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

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1546.)

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 4, lines 2 to 5—Delete subsection (2)

This amendment is consequential.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have already spoken in relation to this clause. Clearly, the numbers are not with us, so we will not divide as it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 7 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There would appear to be two separate issues here. The substantive issue is the one that we will obviously have some debate about, and that is the issue whether or not there should be representatives of the South Australian Commission of Catholic Schools and the Association of Independent Schools on SSABSA. We have an amendment, which I will speak to in a moment, and the government has a halfway house amendment, which seeks to meet that issue.

I also have another amendment to this clause (which is the first one, I think; it just depends on how the chair will put this), in relation to lines 27 to 29, which is to substitute the words 'a practising teacher'. The clause currently states that one of the members must be a person 'who is currently engaged, or who has recently been engaged, in the provision of senior secondary education'. The amendment that my colleague in the lower house moved on behalf of the opposition was to make it clear that that person who was currently engaged or who had recently been engaged was a practising teacher. There are two separate issues and, when we come to vote on it, Mr Chairman, we will need to seek your advice on how you will put this.

First, there is the more critical issue of whether or not the Catholic sector and the independent schools sector are to have representation on the board; and, secondly, there is the subsidiary issue, which is whether the person who has had recent experience is a practising teacher or, if it is not a practising teacher it could be someone who has been a principal or an administrator or someone like that. That is, essentially, a stand-alone issue that needs to be addressed, and we will need to seek your guidance, Mr Chairman, on how you intend to put this. Perhaps if I can seek that information at the outset; the first amendment that is listed seems to be my amendment, with respect to 'practising teacher'.

The CHAIRMAN: Because the minister's amendment starts at line 24, I will first put the question that all words in paragraph (a) down to and including 'must be' in line 27 stand as printed. If that is agreed to—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What is the minister trying to do? She is trying to get rid of that, is she?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, if that is defeated, that will defeat the minister's amendment? What I am seeking guidance about, for the members of the committee, is that for those of us who want to achieve my amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: The member wants those words out as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, we all agree to that?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is easy. We can do that straight away.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: No.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not deleting paragraph (a); I am inserting new paragraphs.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister's amendment is from lines 24 to 29. The member's amendment is from lines 27 to 29.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, if I am reading you correctly, if the first thing is putting that lines 24 to 29 stand, would that not be a test case for the minister's amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is right.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am going to oppose the minister's amendment, and I guess the only issue is that, if that is successful, I am not sure whether I am still in a position to test the practising teacher one. But we can explore that in a minute.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, you are, because what we are saying first, to test the minister's amendment, is that all words in the paragraph down to and including 'must be' in line 27 stand as printed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, in essence, that first one will be a test case for the minister's amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Parliamentary counsel is nodding and the staff are nodding; I am with you. Perhaps I could invite the minister to move that first.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 5, lines 24 to 29—

Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) 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 and, of these members—

(i) 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; and

(ii) 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; and

(iii) 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

(iv) at least one must be a person who is currently engaged, or who has been recently engaged, in the provision of senior secondary education; and

Put simply, we want our representatives to have knowledge. The honourable member's amendment is seeking to make them practising teachers in that sector. We believe it is very important that these people do have knowledge, in addition to who nominates them. I reiterate that we have met the desires of the stakeholders whilst also delivering an expert SACE board to the South Australian community.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Having consulted with the table staff and parliamentary counsel, the suggestion, which seems to be eminently sensible, is that this debate essentially is about the composition of the board. We will leave the issue of the practising teacher for determination after this issue has been determined. There are three propositions, I suppose: the government bill, which exists; the amendment, which the minister has now moved; and the amendment which I intend to move if we can defeat the minister's amendment in relation to the composition of the board.

I summarised this in my second reading contribution so I do not intend to go through all of it again, but I think that at least on this one issue a lobbied view has been put to all members of the committee in relation to the composition of the board. The simple argument as summarised is that SSABSA is responsible not only for senior secondary education in government schools but it is also responsible for senior secondary education in the Catholic and independent schools sectors.

Its existence as a board allowed it to operate as a representative board for many groups and associations. Certainly, we support a reduction in the size of the board, but one important decision has been that it has had representation so that the views can be directly expressed on the decision-making authority of the three sectors, that is, the government, independent and Catholic schools sectors. This is a critical issue in relation to the consideration of this bill. It is the view that the Liberal Party puts.

