the local high school which said, 'This is now such and such technical school or such and such trade school.' However, when you asked the principals or teachers within those schools what they got for that, they would answer, 'We got a plaque outside and precious little else.' That was all there was.

That will be the challenge. I guess for the first time, irrespective of who is elected on Saturday, we will have a potential mess in the area of technical and trade education in terms of the various offerings, because you have various policies being offered at the federal level and you have the state (properly, I think) trying to compete in the area in terms of technical schools, trade schools or whatever. Nevertheless, the federal government has considerably more resources at its disposal.

We are already having reports of competition for bodies in parts of South Australia; that is, the commonwealth government proposals for tech colleges and the state government's proposals or current policies in relation to trade schools. Of course, both of them are competing with each other in particular areas. As I said, from talking to teachers and principals, a body count is already occurring. People are trying to attract young people to be participants, whether it be in the technical college, the trade school, or whatever.

It is one of the dilemmas our federation leaves us with at the moment in terms of responsibilities in this particular area and, after the flurry of the federal election campaign, we will have to see what settles. As I said, I will not labour the point at the committee stage, but the point is that, if we are talking about $700,000 for a trade school, it is almost the equivalent of the New South Wales circumstance which I saw in the 1990s where the school gets to call itself a trade school but there is precious little else available in terms of resources going into those schools to provide genuine skills development.

I repeat: you only have to look at some of these technical and specialised areas and the cost of the equipment and the specialised training that is required to know that you cannot do it on the cheap, and you cannot have dozens of these schools all over the place. You need concentrations both in terms of the capital equipment and resources and also the specialised teacher training that is required to implement those programs.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I have already mentioned, we are committed to bringing back further information, but I should point out that the breakdown of funding cannot be split evenly across regions because it does depend on the existing infrastructure and VET courses and a range of other things, such as skills. Also, of course, it depends on the resources already existing in training organisations affiliated with the schools.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I turn now to some of the questions that I outlined in the second reading debate earlier today or yesterday—I cannot remember now, but it was not very long ago. Can the minister respond in relation to the questions I asked about the process that will be adopted by the government in relation to exemptions for young people who are involved in work? I ask the question: is this a decision to be taken by the school, at the district level of the department, or by central office? Perhaps the minister could at least initially outline the proposed process for considering which young people can be exempt from this bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: In relation to who is exempt, the interagency advisory group has recommended that responsibility for considering and granting full and partial exemptions from enrolment and participation in an approved learning program will be centrally managed, as is currently the case for children of compulsory school age, that is, 15 and 16 year olds—for example, the Director of School and District Operations in DECS.

For young people of compulsory education age seeking a full exemption who are enrolled in a program provided by or under the authority of the Catholic Education Office, the Director of Catholic Education should have the delegation to consider and grant full exemptions from enrolment and participation. For young people of compulsory education age seeking a partial exemption who are enrolled in a secondary school, all public, Catholic and independent school principals should have the delegation to consider and grant exemptions from partial enrolment and/or participation. In relation to home schooling, all 16 year olds seeking to be home schooled will be required to enrol at a school and seek an exemption from participation.

