EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (REGISTRATION AND STANDARDS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:02): I rise to speak to the second reading of the bill. I indicate that I think this is a very significant piece of legislation. One aspect of it has attracted a lot of attention publicly and in the media by way of lobbying and certainly in debate in the House of Assembly. However, I think there are many other aspects to the legislation that have slipped through, if I can use that colloquial expression, and have not attracted the consideration that should otherwise have been directed towards those significant provisions of the legislation.

It is my view—and I intend to outline that in my contribution—that I think there will be, over the coming years, very many unforeseen consequences of the legislation that we see before the council today. I do not think enough attention has been directed to some of the significant changes in it. The government, the bureaucrats in the department who advise the government, I think certainly the previous minister and, as in many areas, sadly, the now Premier have been asleep at the wheel in relation to South Australia's interest in relation to these issues. In one respect, to be fair to the former minister and to the government, I do not think, from my very limited discussions in the last 48 hours with some people, that some of the stakeholders who have signed off on the provisions of the bill really understand the potential consequences of some clauses in this legislation.

As I said, only time will tell, and it will be at some stage in the future, when there is a difficult issue and someone and, in particular, the board (and I will refer to it in a moment) looks at what powers it might have under the legislation and how it might use those powers to crack down on a particular school or education community, they will find that they have considerable powers and could wield them, in my view, in a fashion that would be potentially unfair to some of the individuals concerned and, in particular, the schools concerned, and certainly in a way different from what we have been used to in education in South Australia for many decades.

I must confess that it has been only in the 48 hours that I have appreciated the breadth and significant scope of the legislation. All the public debate has been about child care and staff to child ratios and qualifications and the like—and they are important issues, and I will address some comments to those later on in my contribution—but this legislation covers much, much more.

As I understand it, for the first time, this will register individual government schools. In South Australia, we have always had a system, through the Non-Government Schools Registration Board, where non-government schools have been registered, and that board has potentially significant powers over non-government schools. It certainly has considerable power to agree either to register or not register them in the first place. That is probably the most common example we have seen over the decades where the power has been exercised. It has been less so in relation to any ongoing monitoring or any ongoing role in relation to a deregistration of a non-government school, but there have been some examples and they have been controversial.

However, government schools, as a system, have been run by the department and the Minister for Education. Under this model, this new body, which is called the education and early childhood services registration and standards board of South Australia, will register for the first time individual government schools. I am looking forward to what the acronym for the new board will be within the education community, as the education community is a great one for acronyms.

As I will explore in my contribution today, and certainly when we eventually get to the committee stage of the bill, which I think is going to be quite complicated, and we look at the individual powers of the board and the registrar, we will see for the first time in legislation considerable powers in relation to individual government schools.

We are going to have a government schools registrar, which is the registrar for government schools, and we are going to have a scheme where complaints can be lodged by anybody if a government school does not meet certain criteria. This does not apply just to government schools, but I am looking at government schools at the moment. Cause for disciplinary action can be a whole of range of things, such as the school's registration was improperly obtained, the school has contravened a condition of its registration or the school has contravened or failed to comply with a provision of this act.

The two that I want to refer to are, firstly, the school has not provided adequate protection for the safety, health and welfare of students to whom it provides education services. There are a number of members in this house and in the other house who have lived large in the media in terms of the number of threats to health and safety of either individual students or teachers within schools. In particular, I am looking at government schools. There is a cause for disciplinary action here and a complaint can be lodged in relation to that—that is a government or a non-government school. The board can refer it to the school, but if it deems it to be serious enough it can, through the registrar, initiate its own inquiry.

Anyone who has had any familiarity with government schools will know that every week in a majority of schools there will be some complaint in relation to harassment or bullying, which is being interpreted in recent years as an occupational health and safety issue. We are going to have an issue in relation to all of those complaints. The board can refer those back to the school, in the first instance, or, with the more serious ones—and we have had a very serious example that has attracted a lot of publicity in the northern suburbs in the last 12 months—it can take charge or responsibility for investigating that.