Originally the Association of Independent Schools in South Australia put the strong view that it is important that those sectors have representation, do have a say and do participate in the critical decisions that will be taken. Without repeating what we have been through this afternoon, this board will make all the final decisions. The government has said that this is what it believes it will do. However, the minister has now conceded that the government does not have lawful authority to do that even under the proposals. It will be a decision for the independent board.

The decisions that this board takes will influence significantly activities and operations within the Catholic and independent schools sectors, as well as in the government schools sector. As I highlighted in my second reading contribution, it is very easy for a minister, particularly if the minister has greater control over the board (as we will see in this bill), to potentially impact significantly on the independent and Catholic schools sectors without those sectors being in a position to have direct input into those decisions.

We must accept that, even if my amendment gets up on a board of 11, there will be two representatives. There will be nine representatives, probably (although not certainly), representing government school education. It is not as if we are talking about a 50:50 split here. We are just saying that there will be a voice, and they may be out-voted 9-2 on a significant number of occasions on those sorts of issues. I think that the sectors accept that, but they do want a position in relation to representation on the board.

The government tabled the amendment which the minister has moved and which moves part way towards that argument. I have received (and I suspect other members have received) an indication from the Association of Independent Schools that it strongly opposes not only the government bill but also the government amendment, because the government amendment says that the minister will still appoint someone who has specific knowledge and expertise in relation to the provision of senior secondary education in the independent schools sector.

Let us not talk about the current minister, because I am not directing criticism at the current minister; this legislation is ahead for many ministers in the future. If you have a minister with an ideological bent against independent schools, Catholic schools, or both, the minister will be able to appoint someone that he or she knows from within the Catholic schools sector and the independent schools sector. As a former minister, I can tell the committee that there are many examples of people who have had 30 years experience in the government schools system who win appointment in the Catholic schools system for a period of time.

The minister can select someone who is opposed to the general views of Catholic schools or independent schools within that sector. Particularly in the independent schools, more likely, those decisions are taken by governing councils within particular school communities. The notion is that these two independent sectors could be represented by the government selecting the nomination. The other point to make is that a person selected by the minister from a Catholic school in Port Pirie would be appointed under the minister's amendment to the SSABSA.

However, the Catholic Education Office or the Executive of the Association of Independent Schools being aware of what is going on and having input would rely on the minister's nominee, in essence, fully disclosing all those decisions and discussions with either the Executive of the independent schools or the Catholic Education Office.

That is why the Association of Independent Schools is saying, 'Hey; we want someone who is there representing us.' Clearly, when that person puts a point of view, he or she, successful or not, is able to speak to the other members of the Independent Schools Executive or the Catholic Education Office and ensure that that sector is fully aware of the implications of decisions that have been taken by the SSABSA. The minister's model will not achieve that purpose, either.

So, for a number of reasons—that is just two of them; there are a number of other reasons—it is pretty clear that there are three models, and the government has now moved to the amended model that has been put. I am proposing that we oppose the government amendment in relation to this and then, if we successfully defeat that amendment, I will move the amendment that had already been flagged and we can move on to a separate debate about a practising teacher.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I remind honourable members of the legislative principles in this bill. New section 5(d) provides that this legislation is premised on the principle that cooperation and collaboration between the board, the school education sectors and the minister are to be recognised as fundamental elements to achieving the best outcomes for students seeking to qualify for the SACE. I think the honourable member gave one example about a Catholic school in Port Pirie. I remind members that anybody would be appointed for their expertise on the advice of the Catholic Education Office in relation to a matter like that.

I place on record that the minister currently selects from nominees provided by the prescribed bodies. Under the bill the minister will select nominees from a list of names provided by designated entities and the wider community by a call for expressions of interest. This will ensure that the board comprises members with the best possible expertise. In short, an important difference between the current act and the bill is that the source of expertise available for nomination will be widened.

Stakeholders have been advised that designated entities will be invited to make representations in the process of assembling the new board to oversee the SACE once a call for expressions of interest has been made. Again, 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, and one of whom must currently be or have recently been engaged in the provision of secondary education. The amendment that I have just moved provides for three as well as one engaged in secondary education.

I am also reminded that clause 14(3), which inserts new section 15(3)(c), provides that the board must, in the performance of its functions, to such an extent as the board considers reasonable, take into account the views of all those whose views we need to take into account, as listed, and, in particular, the three school sectors.