Granting this exemption will be done by the central delegate, as is the case for children of compulsory education age. Consideration has also been given by the independent sector (AISSA) as to whether it will seek a delegation (as the Catholic sector will need to consider) and grant an exemption and undertake the responsibilities for monitoring young people granted exemptions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I ask the minister to clarify whether she is saying that in the government school system, first, the decision for all exemptions has to be taken by the central office director of schools.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I understand that it is yet to be determined, but that is the advice of the stakeholders.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, if the advice of the stakeholders is implemented, and I guess there is every likelihood of that, at the local level—Port Lincoln high school, for example—for a young person aged 16 years who applies to be exempt, that decision cannot and will not be taken by either the principal at Port Lincoln or the regional director, or whatever that title is these days, so will that have to be forwarded to the Adelaide-based director of schools?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that at the local level the director and the principal will support the student to develop an application. That application will then be forwarded centrally for approval, as is the case now for 15 year olds.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister able to indicate how many students aged 15 are exempt from the compulsory school leaving provisions which exist at present?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, to date in 2007, 211 students have been exempted. The breakdown of the reasons for this number include employment, 67; apprenticeships, 64; TAFE, 53; traineeships, 19; and medical, four.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: When the minister indicated that the local principal of Port Lincoln (using the example I have given) and the local area director would assist the student to make the application, I assume that the government or the department is intending that a standard form will be completed by the student (with the assistance of the persons the minister has indicated) to be submitted to the centrally located director of schools.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that that is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister indicated that young people who are home schooled will have to register at a school, then seek an exemption. I ask the minister whether that is the current arrangement in relation to home schooling; that is, home-schooled students are required to register at a school, then seek exemption from compulsory schooling.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that that is the case now, so it will be exactly the same.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In that case, do the statistics for the school reflect home-schooled students who never attend?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that home-schooled students have to enrol and that an officer from the department monitors their participation and learning.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My question was more in terms of whether government school statistics for the number of students enrolled in a school include the home-schooled students associated with that school community.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that they are counted but not funded.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My question relates to the approximately 2,000 16-year-olds who will be caught up in the new legislation. The second reading explanation refers to these people as those who otherwise would not be attending school and who are at risk of falling through the cracks. If these 16-year-olds are picked up (for want of a better word) by police or Education Department officers—perhaps they are hanging out at the shopping mall or are otherwise not gainfully employed or engaged in educational activities—what assurances will the minister give that these people will not be sent straight to the nearest school and put into mainstream classes where they do not want to be; and probably the other students in those classes do not want them there, either.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that there is brokering for individual programs for each individual student at the school level and the district level depending on who last had the particular student.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It seems to me that now it is a requirement for these 16 year olds to be doing something useful, either training or employment. It would seem that the easiest option is to stay enrolled at the school you were enrolled in as a 15 year old—just stay enrolled. If a 16 year old drops out of that class, they decide they do not want to be there any more, and, whilst I appreciate that alternative programs will be available, I am keen to get some assurance that those programs will be universally available. Also, can the minister assure us that students will not be sent back to a school where they do not want to be and where they are likely to be disruptive to other students?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I assure the honourable member that they will not be forced back to school. The government has implemented myriad strategies already to engage and retain all young people in learning and training to ensure they acquire the necessary skills and qualifications for future success. Key initiatives, such as the Future SACE and locally brokered programs, are available for students most at risk to encourage the engagement and participation of all young people.

We are committed to following up all young people and supporting the provision of multiple pathways for them. As I also mentioned in my second reading summing up in relation to authorised officers, from the beginning of 2009 each new DECS district office will also designate a responsible officer to facilitate the follow-up of 16 year olds who disengage. Already a range of district personnel support and assist schools, young people and their families to participate in appropriate programs, for example, transition brokers, inclusion and well-being managers and attendance counsellors.

The Catholic Education Office has indicated its willingness as a system to follow up 16 year olds and could seek to have members of its personnel appointed as authorised officers, which will be possible under the changes proposed in the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Further to the Hon. Mr Parnell's line of questioning, the second reading explanation talks about these 2,000 16 year olds who are in danger of disengaging. The second reading explanation states:

These young people will be required to enrol and participate in full-time educational training or accommodation thereof.

My understanding of some of these programs to which the minister refers is that they do not aspire to anything like full-time. For example, my understanding is that the flexible learning options offered by the Service to Youth Council is that its goal is to try to engage the student in one subject at any one time. Is the government hoping to change these pilots? Are these programs to increase the expectations towards what we would understand by the reference in the second reading explanation to a full-time program?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that if they are not full-time: they will be partially exempted. It is about brokering individual solutions for each child.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I note that this scheme is to commence operation from the start of 2009. I am interested to know, from an implementation point of view, how this might work with our 15 year olds who are currently in school. For example, when a person turns 16 will they receive a brochure or package saying, 'Now you are 16, here are your options'? Will it be something that will just be mentioned at the start of a school year; will we talk individually with each of our young people on their sixteenth birthday and tell them what their options are? Would the government explain how it sees this being implemented; how our young people will know that there are options available to them other than staying at school?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that an entire communication strategy will occur next year. The implementation arrangements will be finalised by mid-2008 with a statewide planning and communication strategy to be undertaken with students, schools, parents, education and training providers and the wider community, along with consultation with parent groups, the South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs and the South Australian Association of State School Organisations as part of the development of the communications strategy. Information will be sent to school governing councils regarding legislation, key contacts and support available to parents, and parents of all enrolled students will receive information regarding the changes and support available to them via school communication channels.