When one looks at the powers of the board, the board also has the power to, in essence—again, I will return to this later on and certainly during the committee stage of the debate—deregister a school. I refer members to clause 62 of the bill, which is 'Inquiries by the board as to matters constituting grounds for disciplinary action', and subclause (4), which states:

If, after conducting an inquiry under this section, the Board is satisfied on the balance of probabilities—

so it is a balance of probabilities test rather than the stronger test—

that there is proper cause for disciplinary action against the respondent, the Board may, by order, do 1 or more of the following:

It can impose conditions on the registration, it can cancel any endorsement on the registration, it can suspend the respondent's registration for a period not exceeding a year, it can cancel the respondent's registration, or it can disqualify the respondent from being registered under the act. The latter two raise very interesting questions as it relates to government schools. My questions to the minister and his advisers will follow here. Hopefully we get a considered response to the second reading, but certainly I will pursue these issues during the committee stage.

I am assuming that what the government is asking us to do is to give this board the power to deregister a government school. For example, with Charles Campbell Secondary School, servicing the Campbelltown area, if the board makes a decision that there has been a breach of the code of conduct or that there has been a breach of their occupational health and safety regulations, of a serious nature (clearly not trivial), then ultimately that board can separately and independently deregister and close down Charles Campbell Secondary School.

If that is what the government is us asking us to do, it is certainly novel. As I said, it has only been in the last 48 hours, having discussed it with some people, that they have considered some of the potential ramifications of the legislation that the government is asking us to rush through the house. I know the minister in charge is very keen to get this bill through the house this afternoon, but what I intend to do is at least raise some questions, and I think we need to get some answers as to what the government's intent is in relation to this.

Is the government saying to this parliament that it wants the power of this independent panel—and it is actually a panel of the board; the board is about 13 people, but the panel can be three officers, including one lawyer—to recommend (and I assume the board would endorse), in essence, the deregistration of a school like Charles Campbell Secondary School? I am not picking Charles Campbell out for any reason other than it is just a school. It is clearly a significant school for the catchment area that it services. If it were to be deregistered for a year then there would be very, very serious implications for the students in that community. There would be very serious implications for the families needing to send their children to school.

I am sure part of the government's response, which I accept, will be, 'Hey, this would only be used in the most serious of circumstances.' However, in the past government schools have been treated as a system. There has been this view that the government is here to assist us, whether you accept that or not, and the Minister for Education is responsible (together with the well-armed army of bureaucrats in the department) for running the system and if there are problems they will be handled in a particular way.

On my reading that is being turned on its head in this legislation, and we are going to have this independent body. That is why I am seeking advice, because I have only come to the realisation in the last 48 hours of some of the potential implications of the bill. It would appear on the surface that that is, indeed, possible. Certainly, it is going to be possible for a non-government school; that is, this board has the power, and certainly on my recollection the old or the existing Non-Government Schools Registration Board would have that power anyway.

That sort of debate tends to occur in relation to small or potentially controversial schools. In other states there have been arguments about religious-based schools such as Islamic schools or schools that the Brethren has run in other states. Various sections of the media and the community have sometimes sought to target schools being run by the Brethren. Those types of schools tend to be the ones that in the past have attracted the attention of registration bodies—the equivalent of our Non-Government Schools Registration Board. We have at least been exposed to that particular argument.

However, it appears, at least on the surface of this bill, that this is now being opened up for all schools in South Australia. If that is the case it is well worth this parliament placing on the record that that is the government's policy position. It has endorsed that with its eyes wide open and it accepts that that is the potential consequence of the legislation that we are being asked to support.

It becomes even hairier. I was told today when I put the question to the minister that the functions of this board are to regulate the provision of education and early childhood services, and when you look at 'education services', as you would expect, it is the broadest possible definition. It says 'also to carry out other functions assigned to the board under this or any other act, or by the minister'.

I have had this argument with parliamentary counsel and the government before. Personally, I find it abhorrent to have this parliament endorse the functions of a board which allows the minister to unilaterally change the functions of the board without having to take anything to parliament or to seek any approval, and that is what we are doing here.