As well, clause 18, which inserts new section 20(1a), provides that the report must first of all incorporate the audited accounts for the relevant year and also include a specific report on the consultation processes that the board has established or used for the purposes of this act during the relevant year, including an assessment of the extent to which those processes have assisted the board in the performance of its functions. So, clearly we have safety nets in this legislation wherever one cares to look. I urge members to consider the comments I have made and support the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is: that all words in paragraph (a), down to and including 'must be' in line 27, stand as printed.

The committee divided on the question:

AYES (11)

NOES (8)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Question thus carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, lines 27 to 29—

Leave out all words in these lines after 'must be' in line 27 and substitute:

a practising teacher

This amendment is on the simple issue of whether or not the words 'a practising teacher' should be included in the current bill; that is, that at least one of the persons is currently engaged (or recently has been engaged) in the provision of senior secondary education. The Liberal Party's contention was that the person ought to be a practising teacher. I do not intend to waste the committee's time by arguing the toss.

I think that it is a simple argument based on the view that these decisions are going to be complex and complicated for those who follow this SSABSA debate and that a practising teacher with immediate experience of having to cope with some of these problems in a senior secondary school environment would have invaluable input on the Senior Secondary Assessment Board. For those reasons, we suggest that it be a practising teacher. It is possible, under the current wording, for the person to be a practising teacher but it is also possible for the person to be an administrator, a principal (and I am not arguing against a principal) or a person engaged in a variety of other roles. Nevertheless, the position of the Liberal Party is that a practising teacher ought to be at least one of the members on the board.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: For those who read the debate that has occurred today, I think it is important for me to place on record again that the current proposal in the bill is that four members of the board will have current or recent experience in the provision of senior secondary education, one of whom has current or recent teaching experience. This was inserted following strong advocacy from a number of significant stakeholders, and it was intended to provide the minister with guidance to ensure that the board is clearly focused and has considerable expertise in the area of senior secondary education.

The effect of proposed amendment No. 3 of the Hon. Rob Lucas would narrow the appointment of a member who is currently or was recently engaged in the provision of senior secondary education to only a practising teacher. While it is intended that this section of the bill would see a practising or recently practising senior secondary teacher appointed, the amendment of the honourable member makes a currently practising teacher a requirement.

The proposed amendment No. 4 makes mandatory the intention of the current clause within the bill; that is, that three of the members appointed come from each of the three schooling education sectors.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (7)

NOES (12)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 5 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 5, after line 29—

Insert:

(ab) one of the appointed members of the board must be a person specifically nominated by the South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools Inc.; and

(ac) one of the appointed members of the board must be a person specifically nominated by the association of Independent Schools of South Australia; and

(ad) one of the appointed members of the board must be a person specifically nominated by the Director General of Education; and

This is consequential on the earlier debate, which was the test clause, so I do not intend to debate it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is consequential, too, on the amendment we have just discussed and approved. I move:

Page 5, line 33—

After 'to the board' insert: (other than for the purposes of subsection (3)(ab), (ac) or (ad)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government will not be supporting it, but I understand it is consequential as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 7, lines 1 to 5—Delete subsections (3) and (4) and substitute:

(3) The Chief Executive Officer will be appointed by the board on terms and conditions determined by the board.

(4) However—

(a) the board may not appoint a person under subsection (3) without the approval of the minister, and

(b) the terms and conditions of the appointment of a person under subsection (3) must be approved by the minister.

This is allied with the initial vote that we had. As I indicated earlier, it is possible to vote different ways if one wants to, but it is consistent with the principle, that is, who appoints the chief executive officer.

Under the current act the chief executive officer is the chief executive officer of the board and is appointed by the board on terms and conditions determined by the board. The act provides:

However, a person may not be employed as chief executive officer, and may not be removed from that office, unless or until the employing authority—

(a) has consulted with the board; and

(b) has obtained the approval of the minister.

The bill proposes, in clause 11, the following:

(3) The chief executive officer will be appointed by the Governor on recommendation of the minister on terms and conditions approved by the Premier.

(4) The minister must consult with the board before the minister makes a recommendation for the purposes...