School principals, along with student counsellors and vocational education coordinators, will work in partnership with parents to identify career options and pathways. Transition brokers, student well-being managers and disability coordinators within each district already work in partnership with schools to support those students and their families who require intervention and support. So, in relation to the last comment, this is already current practice.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a point for clarification. I have here a copy of some of the notes distributed during the government briefing, which say, 'It also provides for 16 year olds [referring to the bill] to seek exemption from this requirement if they have gained full-time employment.' Could the minister point out where it actually specifies that in the bill? I understand that is claimed to be the intention, from the briefing, but I do not see that it as specific as that anywhere in the bill—that is, if a 16 year old has full-time employment they will be exempt.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I refer the honourable member to clause 17(1):

The minister may, by written notice, if the minister considers it is appropriate to do so, grant an exemption from a requirement of this part in relation to a child, conditionally or unconditionally.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In response to earlier questions from (I think) the Hons. Mr Parnell and Mr Wade, the minister indicated, in relation to a person in part-time work, that the concept of a partial exemption was to be offered. Can the minister explain what is a partial exemption?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it means they will be enrolled in an approved learning program but not participating full time in that program. Essentially, it just means part-time school and part-time work.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For the sake of the debate, let us assume that the student is not in an approved learning program but is actually just at the local high school doing year 11 or 12 (or whatever it might happen to be) and gets part-time work. Is the minister saying that that student then has to be partially engaged in the SACE, the year 11 or 12 program, at that particular local school?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that they can be in another program through the school; they can be in a VET school program; they can be with another training provider.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that. Where a student is not in a training program, VET or the other options, and has a job which he or she is quite interested in (but it is part time), what the minister is saying is that, in terms of partial exemption, that student has to be partially enrolled in the year 11 or year 12 SACE.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is no; in any approved learning program.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I understand that. What I am saying is that if the student is not interested in another learning program and the only thing he or she is interested in is working and not being involved in any other learning program, if that student wants to work part time, he or she will, in essence, enrol at the school but will be doing part-time year 12 subjects at that school.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that they have to be enrolled in an approved program through the school. It does not have to be year 12, as long as it is an approved program. My advice is that that is the case now, as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the example I gave in the second reading debate, where there is a young person who is lucky enough to know absolutely what he or she wants to do and has managed to secure, let us say, 20 hours a week in part-time employment at the local advertising agency and is absolutely intent on advertising as a career and is not intent on further studies in the advertising area, because 20 hours a week is less than the 25-hour cut-off (and I accept that the government and the department have had to come to some judgment as to what they are going to call 'full time'), then that young person really has no option, apart from not doing it, than to be enrolled in some other program, or enrolled in year 12 as well, because he or she will not be in full-time employment, even though it is 20 hours a week, for example.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there is flexibility. The guidelines, of course, will identify 25 hours per week as a recommended benchmark. However, the delegates responsible for granting full exemptions (the proposed government officer and Catholic Education officer) will have discretion to consider individual cases on their merits. For example, if a child presented with 23 hours, this could be approved depending on the young person's circumstances.

In all cases, young people seeking and granted full exemptions will be provided with information and counselling to identify their future pathways. That may include returning to formal learning at some point, or future career and employment options. The guidelines concerning exemptions will need to be reviewed regularly, particularly in the first instance, regarding this new measure. The Interagency Implementation Advisory Group, or a similar body, will be asked to consider evaluation of the effectiveness of these measures and it is intended that this information will be included in the first report on the operation of this part required under the bill in 2010.