Parliamentary counsel and the government will argue, 'This has been done before.' Yes, it has, and sooner or later, hopefully at some stage, we might address whether or not as a parliament we are prepared to continue to endorse a situation where we say, 'Here are the functions of the board and, by the way, it's also any other function that the minister of the day happens to want to assign to it.' It would appear to be an abrogation of the responsibility of the parliament, particularly a board with the sort of powers that I have just outlined, and there are many others that I will outline in my contribution during the committee stage. It has enormous powers and we are, in essence, saying that the minister of the day can assign whatever other functions he or she might deem appropriate.

The other provision under the functions of the board is that 'the board has to prepare or endorse codes of conduct'. Earlier I outlined what was a cause for disciplinary action. There is a cause for disciplinary action if you contravene or fail to comply with the code of conduct applying to the school. I asked someone today, 'Okay, where can I see these codes of conduct—what are they?' The answer was, 'Well, none of us has seen those codes of conduct yet; we don't know what these codes of conduct are.' They know broadly what they are intended to be, but they do not know the details of the codes of conduct.

We are about to sign off on giving the board the power to, in essence, institute disciplinary action, including closure and deregistration, for a breach of a code of conduct when we do not know what the code of conduct for the various schools might happen to be. The other provision of clause 29(2) is as follows:

A code of conduct prepared or endorsed by the Board cannot come into operation except with the written approval of—

(a) the Minister; and—

I assume the current minister will do whatever the bureaucrats tell her to do—

(b) a majority of the peak bodies prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this subsection.

The obvious question to that is: who are these peak bodies? I asked that question today—and it is a question I put to the minister for his response at the second reading. The answer, we were told today, was: 'Well, nobody knows; we haven't been told yet who the peak bodies are.' The answer is that they will be prescribed by the regulation.

Will the peak bodies be different peak bodies for the government and the non-government schools? I suspect not. The way this is drafted it looks like it might be a nominated group of peak bodies. Does that include the AEU and does it include any and/or all of the various principals associations, government and non-government? The Hon. Ann Bressington will chuckle when I raise this: which parent groups does it include? Does it include SAASSO? Does it include SASPAC? Does it include the Federation of Catholic School Parents? Does it include the equivalent body within the independent schools in South Australia? What are the other stakeholder groups or peak bodies that will be prescribed by the regulation, because it will be critical?

This code of conduct needs the written approval of the majority of those particular bodies. My argument to the non-government schools would be: let's say that if the peak bodies just happen to be the AEU, a government school parent body and a government school principals' association and one or two non-government organisations, so that the non-government schools are in a minority, then are the non-government schools happy to accept that a majority view of the government school bodies, which may advantage the operations of government schools as opposed to non-government schools, will go into the code of conduct?

The minister's response will be that the Catholics and independent schools have urged support for the legislation without amendment. On the surface that is not an unreasonable response. My concern is that I do not believe that many within the non-government school sector have looked at the detail of the legislation and the potential implications of the legislation for their sector. I suspect that many in the government school sector similarly have not looked at the details of the legislation and the potential impact on government schools and government services.

As I said at the outset, it may well be that, for a period of time, a lot of these powers on the surface are not exercised. They remain there, they are extraordinary and could be applied, but in the end may not be applied. Ultimately, at some stage in the future, these powers, in my view, will be used. There will be something, a group, a non-government school group, a particular group of individuals or a particular school that is going to be targeted, and that will be when we understand the full implications of what we are doing at the moment in this particular parliament in relation to the legislation.

This is one of the problems with national legislation. I will not waste time today in this debate talking about national versus state, in terms of we in the states (particularly the smaller states) being overrun by the Eastern States in particular. My views on that are known. The concern I want to highlight is the problem you have when you rush off to these COAG meetings if you do not have an assiduous minister, and if you do not have a department charged with the intellect and capacity to argue passionately and prepared to stand up against the forces of the Eastern States, and Canberra in particular, because it is just so overwhelming.

It is a bit like this debate that we are going to have about work health and safety laws. Everyone wants harmonisation. Who is prepared to argue against harmonised laws? Big business wants it and everyone else says they want it. The problem is that when you look at the detail, all of a sudden you have people coming out of the woodwork saying, 'Hey, we didn't realise. Yes, it was a great thing.'