So, under the bill, the minister consults with the board but if the board disagrees the minister can, obviously, still go ahead and appoint. As I said, we did have part of this debate earlier. My amendment is consistent with what I said earlier; that is, that the chief executive officer will be appointed by the board on terms and conditions determined by the board; however, the board may not appoint a person under subsection (3) without the approval of the minister.

In essence, the board will be appointing the chief executive officer, but the board will be requiring the approval of the minister. So, there will need to be agreement between the board and the minister, and then the terms and conditions of the appointment of a person under subsection (3) must also be approved by the minister.

Under the amendment that I am moving on behalf of the Liberal Party, there is still a role for the minister in this but, nevertheless, is consistent with the principle that we have already endorsed, that is, that the board is the authority that is going to appoint its chief executive officer, not the minister. I have moved the amendment and I urge support.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I indicate that, clearly, we will not be supporting the amendment. I again remind members that the bill as it stands provides for the removal of the chief executive of the Department of Education and Children's Services as the employing authority for the chief executive officer and staff of SSABSA. This was in direct response to a request by all stakeholders that the perceived conflict of interest should be removed.

The bill as it stands is not opposed by any stakeholder in regard to this matter. The bill sees the current chief executive officer maintained for the life of his contract. Future chief executive officers will be appointed by the Governor on terms and conditions set by the Premier. This is consistent with other chief executives across the South Australian Public Service.

The bill also removes the chief executive of DECS as the employing authority for SSABSA staff and replaces him with the chief executive officer of the board. Again, I stress that these provisions are not opposed by any stakeholder, and we consulted widely in relation to this.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment. In consultation with the head of the independent schools association, we have been told that it would be a preferable outcome for it, and that is in some conflict with what the minister has said. So, for that reason we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the independent schools sector indicated to the minister that they would not be opposing this section.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also support the amendment. It is not that the independent schools would have opposed the arrangement, but this is preferable to them, so I support it on that basis.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We believe that the amendment exposes the chief executive to WorkChoices and we do not believe it is fair to do that to the chief executive and the staff.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (11)

NOES (8)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 12 and 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 9, line 33—

Delete 'on any matter relating' and substitute:

that is directly related

This is in relation to some concerns that the independent schools sector—and I think some others—have in relation to the issue of league tables. I am putting the Liberal Party's position, and my own position in moving in this area. The Liberal Party's position—and I think also the position as publicly stated by the Minister for Education—is to support the view of many in the education community, that is, to oppose the notion of league tables and information being available to allow the comparison of schools within individual sectors and also between sectors.

The concern addressed by this amendment is to tighten it up. It currently provides:

to the extent determined by the minister or the board, to collect, record and collate information on any matter relating to the participation (or non-participation) of children of compulsory education age...

The drafted change is to restrict that on any matter relating to the words 'that is directly related'. It is an endeavour to more tightly control or, at the least restrict in part, the type of information that might be collected, recorded and collated, bearing in mind that this is information determined by the minister or the board. The concern is whether a particular minister at any time may well determine and use this provision widely to then, with other provisions in the legislation, access that information and potentially release it.

The current minister says that she does not accept the notion of league tables, but there are many other Labor ministers at the moment who strongly support the notion of league tables. It is as simple as that. It endeavours to restrict, at least in part, the type of information that the minister might be able to determine should be collected.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government bill (clause 14) enables SSABSA to collect information on matters pertaining to 16 year olds, participating or not, in education and training under amendments to the Education Act 1972 passed last night. The government is confident in the current wording, that is, on any matter relating to 'participation enables the supply of cohort data required under the Education Act provisions'. The Hon. Rob Lucas's proposed amendment merely changes the wording from 'any other matter relating' to 'information that is directly related'. I indicate that we will not divide on this amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 9, lines 38 to 40—

Delete subparagraph (i) and substitute:

(i) to provide information to the minister, or to any entity within a school education sector approved by the minister for the purposes of this provision; and

This amendment requires that the information under the bill be provided to the minister or other authorities or organisations determined by the minister. The independent schools and others were concerned that 'other authorities or organisations determined by the minister' was too broad. This amendment seeks to restrict that to provide information to 'any entity within a school education sector approved by the minister'. Again, as in the case of the last amendment, it is not a super significant issue; it seeks to restrict the information available to those particular groups.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government totally disagrees. This is a very significant issue. Clause 14 in the government's bill will enable SSABSA to provide information collected on matters pertaining to 16 year olds participating (or not) in education and training to the minister or to other authorities determined by the minister. The Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment seeks to limit the number of those to whom the information can be provided, that is, only to school education sectors. The participation clauses in the compulsory education age bill relate to a number of other sectors in addition to the school sectors, including universities, TAFE and private training providers.