Advice will also be sought from employer groups and those responsible for supporting young people's engagement. The director, Workforce Policy and Business Services Development from Business SA provided feedback to the discussion paper on this topic and will be consulted in regard to the development of the regulation and the interface between these provisions and the employers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What is the government's intention in relation to young people who will turn 17 soon after the start of a school year—in March or some time in the first term? Is it the government's intention that they must enrol for the start of that school year; then the compulsion expires and they can leave one month after the start of the school year?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that if they have already received the SACE they will not be captured by the legislation anyway. At the end of the term before, the school will support them to either seek an exemption or go down the appropriate pathway.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not understand that. I am not talking about a student who already has the SACE but a student who is 16, without the SACE and will turn 17 some time in the first term. Will that student be required by this legislation to enrol for a month or so of the first term or will there be alternative provisions in relation to that student?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that before that happens, at the end of term 4 the school will broker unless the student seeks an exemption.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Will the minister clarify that? She is indicating that at the end of term 4 this young person will be brokered—someone will speak to them. I am not clear what the minister is indicating. Will the student be required to enrol at his or her school the following year because they are still 16?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes, unless they have an exemption or another pathway.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It will potentially create problems for some students, their families and some schools if the requirement is that a student has to enrol for one month. We can take the example of a student who clearly does not want to continue in compulsory schooling or education. Under the arrangement the minister is outlining, that student will be required to turn up to a school at the start of that school year, knowing that one month into the year there is no longer the compulsion to be there and they can leave.

That poor school and student will have to cope with a student with no long-term ambition to achieve something or do anything and there will be potential problems. I will not delay the committee by persisting with the point, but note that it is a recipe for some problems with the government's intention in relation to the policing of that aspect of its proposal.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We will not abandon students at 17 years; it is about finding the best pathway for students.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was not suggesting the government was abandoning anyone, but making the point in relation to the example I have given. Will the minister confirm that this legislation will apply in exactly the same form to all Aboriginal students and Aboriginal education programs?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is yes, and that is why there is capacity to have myriad learning programs. We also have had consultation in the APY lands.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can the minister clarify the process that a school or district will need to go through to have a learning program approved? That is, will that all be done by the Director of Schools centrally in terms of approving a learning program for the purposes of the legislation?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Guidelines will be developed and consideration will be given to any delegation to approve any learning program. In the first instance, it is proposed that it will be managed centrally, because it is a new initiative and we want to manage it consistently. The Future SACE will provide many more pathways, and fewer students will require individually tailored programs.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has confirmed that, at least initially, it will be done centrally. Again, will the Director of Schools make that decision or will it be some other central officer?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The responsibility rests with the minister. The minister will consider whom to delegate that responsibility to.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to ask a question in relation to an issue that the Hon. Iain Evans first raised in the House of Assembly. The minister gave a response in the second reading today, and I repeated the question in my second reading speech. The question asked by the Hon. Iain Evans was quite clear. He asked:

Just to clarify it, the word 'employ' does not include looking for work, and can you please clarify for me my previous question on the matter of what happens to their social security payment in the event of this bill becoming law? Will 16 year olds who are currently unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits lose their unemployment benefits because they have an obligation under this bill to be in an approved learning program?

The minister answered:

My advice is that Centrelink has advised us that they will not be affected.

The Hon. Iain Evans continued:

Will the minister table that advice for the purposes of the house? You can send it to me in between houses.

The minister answered:

We are happy to table that.

I want to be quite clear about the question being asked: if you have a 16 year old who is currently unemployed and receiving unemployment benefits, will they lose their unemployment benefit because they have an obligation under this bill to be in an approved learning program? That is, either they have to be in school or an approved learning program or in work. There is no provision for them to be unemployed at the age of 16.

The minister said that she was happy to table the advice. Today the minister indicated—I think first by way of inference—that there was no written advice, only verbal advice, but the minister actually referred to a completely different set of circumstances. She was talking about the Youth Allowance. On behalf of the minister, the Hon. Carmel Zollo said:

The Hon. Rob Lucas raised a few issues, in his recent contribution, in relation to wanting some information on Centrelink. I think the question was asked in the other place how this bill would affect 16 year olds' eligibility for the commonwealth Youth Allowance. In response to that I can say to the honourable member that we have been assured that verbal advice from Centrelink indicates that nothing in this bill will adversely affect a young person's eligibility for Youth Allowance.

It then goes on to explain the provisions of the Youth Allowance.