I am not going to debate that now, but it is the same thing in relation to this. On the surface of it, who is going to argue against, 'Well, if you have a qualification you should be able to move between the states and things like that'? No-one is going to argue about that general principle. To the extent that you can achieve that: terrific.

One of the problems you have when you go along to these COAG meetings is that everything sweeps over you in relation to the debates and the arguments. It is a bit like the national curriculum argument, where it was just swept over the former South Australian ministers (two of them). Some of the issues are coming home to roost now and some will come home to roost in the future, I am sure. This legislation, in my very strong view, is much the same; that is, not enough attention has been given to the potential implications of it by our state ministers, by the bureaucrats who advise the ministers and also by some within the non-government sector who provide advice to governments on these particular issues.

At page 21 of the bill, clause 4—it is not referred to in the bill but it is referred to in the explanation of clauses—it states that one of the regulated services in relation to the care of children will include babysitting services. My question to the minister is: can the minister indicate exactly what sort of babysitting services are going to be regulated by this legislation? All of us who have had children and had them cared for have had them cared for by a range of people, from relatives to young and old people who do it for a payment in a sort of semi-professional way.

In my case, with my children, I had an older woman who made almost a living out of the provision of babysitting (or childminding) services in the home, probably not (in those days) constructed on a business model because it was pre GST and ABNs and all that sort of stuff. These days everyone seems to have one of those, so I am assuming that there will be people these days providing those sorts of services who, for a variety of reasons, do structure themselves in that particular way. So, not just the professional agencies operating out of an office somewhere providing babysitting services. I think the minister needs to indicate to us the type of babysitting services the government is intending to regulate and the extent of the regulatory powers that will apply to the babysitting services.

When we get to the committee stage, we will look at the power of officers to implement this act. They have considerable powers to enter premises, and a variety of other powers. One could argue that, in relation to a commercial operation in a commercial building somewhere, you need the power to go in and seize documents and the like, and we will debate that during the committee stage.

This government is saying that it is going to apply these regulatory powers to services such as babysitting services. I think the government needs to outline to us not only exactly the type of babysitting service that it says it is going to regulate, but, in particular, which of the considerable powers within the act can be applied to that particular babysitting service arrangement. Is there some provision somewhere which limits the extent of the considerable powers that officers are given under the legislation?

On almost every second page of the draft bill, one can see those sorts of obvious questions popping out. The definition of volunteer members, for example, is something I intend to pursue for the governing authority of a school. In particular, what, if anything, is the difference in terms of the legal capacity to get at a volunteer member of a governing council, and in what circumstances under this bill are we authorising the government to get at a volunteer member of a governing council? Is it different from the current circumstances that apply to volunteers sitting on a governing school council? It appears that it might be, but I seek the answer from the minister. I ask him to indicate publicly whether there is a greater capacity under this legislation to hold liable a volunteer member of a governing council for breaches of, for example, occupational health and safety issues or codes of conduct or a variety of other things like that—the causes for disciplinary action which I highlighted earlier.

There are other provisions as well where potentially a volunteer member of a governing council might be held liable. I think that is important, because our schools—government and non-government—are built on the back of parents generally and volunteers who willingly contribute to governing councils and in a variety of other ways in our schools. If through this legislation the government is widening the scope of circumstances that a volunteer member of a governing council can be held liable, and there is a wider power and greater penalties, I think the government should place on the record exactly what the changes are and the reasons why it supports those particular changes being incorporated into the legislation.

As I said, in relation to the operations of schools, there are many questions that I intend to pursue during the committee stage, but I think they are probably the main ones that I want to put on record at this stage.

I want to now address some comments to what has been the most publicly controversial aspect of the legislation in terms of media coverage and lobbying, and that has been, in essence, the issue of child care—the staffing ratios and the qualifications, etc. I have to say at the outset that I think some members in this council and in the other house have adopted the view that any reduction in staff-to-child ratios within child care is obviously a good thing. The bottom line is that, if we could afford it, a 1:1 staff per individual child ratio in every childcare centre in the state would be fantastic; it would be wonderful. Then if it were 1:2—obviously we are on a continuum here. If you can get 1:1—well, fantastic; it almost replicates perhaps what might occur in the home, or might have occurred in the home in the past (although families tended to be bigger then).