The amendments passed last night to the Education Act provide that a 16 year old can be undertaking an approved learning program. Those programs listed in the bill include secondary education under the Education Act, vocational education and training at TAFE, accredited training delivered by private registered training organisations registered under the Training and Skills Development Act 2003, universities, and apprenticeships and traineeships under approved contracts of training.

The honourable member's amendment would preclude all of these providers and all their sectors from legitimately being able to access information about their sector. The type of information they would be unable to access could include the total number of 16 year olds participating in their training sector. I urge honourable members to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What the minister has just said is not correct. The minister is looking at only subclause (1). I direct the minister to look at subclause (2), which provides:

to publish the information in such other manner as the board thinks fit;

All the minister is talking about here is providing information to the minister and what the minister can do with it. However, the board retains the power to publish that information in such manner as the board thinks fit. In my judgment, there would be no reason any sensible board would not publish the information the minister has just talked about. I have heard no argument from the independent schools sector or, indeed, any other sector, in relation to that. I think the concerns in the independent schools sector are that it might not just be the participation rates: it might be leaked tables, or it might be matters relating to the participation rate. There is an argument, perhaps, that attainment or performance levels relate to participation. We have addressed that with the previous amendment.

I think the minister is addressing just subclause (1) and saying that it is only the minister who will make decisions in relation to whether or not information is available to universities, TAFE or other interested bodies. Subclause (2) remains; the opposition is not amending that. That subclause provides that the board can publish the information in such manner as the board thinks fit, which is consistent with the view that we have an independent board. There is no earthly reason the board would not publish information on the sorts of things the minister was canvassing in terms of the participation rate of 16 year olds in SACE and a variety of other things like that.

I do not intend to die in a ditch on it but, certainly, the statement from the minister in relation to this amendment is, in my view, incorrect; that is, the opposition is not, through this amendment, seeking to prevent all those other interested bodies from getting information. We are saying that the board can appropriately make that decision. It has in the past, when I was the minister, and I am sure, in the future, under the current minister, it will make appropriate decisions about the release of information, whether it be in its annual report or in the various other research documents and publications that it makes available.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that this is not about publishing. This is about giving the information to the sector. If the honourable member were—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That is publishing. 'Publish' means to distribute, to make it available.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I refer the honourable member to section 15(1)(m)(i) which provides:

to provide the information to the minister, or other authorities or organisations determined by the minister;

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: If the honourable member would like me to complete my explanation. We will get some information from parliamentary counsel, but my advice is that this is not about publishing; it is about providing. The sectors want to get their information from SSABSA. It is really about information affecting that sector. It is about tracking and following each student's engagement so they can reach their full capacity, but we will confirm that legal interpretation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Having been involved on both sides of defamation actions over the years, the legal advice made available to me is that, for example, if I were to send a copy of a letter of a defamatory nature to someone else, that is interpreted broadly in terms of publishing. Publishing does not mean what we traditionally have meant, that is, produce and print a document, an annual report or whatever. Publishing means providing the information available to a group of people or a range of people. The minister's attempt to define or limit the notion of publishing, in my view, is certainly incorrect and it is certainly not consistent with the legal advice that I have had over many years in relation to defamation actions and others.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the minister could technically limit the publishing to a sector. However, if we are going to give it to the schools, why not give it to the other sectors as well, in particular the private providers, because it is about their own data. It is not about the whole cohort.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)

NOES (8)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 10, line 2—Delete ', or by the minister'

This is the important amendment. I have discussed this during the second reading, so I will not repeat the argument at length. If we look at the functions of the board, the clause states, 'to perform other functions assigned to the board under this or any other act, or by the minister'. It essentially says that the minister can just assign other functions to the board without change to the legislation or without regulation or anything. So, there would be no parliamentary oversight at all.