As I have just made clear to the minister, the question that was asked by the Hon. Mr Evans and myself had nothing to do with Youth Allowance; it talked about a young person who was unemployed or on unemployment benefits. The minister made it quite clear in the House of Assembly that she had had advice from Centrelink and indicated that those young people would not be affected. She then indicated that she was happy to table that advice. Did the minister mislead the House of Assembly when she said that she had received advice of a written nature in relation to the issue of unemployment benefits for 16 year olds?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The minister in the other place did not mislead the house. My advice is that young people under 21 are not eligible for Newstart and are only eligible for Youth Allowance. The written advice the minister was referring to is actually in a 'Guide to Australian Government Payments'. I have a copy of that here and I can certainly table it. I also have a brief that has been provided to me.

Young people, under the changes proposed in the Education (Compulsory Education Age) Amendment Bill 2007, will not be disadvantaged in respect of eligible Centrelink entitlements. Centrelink has advised that a young person's non-compliance with a state requirement to participate (at 16) as a compulsory education age young person would not preclude them from receiving Youth Allowance, provided they meet the eligibility criteria. I am happy to table this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that: that may well clarify some issues. Can I confirm that what the minister is saying is that currently a 16 year old who is unemployed, even if he or she is not studying, or endeavouring to study, receives Youth Allowance?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes; that is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I quote from the minister's second reading response, as follows:

It is anticipated that these officers will be from the government sector—

this is talking about authorised officers—

and the non-government provider sectors that indicate a willingness and capacity to follow up the young person and support their re-engagement. For example, the Catholic Education Office has indicated that it is willing to undertake this role for 16 year olds in its sector.

Can I take it from that that the Independent Schools Association, and that particular independent schools sector, has not indicated either the capacity or the willingness to be involved under the terms of this legislation in the same way as the Catholic Education Office has?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is still considering its position. Consideration is also being given—I think I mentioned this before—by the independent sector as to whether it will seek a delegation, as the Catholic sector will, to consider and grant an exemption. The Catholic sector will have an authorised officer to consider and grant an exemption and undertake the responsibilities for monitoring young people granted exemptions. My advice is that there are two issues: they will either get a delegation or they will actually have a delegation to be an authorised officer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify then: if I am a 16 year old student at an independent school in South Australia, under this legislation, and the independent school has not sought a delegation, how is this legislation to be applied to me as a 16 year old who is in an independent school in South Australia?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there will be confirmation of an authorised officer for each approved learning program and a central coordinating delegate will be developed in 2008, in consultation with the interagency advisory group and representatives of each sector.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the position where the Independent Schools Association has not currently engaged to the degree that the Catholic Education Office has, and if it chooses not to so engage, is the minister suggesting that it will be a government school officer who will be required to pursue the 16 year old student at the independent school who is not undertaking the appropriate level of study in an approved learning program?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the government sector will follow up for them, as is indeed the case now.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There is not a case in relation to 16 year olds in compulsory education. I presume the minister is talking about compulsory schooling. The dilemma here, of course, is that compulsory schooling is currently much more manageable than compulsory education would be under this legislation because, with compulsory schooling currently, we have to check with the independent school to make sure the young person is attending the school. In this case, the student might not be at school, may well be in an approved learning program of any nature or, indeed, may well be employed somewhere, so the task for the government authorised officer will be much more complex and difficult to achieve under the provisions of this legislation.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that each sector will decide whether they want to appoint their own. As has already been mentioned, all students will be required to register with SSABSA prior to turning 16 years of age, and they will be supported in this by their school. The system for monitoring and tracking that will be developed through consultation with the Interagency Implementation Advisory Group, which will focus on engaging young people. The registration with SSABSA will provide each young person with a unique student identifier. Consultation has commenced between SSABSA and the education and training sector to develop protocols for the exchange of information concerning young people's participation.

