Motions

Safe Schools Program

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:22): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments have removed funding for the so-called 'Safe Schools' program;

2. Notes that the so-called 'Safe Schools' program falls short of its intended anti-bulling stance; and

3. Calls on the government to scrap all so-called 'Safe Schools' funding in South Australia.

The Australian Conservatives congratulate the New South Wales and Tasmanian governments on removing this funding. I could speak on this for hours, but I will just summarise by saying I note that there are three speakers, and I appreciate them speaking to this motion. Another bill may come in to this house if we sit the optional week and I can further explore this issue.

There is a broad range of views on the Safe Schools program. If it is specifically about safe schools then obviously we would not have a problem about that, but if it is actually code for getting involved in other issues then we do not believe that a lot of families in this state want that. We saw a situation today in the federal parliament where there was not one amendment on legislation in the Senate. Any of us who are re-elected at the next election will start to see the consequences of no amendments on that over our next eight-year period—it will not need more than eight years to see those consequences.

Given that we are going into new dynamics, I believe we need to have a proper and thorough debate on the Safe Schools program and that there should be transparency around it, that parents should understand what it is really about and that the best thing at the moment would be for this government to actually say, 'No more Safe Schools.' I will put on the public record that I understand there are members of the Labor Party who totally agree with me. In fact, they have told me so.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Name them.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, I am not going to because I respect their confidentiality, but I will say that what they did say to me was that the Premier will not budge and that they have tried to move Safe Schools program arguments in the caucus, but the Premier has said it is a no-go zone while he is Premier. The Premier does not own the parliament and there may be another leader of the Labor Party at some point in time between 2018—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I would vote for you. Two could go in the lower house at once.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Mr Brokenshire is being elongated by interjections.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The point is that there may be a change of leader at some point in time—win, lose or draw. Then, if it is the Hon. Mr Malinauskas, maybe those members of the Labor Party who do not like the Safe Schools program—and there are several who do not—might be able to apply a little more influence, and I will nurture that influence.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can I say in the meantime, I do not like the Safe Schools program. Tens of thousands of South Australian families do not like the Safe Schools program and so my responsibility right at this point in time is to move this motion. I commend the motion to the house and I look forward to the debate in the next few moments.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (21:27): I look forward to one day the Hon. Mr Brokenshire coming in with a list of people he has spoken to, but he is not going to show it to anyone. That has never happened in the history of democracies, ever.

A supportive and inclusive school environment is obviously critical to the students of South Australia and it is critical because it is critical to their wellbeing and their educational outcomes. Both those things need to be evenly balanced. It is a right for all young people to have both those things. If students do not feel safe at school, I think it is a fairly safe conclusion to draw that their learning is thus compromised.

beyondblue research has shown that 61 per cent of non-heterosexual people reported experiencing verbal abuse and 18 per cent reported physical abuse. LGBTI young people had been found to experience higher rates of mental health problems, greater barriers to accessing specialist mental healthcare services, are twice as likely to attempt suicide and more likely to engage in self-harm. All of this ultimately has flow-on effects in cost to government services, such as health, housing or employment.

Schools and preschools have responsibilities for supporting all children and young people's equal opportunities to optimum learning and wellbeing outcomes. That is regardless of their sexual orientation, intersex status or gender identity in accordance with the legislative requirements of the Equal Opportunity Act, the Statutes Amendment (Gender Identity and Equity) Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

The revised Department for Education and Child Development Safe Schools Anti-bullying Initiative is based on the nine guiding principles of the National Safe Schools Framework. This framework was developed in 2003 and a revised framework was endorsed by all ministers for education in December 2010. These guiding principles emphasise the importance of student safety and wellbeing for effective learning in all school settings.

The Premier and the Hon. Susan Close, Minister for Education and Child Development, released the Public Education Action Plan on 22 October 2017, which states that the new anti-bullying strategy will be developed in 2018. The Safe Schools Anti-bullying Initiative will become part of this new strategy.

In relation to what the other states are doing, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire may be entertained to know that the Australian Capital Territory education department and the Victorian education department have continued with state-funded safe school programs.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Do you have a list on them, too?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: Perhaps you talk to them, too. I can also confirm that at the conclusion of the commonwealth funding for the Safe Schools Coalition in June 2017, the program ceased operating in Tasmania. However, the Tasmanian Department of Education supports sexual and gender diverse young people through its policy, which is the Guidelines for Supporting Sexual and Gender Diversity in Schools and Colleges, its Respectful Schools and Workplaces Framework and through community grants to enable schools to address all forms of bullying.

Working It Out, a non-government organisation that has been providing support to Tasmanian schools for several years to develop inclusive environments for sexual and gender diverse young people, was also a community grant recipient. In regard to the motion as read out by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—and we were almost graced with him simply stopping there which I think might have been beneficial for debate—I am unclear what is meant by 'falling short of its intended anti-bullying stance'. I am unsure of that because that was not spoken to and no data has been provided to back up that statement.