So, we approve the functions of the board, and then we say that the minister can add any other function that he or she deems appropriate. I am sure that the Hon. Mr Parnell, who is a great democrat and legislator, could not even support the notion that a minister would be able to just willy-nilly add a function to the functions of the SSABSA board. I am holding my breath that I might be able to attract even the Hon. Mr Parnell to this important legislative principle in relation to this issue.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment. The intention of the clause is to facilitate inclusion of functions that may not have been contemplated at the time the bill was passed, without having to return to the parliament to have the functions of the board amended. Left in its original form, the clause would not allow the minister to assign functions to the board that are outside its intended purpose. I indicate that we will not divide on this clause.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 10, after line 32—Insert:

(ca) must not, when providing information to another entity under subsection (1)(m)(i), provide information that identifies a particular school or student; and

I think the minister might be either supporting or not opposing this, and if that is the case I will not speak to it.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I indicate that the government does not oppose this.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 10, lines 36 to 38—Delete subsection (4)

This amendment deletes subsection (4) from clause 14, and that subsection provides:

The board must provide to the minister any information or report the minister reasonably requires in connection with the minister's portfolio responsibilities for education in the state.

Again, this is allied with the earlier debate. I know this minister is saying that she will not support league tables, but this is about whether or not a minister might direct SSABSA to produce league tables, and this provision will give the minister the power to require that sort of information from the board. I might also ask a question of the minister. I know as a former minister for education for four years, whilst SSABSA was clearly an independent body, I cannot recall a set of circumstances when I sought information through the department from SSABSA that was ever refused. Admittedly, I did not ask for league tables or information along those lines, but certainly we worked collaboratively with SSABSA on research, retention rates and a variety of things like that.

Can the minister indicate what information SSABSA has refused to provide to the board? Can the minister indicate an example of where the minister has said, 'I want information' and SSABSA has said, 'No, we will not provide it'? I think if the minister wants to defend this provision she should give an example where she has requested information and the board has said, 'No, we will not provide the information.'

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government believes this clause in this bill is reasonable. If the board adopts a decision which it believes is necessary for the education of young people but which includes placing an impost or burden on all schools, the minister could request information or a report about the matter. Essentially, this power is provided in case the minister does need it.

This clause does not say much about ministerial power over the board: it is about the Minister for Education in South Australia being able to fulfil the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio. This is about requesting what could reasonably be required in regard to the minister's role. This bill is about collaboration, and the board, stakeholders and the minister working for the good of all students in South Australia. I also want to bring to the attention of the chamber that we will be moving to amend the FOI act to protect comparative data. That issue was mentioned by the honourable member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is there an example where the board has refused information?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is not really about refusing; it is about the right to request it as minister, with that ministerial responsibility.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is the point I am making. I will not delay the committee, but I gave my experience as minister for four years and I had no experience of SSABSA not providing information when it was required. I have asked the government whether it can give an indication when, during the past six years under a Labor government, the board has refused information, and there is no example.

I suspect the answer is that there has not been a case. If that is the case, there is no need for this provision. As I said, there is the concern that some minister in the future may well direct the board and say, 'I want you to produce league tables and provide that report and information to me as the minister.' So, if there is no ill that needs to be fixed, there is no need for this subclause and I urge members to support my amendment, which is to delete it.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I remind members that it is not about directing, it is about the minister's reasonable responsibility.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (10)

NOES (8)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Essentially, this is a clear issue but it is a significant one. It is one of the key issues that was discussed during the second reading stage of the debate. Simply, this is the provision which gives very significant power for the minister to be able to direct the board. Yes, it is allied to the early discussions we had about the independence of the board, but this is a specific provision.

It provides that the minister can give the board a direction about any matter relevant to the performance or exercise of the function or power of the board. The only two provisos are that the minister cannot give a direction in relation to the content or accreditation of a subject or course, or in relation to the assessment or recording of results of a student's achievements or learning.

As the minister made clear in another place, it talks about the content, but the minister, if she wanted to have a subject on air warfare destroyers (because the government had spent a lot of money on that particular issue), could direct the Senior Secondary Assessment Board to say, 'We will have a course on air warfare destroyers.' She would not be able to indicate specifically what was taught under the provisions of the bill, but she would be able to direct the board in relation to that issue.

Other ministers, with their own biases, may say, 'We want a subject on the nuclear power industry,' and direct that there be a year 12 subject on nuclear power. Family First and other members raised issues about particular sex education courses and a variety of other things. There is no restriction in relation to the minister being able to direct that a particular course will have to be provided by SSABSA. The minister will not be able to direct, or at least under this provision, the specific content of it. They are the only restrictions. In any other area the minister is able to direct the board absolutely.