Further, there will be requirements on both providers and employers to notify SSABSA should a young person disengage. The Interagency Implementation Advisory Group has considered the appropriate transfer of information for follow-up of these young people in each sector and has recommended that an authorised officer be identified for each sector, as I have just mentioned. For example, the government authorised officers would be likely to follow up young people participating in TAFE or with a private registered training organisation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Will the minister clarify one of the questions that I raised in the second reading debate; that is, if at the start of the school year a 16 year old is in full-time employment—is employed in a job greater than 25 hours a week—and two months later becomes unemployed but is keen to stay in the workforce, but it may well take some weeks in terms of getting further employment, what does this legislation say to that young person? As soon as they are unemployed, are they required to enrol back at the local school?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there will be guidelines developed and communicated to young people, and also the relevant support officers who can, of course, assist the young people concerned about their need to re-engage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am comforted that they will be advised about the need to re-engage. I want to know what the legislation requires of them. On my reading, it would seem to indicate that if you are not in full-time employment there is a requirement under the legislation, in essence, to be enrolled in school or in an approved learning program. Will the minister confirm whether that is what the legislation says? That is, you have been exempted, you have been in full-time employment and you then become unemployed; I cannot see a provision in the legislation which, in essence, does not mean that the student is then required to re-enrol immediately.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As previously advised, there are no penalties in this bill. It is not about them having to re-enrol in a school but into any learning program. Of course, any work undertaken as part of learning or training, such as an apprenticeship or traineeship, will not require an exemption. As I have already mentioned, they will be supported to re-engage in any approved learning program.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister confirming that, under the requirements of the legislation, there a legal obligation for them to re-enrol? While I understand the minister is saying that there is no penalty (they will not be sent to gaol or penalised), I am just trying to establish what the minister's intentions are in relation to the legislation.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there is a requirement that a student, as a condition of their exemption, notify when they have ceased employment, and information is also provided to them up-front about how they will re-engage and receive support to re-enter an approved learning program.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister is obviously intent on not answering the question. I think the record is clear: I have asked the question three times, and the minister is intent on not answering it. Let me just say that, given the minister has not specifically responded to the question I put, it would be my reading that, under this legislation, a student who receives an exemption because they are employed full time but loses the job after two months is required, under this law, compulsorily to re-enrol at school or in an approved learning program. Given that the minister has not denied that, I think that is an indication that that is indeed the circumstance.

I understand all the words 'they will be encouraged to re-engage' and all those sorts of things—I accept that—but what I am saying is the government is asking us to pass legislation as a parliament, and we need to know what the law is going to say to these young people. So, let's leave the question there. I am not going to persist for the fourth time to try to get the minister to say something that she, on behalf of the government, is not prepared to say.

In the case of a young person who does not want to be at school, who was in full-time employment but loses the job, is desperate to stay in full-time employment and is trying to find another job, in terms of the practice of the authorised officers and others, is the minister prepared to given an assurance that reasonable time will be given to that young person to find further full-time work if that is the option that young person, perhaps supported by his or her family, is quite intent on at that particular stage?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that that is correct. Can I say that I take some exception to what the honourable member has said, because I am certain that I said it was a condition of the exemption that the person re-enrol and try to re-engage.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister might have answered the question but not in the way the Hon. Mr Lucas would have liked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank you for your running commentary, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: You are welcome.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is not always accurate, Mr Chairman, but I am always appreciative of your running commentary during the committee stage of the debate. Certainly, on the fourth occasion, I think I did get a response to the question.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I return to the question I asked the minister a little while ago, about an exemption being provided for anyone of 16 years of age who had gained full-time employment. The minister referred me to clause 17 of the bill. I am not satisfied that clause 17 (unless I misunderstand it) deals with that issue—or certainly not explicitly. If a 16 year old youth (if I can use that term) has full-time employment, are they guaranteed an exemption under this bill, and does the type of employment matter? If they obtained full-time employment in a fast food store, for example, for 12 months at that age—as, in fact, I did when I was 16; I worked full-time for 12 months in a fast food outlet—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It didn't do you any harm—

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: —there you go—which was of great benefit to me at that stage of my life. I just want absolute clarity on that issue. If a 16 year old has full-time employment, are they guaranteed an exemption?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that clause 17(1) enables that exemption to be made. I am fairly certain that I have already read this into Hansard, but I can again say that, under the proposed changes, 16 year olds who are currently working or who are offered employment of 25 hours or more a week will be able to seek an exemption (that is the clause that enables that) for the requirement to participate in an approved learning program, and this proposed 25 hours or more of work will be used as a benchmark for full-time employment.