It is difficult to argue against that, but it is also difficult to argue against the fact that at some stage you know you cannot afford one-to-one and you know you cannot afford one-to-two. At some stage you have to draw the line in terms of what is actually affordable. What can we as a community, and what can the individuals who do not get any assistance, afford in terms of childcare costs? Ultimately, we in the parliament and in government are being asked to make a judgement.

I can understand the view of some who say, 'Hey, anything that reduces it is terrific,' but generally they tend to be the ones who are not paying the bills for the cost of child care. The people who actually have to make the difficult judgements are the parents, the mums and dads or the single parents, who have to front up every week at a childcare centre and pay the bill.

With all the lobbying we have been receiving, the current averages in South Australia (I do not know about the other states) are clearly in the order of $70 or $80—I have seen mid $80s in some cases—per child per day for child care. The industry says that it would potentially be a $13 to $22 per child increase, and the federal minister and the state minister say, 'No, that's wrong; it's only $8.60 or $8.50 a day.' What sort of world do these ministers live in? 'It's only $8' in relation to the cost of child care. To the family who does not qualify for assistance but is still struggling in terms of making ends meet and making the difficult decision as to whether they can afford child care or not, every $8.50 per child extra cost is a significant impost.

In the end the cost will probably end up being somewhere between what the ministers claim in terms of $8 and what the industry claims in terms of between $13 and $22, but it will still be a considerable increased cost for families, and if you have a couple of children then the cost is doubled. I am sure all members will agree that there are already some families that just cannot afford child care. They cannot afford child care under the current arrangements, and those families will not be able to afford child care under the new arrangements, and there will be another group that will not be able to afford child care as well. It is fine to say that of course it is better to have more and higher qualified staff, but if ultimately you are driving more and more families away from affordable child care, then what have you achieved?

We have seen the debate in relation to nursing and hospitals, and we are starting to see a kickback now in some other states already. From the industry there is this inevitable pressure for upgrading all the time the qualifications of the staff who are involved, and the requirements for the qualification. According to leaked cabinet documents, in Victoria they are starting to discuss the unaffordability of the health system, and they are looking at whether or not they can introduce a new system of, in essence, untrained helpers within hospitals rather than the system of everyone being a tertiary-trained nurse that we have moved to over the last 20 years or so.

Again, the argument was overwhelming over the past 20 or 30 years. There was a group who said, 'Hey, there is a role for the non-tertiary-trained nurse within hospitals,' but overwhelmingly governments, bureaucrats and others moved away from that, and we now have a system where, in essence, it is virtually unaffordable.

Now we have the same argument, the same debate going on, in relation to child care. For the last 20 years there have been those within the professional associations, the bureaucracies and the government who continue to say, 'We have to continue to upgrade the skill levels for all the staff within childcare centres.' There is no argument from me in relation to the argument which was agreed to 10 or 20 years ago about having trained staff with oversight of childcare centres. I have to say that my personal view is—and I do not say that it is my party's view—that there continues to remain a role in terms of trying to keep affordable child care, that whilst you have the professionally trained staff within childcare centres managing the education and learning programs of centres, there ought to be, if you want to achieve affordability, a role for much lower qualified staff, very basic qualified staff in relation to doing a lot of the work within our childcare centres.

I want to give an example of the point that I am making. I was approached in the street last week by a gentleman whose wife was working permanent part-time in a childcare centre. I know the family. They have successfully raised two children. The mother has terrific parenting skills in terms of having raised her own children. As her children grew older and left home she went back to work and the job that she has filled over a period of years (and filled successfully) was in the local childcare centre. She did not hold a diploma, she was not early childhood trained; she was a successful parent with good parenting skills. She worked under the direction of a professionally trained director at the childcare centre. As from January next year, with these changes, she is no longer going to have a job. The director has said to her, 'Look, under the arrangements that are coming in you don't have the qualifications,' so she is no longer going to be employed at that centre.

Part of this argument is going to be—and I think some members referred to this fact—are we going to be able to churn out enough TAFE trained people, etc., into the future? I think that is going to be a challenge. To me, it just seems a shame for someone with the capacity to look after young children, babies and toddlers successfully—and give me a break, we have had four children so we have limited experience in terms of raising children.