Clearly, this comes back to the key issue of whether or not it is an independent board or whether it is subject to ministerial control. We addressed this issue in my earlier amendments, when the committee supported the notion of an independent board not being subject to ministerial direction. I urge members to be consistent with that earlier expression of opinion.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We believe the bill as it stands is necessary because such a provision is not uncommon in other acts. Section 11 of the Training and Skills Development Act provides:

Except in relation to the formulation of advice and reports to the minister, the commission, in the performance of its function, subject to control and direction by the minister.

Section 8 of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004 provides:

(1) Subject to this section, the minister may give directions to the Teachers Registration Board when it appears to the minister to be necessary in the public interest.

Of course, ministers are accountable to the parliament and the community for their agencies' outcomes and their portfolios. The proposed limited power to direct provides a public interest and safeguard, consistent with other pieces of contemporary pieces of legislation. The proposed limited power to direct is consistent with all equivalent legislation in other states. The proposed changes were recommended by the SACE review, which recommended stronger accountability to the minister responsible for education. The SACE legislation review, Chapter 10, page 172, states:

The panel believes there should be also a strengthening of accountability. Currently, the only formal accountability requirement prescribed in the SSABSA act 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.

It is always assumed that the power to direct has a negative intent. It is also possible that the power to direct could be enabling or facilitative; it is not an evil agenda which is being pursued. For example, if something has come to the minister's attention that it is in the best interest of senior secondary education across South Australia, and it needs to happen, that direction could expedite the matter. As with this type of power in other acts, it is rarely used, but it is provided as a safeguard. This is what it is about.

New section 17(A)(i) makes any direction relevant to the performance of the board's functions and powers. This is not an open-ended power. I will say it again: this is not an open-ended power. The preclusions provide safeguards against a minister directing in relation to the content or accreditation of any subject or course. So, yes, the minister might be able to say to the board, 'Develop a course on nuclear weapons'. Although, why any minister would do so when they would be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny is questionable. But, if they did, the board would not have to accredit it. The minister could not direct anything to do with its content, and schools would not have to teach it.

Determination of curriculum is the responsibility of the Director-General of Education, the Director of Catholic Education and the heads of independent schools. It is not the responsibility of the minister of the day. However, if it were in the public interest, a minister could direct the board in relation to its functions to prepare and publish information and guidelines. For example, at the request of the schooling sectors, the minister could direct the board where to publish these if the schooling sectors were concerned they were not published widely enough. This is not an unfettered power that has nefarious intentions. It is there in the public interest should it be required, and then it would be subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny.

The committee divided on the clause:

AYES (9)

NOES (10)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 1 for the noes.

Clause thus negatived.

New clause 16A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 11, after line 28—insert:

16A—Substitution of section 18

Section 18—delete the section and substitute:

18—Staff

(1) The board may, with the approval of the minister and on such conditions as it thinks fit, engage such employees as are necessary to assist it in carrying out its functions under this act.

(2) The board may, under an arrangement established by the minister administering an administrative unit, make use of the services of staff of the administrative unit.

This is consequential.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The government does not agree but we will not divide.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (17 to 20) passed.

Schedule.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Clause 3, lines 20 to 24—delete clause 3 and substitute:

3—Staff

(1) Subject to this clause, a person who, immediately before the commencement of this clause, was employed by the employing authority under section 18 of the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia Act 1983 (before the substitution of that section by this act) will, on that commencement, be taken to be employed by the board under that act.

(2) An employment arrangement effected by subclause (1)—

(a) will be taken to provide continuity of employment without termination of the relevant employee's service; and

(b) will not affect—

(i) existing conditions of employment or existing or accrued rights to leave; or

(ii) a process commenced for variation of those conditions or rights.

This amendment is consequential.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: This is clearly consequential, but I want to make the point that these amendments disadvantage staff who will be back within the scope of WorkChoices, and I think honourable members should realise that.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with 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) (18:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

In doing so, I thank those who have worked incredibly hard to ensure that this legislation was brought before this place. In particular, I thank all the stakeholders and those people who responded to the many consultations. I extend my congratulations to the minister in another place and also to the staff who assisted with the legislation—namely, Caroline Warner, Joanna Leppard and Peter Shackleford—and the many other public servants who have made this possible.

Bill read a third time and passed.