This was recommended by all the stakeholders and is consistent with the models used in Queensland and Tasmania. However, the delegate granting the exemption will have some discretion to assess individual circumstances as well. If a 16 year old wishes to work part time as an alternative to being in full-time education, that is, to work and study part time, he or she will also be able to seek a partial exemption.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response but, just to be clear, under that clause, it would entitle the 16 year old to apply for an exemption but it does not guarantee them an exemption; is that correct?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The honourable member is correct—and it is the same now as with 15 year olds. The determinant is what is best for the student; what works for them and what is the best pathway for them.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I guess the issue, then, is who decides what is best for that student, and what if the student disagrees with the decision maker?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I understand that the student can even ask for a review of the decision. The delegate would be asked to review it, or they could even approach the minister.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Can the minister clarify what would be determined to be in the best interests of the student, given that we do not have a definition of 'best interests of the child'? What criteria will be used for 'best interests of the student'?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that that role is given to the delegate to determine, in consultation with the school, the family and the student.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I want to explore this matter a bit further as well, because it seems that the different things that might be taken into account would be the nature of the employment (whether it was wholesome or educational enough), and whether the child needed the money (whether they came from a poor family or a rich family). The minister says that the government will publish guidelines in the Gazette in relation to the granting or variation of exemptions. Are there draft guidelines? Is there any guidance that the minister could give us as to the type of criteria that the government is proposing to take into account to determine what is in the best interests of the child and the factors that must be taken into account?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the interagency advisory group will be working on those guidelines early next year. Guidelines will be developed for the delegates about what they should consider, and they are currently being consulted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The review of the decision, as I understood it in the first instance, was to a government bureaucrat. So, a government bureaucrat reviews a government bureaucrat, and then we have the opportunity of a government minister reviewing the decision of a government bureaucrat. Could the minister explain the steps of the review that would take place?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I said, those protocols are being developed now. Obviously, you would approach the appropriate delegate, for example, the Catholic Education Office.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As I understand it, the Hon. Mr Hood's questions are about a young person who has left the education stream and who is looking for the employment stream. Are we suggesting that a young person who, as far as they are concerned, is leaving their education behind them, is still accountable to whichever sector they come from as to their future life choices?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Until they turn 17, the system has a responsibility to assist them in either learning or earning.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just to clarify, if there are no set out criteria of what is in best interests of student, if there are no consequences or penalties for not notifying and if the state is then responsible for determining their best interests, what feedback from parents would be enough for a child to get an exemption? To be clear, in my contribution I spoke about my three sons who dropped out of school in year 10. They were bored; they had had enough. They found part-time employment here, there and everywhere, but it was enough to show them that they needed to go back to school to get an education.

That was a 12-month period during which time they were required to be working, but not in full-time positions, because they were hard to get. Under this legislation, would my children now be forced to go back to school or to participate in some sort of learning program to which they are not attracted? What would be their options and who is responsible, apart from the state, for ensuring that this will work for the kids?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I did say earlier that guidelines would be developed, but 25 hours per week is enough. It really is about developing programs to which students will be attracted. A combination of factors will assist the students and the families.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: For clarification, an assessment process will determine and basically evaluate what the students' interests are and where they can be best directed for courses, learning, trade, or whatever will grab them? Is a full assessment program already outlined somewhere for this process?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that each student will be doing an individual learning plan in year 9 or year 10 to do just that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To clarify that, is the individual learning plan that the minister just referred to the personal learning plan that is stage 1 of SACE?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice concerning those questions is that, no; an individual learning plan can be turned into a personal learning plan for SACE but the individual learning plan will be for all students (as I have mentioned, years 9 or 10) to identify their learning or earning pathway.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I want to clarify a point I made a little earlier, and that is, to be simplistic about it, under this bill it is possible that a 16 year old would seek and obtain full-time employment but not be granted an exemption to undertake that full-time employment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: If they have already been offered full-time work, I cannot concede that it would not be approved, but that ultimately would be up to the delegate, as is the case with 15 year olds now.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: So, anywhere in this plan does the parents' assessment of the child and the child's needs in a reasonable situation in any way override the assessment of the delegate, or do they have any role? This sounds very Brave New World-ish to me.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Parents are very actively engaged in all these matters and can approach the individual delegate as well.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: To flesh out the minister's assertion that the parents are actively involved, what role do parents have in the development of individual learning plans?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Essentially, the schools encourage young people to work with their families and take advice as to what is in their best interests.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My questions now relate to the issue of authorised officers. Clearly, any member of the police force is an authorised officer under the terms of the legislation, then any person authorised in writing by the Director-General of Education, then any person authorised in writing by the Chief Executive Officer of, I presume, the Department for Families and Community Services. I assume there is an intention to have officers who used to be known as truancy officers. Can the minister indicate the type and range of officers that it is currently contemplated will be authorised by the Director-General to be authorised officers? Also, can the minister give some indication of the number of those officers?