I hear all the theories about education and learning and that you have to do this, that and whatever else, but a large part of looking after young children between nought and two and nought and three is actually just looking after them. There is not a huge amount in every day of the week going on in relation to education and learning. It is comforting them when they are crying. As their mum and dad leave in the morning and they are missing them, it is being able to soothe them and stop them from crying; it is being able to help them to eat; it is being able to help them to socialise; and it is comforting them when they fall over—all of those sort of parenting skills.

I have to say that personally—and again this is my personal view—particularly in relation to those people, as long as there is trained oversight of staff within the centre, I would much rather my children have a parent who actually has parenting skills and who has coped successfully. If I was given the choice of a parent with that sort of background or a younger person who has had no experience at all in parenting and comforting young children when they are upset, injured, tired, grumpy or grizzly, I know who I personally would have been happier with and would still be happy with in relation to my own children. I hasten to say that I accept that overall you have to have someone with the appropriate training to run the centres and to provide guidance to the lower-trained staff within those centres.

However, the inexorable path we are being forced to follow by legislation like this and others, which is being driven by ministers and bureaucrats and others, is to head down a path that is being outlined in this legislation on the basis that anything that reduces numbers and increases the skills is obviously better, whilst at the same time just throwing out the door this whole argument about who can actually afford the care that is being provided.

What is wrong with a system that actually leaves some choice within it, a system that says, 'Okay, here is the minimum level of standard in terms of the ratios and the quality of staff, etc., which gives you a reasonable level of care you can be comfortable with in terms of your own children,' and you can be charged for that? Then, if you want to pay more and get a higher level of care—a gold-plated service, for that matter—you can pay more, and the centres and services provide that.

In essence, that is what we have in our school system. We have a standard level of educational provision, which is provided through either government schools or low-fee non-government schools. Then, if you want to spend a fortune on a gold-plated service, you have a range of non-government options that you can go to if that is what you want. But we are not going down that path. I understand that there are federal funding issues that relate to this as well as decisions of the state.

But within child care, we are not going down that path at all. We are, in essence, gold-plating the service in every centre everywhere and saying, 'If you can't afford it, too bad.' Everybody is going to say—I have heard the argument already—'You are against having a gold-plated service for everyone.' If we could afford a gold-plated service for everyone and everyone could afford it, that is fantastic; I am all for it. However, the problem with the 'Let's have a gold-plated service for everyone,' is that a lot of people already cannot afford it and a lot more people will not be able to afford it under the proposed arrangements, and that is a question the government has no response to. In essence, the government says, 'Well, so be it.'

Then there is the other point I would make in relation to the staffing ratios issue, and we are having this debate about 1:5, 1:10, etc., in relation to years through to age five. People say, 'Well, I wouldn't want to cope with 1:5 at this particular age or 1:10 at this particular age,' or whatever it is, and the ratios we are talking about is one staff member per 10 children for that age group of three through to five. The reality is that, as soon as you turn five, you end up in a school. As soon as you turn five, your staff ratio is one staff member per around about 20 five year olds.

In the most disadvantaged schools in South Australia, I understand that the ratio may well be around 1:18. In the most advantaged schools, I understand the ratio might be one staff member to the low 20s. If you go to some non-government schools, let me assure you, for five year olds the staff ratio may well be 1: 25 or maybe up to 1:30 in certain circumstances. We are delivering and paying for a service that is arguing the toss about a 1:5 ratio and a 1:10 ratio and that we have to keep them at that particular level, yet two months later they move out of a 1:10 arrangement to where it might be 1:20-odd. As I said, in some non-government schools it might be in the mid to high 20s in terms of the teacher-student ratio within those schools.

I have heard the response, 'Well, what we ought to do is reduce the teacher-student ratio in the junior primary to 1:12 or 1:15.' Again, terrific, but someone has to pay for it, and we are already struggling to pay for the school system and the education system, as we are struggling to pay for the health and hospital system as well. The argument about ratios in schools, as with the argument in relation to the degree of qualification within childcare centres, is a never-ending argument. In relation to the qualifications, I have already expressed my views on that argument, and we can explore a little more of that during the committee stage of the debate as well.