I highlighted earlier in the committee stage—and I was mightily encouraged by the participation of members in the committee stage towards the latter stages of that debate—the task that will confront some young people. We did not get into the detail of some of the potential circumstances; I raised only a few. Anyone engaged in secondary schooling will know that numbers of students school hop, either by their design or by the school's design. They are asked not to come on Monday if it is a non-government school. They hop between non-government schools, they hop between Catholic and independent schools and they end up back in the government school sector.

Even in the government school sector there can be encouragement for a young person to find another option, although they might not be compelled. I understand the theory is that they will be registered with SSABSA and that these officers will pursue them all over the place, in and out of work, in and out of pre-learning programs and in and out of schools. In theory it sounds fabulous when we discuss it in the committee stage of the debate, but the reality for these officers is that it will be much more complicated and complex. Will the minister indicate how many officers within the Education Department will be authorised to undertake this challenging task? Secondly, will the minister outline the current nature of the employment of those officers?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that we have DECS personnel who undertake that function. They do it now without doing it compulsorily. A number of people will be brokered right across the local level at the district level, and the interagency advisory group has a great commitment across the sector to broker local solutions for each student. We will be consulting further as to exactly how many numbers we will need.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What is the intention? Is the minister indicating that at this stage the government is not in a position to indicate how many there will be?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: While I said there are existing officers, I cannot indicate an exact number this evening, because we do not know how many students are likely to need this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What are the positions of the officers currently working in this area called?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I do not have all the names with me here, but there are a number of different support officers, including behaviour-approved coordinators, student attendance counsellors and district improvement coordinators. That is three we put on the record this evening.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister prepared to take the question on notice and to provide a written answer in relation to the existing officers who work in this area? Also, is the minister intending to increase the resources in this area? There is an existing resource for a number of officers, and the minister has undertaken to indicate what that is. Have the government and the minister indicated already that there will be an increased resource in this particular area?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The department has been asked to identify the resources that will be needed. Of course, if students return to school more funding will be made available. I undertake to provide a list of those names.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The reason I have raised this issue of authorised officers is because there is an interesting collection of powers for authorised officers. Bear in mind that we are not talking about police officers here because they have considerable powers anyway: we are talking about school attendance counsellors and the sorts of persons to whom the minister has referred. They are public servants within the Education Department. Subclause (4) of clause 80A provides:

[These education officers are authorised] at any time to attend at residential premises and request any person in the premises to provide the officer with—

(a) the full names of all children...

(b) the respective ages of those children; and

(c) the schools at which, or the approved learning program in which, (if any) the children are enrolled in accordance with this Part.

There are offences for persons who hinder or obstruct an authorised officer (in this case an Education Department officer) exercising their powers under this act, and those offences incur a maximum penalty of $5,000. Does this power exist already in relation to compulsory school-age children?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The answer is yes. Existing powers apply already to 15 year olds. The existing section states that an authorised officer may, at any time of the day, attend at residential premises and request any person in the premises to provide the officer with the full names of all children of compulsory school age and children of compulsory education age resident in the dwelling house, and the respective ages of those children and the schools at which or the approved learning program in which (if any) the children are enrolled in accordance with this part. That is from the existing act, so these powers are not new.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister might be able to short circuit this line of questioning. Is the minister indicating that no additional powers are given to authorised officers—I am not worried about the police—in relation to the 16 year olds? That is, all these powers of authorised officers that currently apply to 15 year olds now apply to 16 year olds?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 to 19) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (22:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I take this opportunity to thank all those people who assisted in ensuring that this legislation passed this chamber. I am not familiar with the names of all the officers, but I thank them. Of course, I congratulate and thank the minister in the other place.

Bill read a third time and passed.