I indicate that I support the second reading of the bill, but there is much that needs to be explored in the committee stage. I have read press reports that the minister has conceded that she has listened to the concerns (according to The Advertiser on 5 November) and the government is going to give the childcare industry four more years to meet one of the key aspects of national early childhood reforms. She said that centres would now have until 2020 to fully meet the requirement to halve the ratio of children aged 24 to 36 months to a staff member from 10:5, and centres will need to achieve a ratio of one staff member to eight children in that age bracket from 2016.

My question to the minister is: where are the government's amendments to achieve this? As I said earlier, the minister is intent on trying to get early passage of this bill, but we certainly need to see the government's amendments, because the minister has made this commitment to the industry and to the public through the media. I am assuming she is going to move amendments to achieve that. My question to the minister is: when will see the amendments from the minister to meet the particular commitments that she has given?

In my view anyway, these delays just forestall what I think is bad policy, which will drive affordable child care out of the hands of more and more families. As I understand it, industry members—and they can answer for themselves—(or at least some of them) have indicated that they are prepared to support those particular changes or proposed amendments from the government. Certainly from our viewpoint, we need to see the details of those amendments so that we can look at them during the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (17:53): I rise to conclude the second reading stage of this debate and I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate so far. I also thank those who have indicated their support for this bill. I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his invitation to respond to his questions now, this evening, but with his indulgence I would prefer to do that during the committee stage.

I concur with the Hon. Mr Lucas when he said that this is a very significant piece of legislation. It represents significant reform for South Australia by amending both the Children's Services Act 1985 and the Education Act 1972 to lift the quality and standards of care and education in South Australia, and the government welcomed the opposition's support of this bill in the other place.

This bill has been an ambitious project; one that has been the culmination of much work and of an extensive consultation process with the education and early childhood sector over the past three years. It has been the subject of final intensive targeted consultation during the first half of this year, which has resulted in a number of improvements based on detailed contributions from stakeholders, particularly those from the independent and Catholic schooling sectors, early childhood service providers, Department for Education and Child Development, and the Non-Government Schools Registration Board, all of whom support the changes to our South Australian legislative framework that will be delivered by this bill. Indeed, there has been near universal support for the bill.

The bill creates a single act to regulate all education and early childhood services for children from birth to the end of schooling to best underpin South Australia's integrated service delivery approach. The bill ensures that providers who offer a range of services will be part of a streamlined and consistent regulatory approach, with a single body to relate to for any service they provide which is formally regulated, noting that different standards and requirements will apply to different service types, a change strongly supported during public sector consultation in South Australia.

It also maintains the state regulation of early childhood services which are not part of the new national system, while streamlining and improving the administration of the regulation of these services. This bill establishes a single streamlined regulatory system in South Australia overseen by a single regulatory board whose membership includes sector representation which removes the department's role as both regulator and provider of services, a change long lobbied for and strongly supported during public and sector consultation in South Australia.

Provision of the right foundation for children and young people has always been a priority for those on this side of the house, and I think for most of us here. There is a substantial body of Australian and international evidence that clearly demonstrates the importance of the early years and the role that high-quality care and education services can have on a child's brain development and on their future intellectual and social potential. To use the words of the member for Unley in the other place:

I believe that no longer can we sit back and say that early childhood centres are simply about minding children. There is an opportunity to invest in the children's future from the very early stages.

This is why so much of the sector supports this bill, because those who work with children know how important the early years are in their development. They know that the quality of care provided to children is extremely important. They know that families, together with the wider community, want the best for their children.

There has been some criticism of this bill in terms of the costs that these reforms will bring about. I remind the council that an independent analysis of the costs associated with improving quality has been undertaken. I am advised that Deloitte Access Economics has undertaken a thorough review of the cost implications of these reforms as part of the regulatory impact process. The report of their findings is publicly available as published in the Council of Australian Governments' Decision Regulatory Impact Statement released in December 2009.

This independent analysis determined that there would be increased costs associated with improving the quality of care and education provided to children, but clearly once the Australian government's childcare benefit and childcare tax rebate subsidies are taken into consideration, these reforms will have a relatively small impact on the costs of child care, while helping to dramatically improve the quality of child care.

It is essential that members understand that this bill does not in itself bring in the new standards for early years which will be regulated at the national level. The proposed standards which some in this private childcare sector are worried about are not contained within this bill. They are in the draft national regulations.

There is nothing in the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill 2011 that will drive up fees or that should force the closure of centres. This is a national system cooperatively entered into by all states and territories, and the Australian government. As committed to by South Australia and all jurisdictions, the standards which will apply to nationally regulated education and care services (the overwhelming majority of which are already in South Australia's current childcare regulations) will be contained in the draft national regulations which under this bill will come into operation when they are made at a national level.

These national regulations will contain all the detail that all service providers nationally will work to. These national regulations contain specific chapters for each state and territory that will enable the move from the current requirements to full implementation of a consistent national standard by 2020. Any matters concerning transitional arrangements for South Australian or other jurisdictions' standards and the time frame for when requirements must be met during the transition period will be appropriately detailed in the national regulations.

It would be inappropriate for individual jurisdictions to detail or make reference to regulatory or operational matters in an application act. The draft national standards provide for progressive managed change between 2012 and 2020. The new national quality system agreed by COAG provides for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness and impact of the implementation of the changes, with a formal review of the national quality framework, including the national law and regulations, scheduled for 2014.

The concerns about implementation time lines, which some sections of the private childcare sector have, are not contained within this bill. The national regulations, when made, will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and will be implemented with the support of the parliament. The early childhood sector understands that any changes will be implemented progressively, with specific transitional provisions proposed in the national regulations to support existing services as they move into the new system over the next eight years.

The draft national regulations contain many general transitional provisions that will support existing services as they move towards full implementation of any new standards in 2020. South Australia, as with other jurisdictions, has specific transitional provisions included in the draft national regulations, which pushed back the time frame for introduction of specific standards that might be of concern to providers. The national law and draft regulations also enable services to apply for an exemption if they are unable to meet a particular standard. This maintains the current arrangements under the existing South Australian regulations.

I am advised that the Minister for Education and Child Development recently met with members of the childcare sector to better understand their concerns about the implementation of the national standards. The Weatherill government will continue to work with the childcare sector to address any concerns about the draft national regulations. The Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill 2011 will give the sector and the broader South Australian community a better, cohesive regulatory system in this state that is in the best interests of our children.

The new system, which will be implemented by the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill 2011 will also provide the legal framework under which registration and approval standards for all services can be developed. This framework has been developed following extensive consultation with the education and care sectors. This bill is also about more than just the early years. It is also about providing a legislative framework that supports the effective and efficient delivery of all services to maximise benefits for students across the schooling sectors. It provides for the establishment of a new education and early childhood services registration and standards board to achieve a single regulatory body for all education and care services in South Australia, which will assume the regulatory responsibility of the Non-Government Schools Registration Board, which will act as a single regulatory authority for all services, regardless of which standard or requirements they must meet.

The bill ensures that the new regulatory system managed by the independent board will replace the myriad of regulatory systems under which providers of education and early childhood services currently operate. Further, the bill's deeming provisions will support a seamless transition for providers and users of schools and early childhood services, where they will be taken to be automatically approved or registered. The bill will enable providers, services and individuals who work in them to move into the new system easily, without increasing the administrative burden.

I believe that the bill this council is considering today is a sound piece of legislation that should be supported unamended. The bill has benefited greatly, thanks to all those in the education and early childhood sector who provided feedback in the development of this legislation. The education and early childhood sectors have demonstrated their ongoing commitment in shaping this legislation and bringing these much needed reforms to fruition. I commend the bill to all members, who can be confident that it is the result of meaningful consultation and is in the best interests of our state and, most importantly, our children, their families and those who provide services to them.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think it would be prudent for us to report progress. There has been considerable discussion amongst various parts of the sector in the last 48 business hours, and I think it would be beneficial for everybody if we could all go away, particularly the crossbenches, and consider any potential amendments to the bill in the cold, hard light of not being pressed by parliamentary sittings.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.