I would also like to clarify that the revised Safe Schools Anti-bullying Initiative has a focus on strife training. The initiative provides staff with the skills and confidence to talk with students about mutual respect and understanding towards each other and to tackle homophobic, transphobic and biphobic bullying in schools. The state government has made a three-year commitment to fund the Safe Schools Anti-bullying Initiative and has established a service agreement with SHine SA to implement staff professional development training across the state.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: I am tempted to go on, but I will not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:32): I rise, unsurprisingly, to oppose what passes for a motion. I am not sure what the Safe Schools program is. I assume the member is referring to the Safe Schools program as opposed to the so-called safe schools program. Perhaps he has some information that he did not share with us because he certainly did not have any information to support his contention in this motion that the Safe Schools program in South Australia have its funding ceased in his presentation earlier.

I note that he intimated that, while Premier Jay Weatherill was very supportive of the Safe Schools program in this state, he believes that the potential future premier, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, is not. I invite the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, Minister for Health, to make a personal statement if he feels that he has been slighted by the member. I do not know what the minister's view on the Safe Schools program is, but certainly it has been put on the record tonight by a member of this council that the minister does not support Safe Schools. I am sure that members of the community would appreciate that.

I also note that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire reflected upon the vote that passed through the Senate overwhelmingly today. Indeed, he bemoaned the lack of amendments to the marriage equality vote which has finally passed a house of parliament in this country at a federal level. It is a wonderful thing to reflect on. I look forward to the debate that sees marriage equality made law in this country, because with issues like that, when we remove the discrimination that we currently have in laws that occur to people who are transgender or same-sex attracted or queer, then we will actually remove the need for a program like the Safe Schools program because we will not have a heteronormative society.

Society will see people not as different but as human beings. That is the key here, and the more we remove that discrimination and the more we create that equality the less we will need Safe Schools programs. That is the only way the Greens will support the removal of a safe schools program: when we remove the discrimination and the inequality that causes the bullying.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:35): I rise to speak on behalf of Liberal members and I am indebted to the shadow minister for education, the member for Morialta, for providing us with guidance in terms of how we might address the motion. The member for Morialta points out that during the recent budget estimates committees he established, from answers to questions put to minister Close, that there is an existing contract for the current program at a budget of $250,000 a year for the next three years.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Who is the contract with?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The project is being delivered by SHine SA. The member for Morialta advises that that contract expires at the end of that three-year period. Minister Close said words to the effect that the SA Safe Schools program in her view is not really the same as in other states, that there is no curriculum delivery, for example, but it is mainly teacher training and advice. The member for Morialta advises that the original Safe Schools program has been discredited and that the materials that caused such offence when they were uncovered have largely been removed as a result of the review that was undertaken by the federal Liberal government.

The South Australian Safe Schools program may be less offensive than what was distributed previously and interstate but, even so, the South Australian Liberal Party favours an antibullying approach that will not just support LGBTIQ-identifying children but all children who are vulnerable to bullying. The member for Morialta notes that the New South Wales government in particular has developed what seems to be an excellent set of evidence-based resources for school communities to identify, prevent or respond to bullying. The member for Morialta advises that this sort of approach is the sort of approach that he, if he is in the fortunate position of being minister for education, would favour under a South Australian Liberal government.

In the words of the member for Morialta, I hasten to add that, whilst he is indicating the Liberal Party's support for the motion that is there, it is also support for a wider antibullying program modelled on the New South Wales Liberal government model which, as I said, he indicates includes an excellent set of evidence-based resources for school communities to identify, prevent or respond to bullying.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (21:38): I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. I personally thank the Hon. Mr Justin Hanson because he raised something that I had not considered. He confirmed that this is actually not really a Safe Schools program at all but that this is the start of what will be mandatory gender fluidity programs in schools as a result of where we are heading federally.

I did not bring up anything about lesbians and gays—I do not actually personally like calling anyone a queer but that is part of the LGBTIQ or whatever it is, so it is not my naming. The fact of the matter is that this Safe Schools program is a disguise and a con for manipulating young people's minds on gender fluidity and other things. If they were serious about safe schools, it would be, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, absolutely focused on protecting everyone and on having a cool, calm and collected environment in society and in schools.

When I went to school, there were kids who were academically quite intelligent and they were ridiculed, bullied and harassed because they were the brains of the school. There were those of us who preferred to get on a tractor at Urrbrae and go and do other farm work. We were just the farm kids. I did not take offence at that, but there was that. There were the nerds and the kids who were not that intelligent at school who were bullied and harassed.

There were the overweight ones and the skinny ones. Bullying took all forms. There were kids who had glasses. There was so much bullying and harassment right across the board. There was also probably more bullying because we came from across South Australia. Urrbrae Agricultural High School was a great school, but we came from across South Australia. Back in those days it was not a dual sex school; it was just a boys agricultural college. I have seen all forms of harassment.

The government, whether Labor or Liberal, should put something up on the website that is actually transparent, available to the parents who are ultimately responsible for their children, because the teachers are not. I have a daughter who is a teacher, but I do not want her being given privileges over and above the parents of the children because, at the end of the day, the parents of the children have the right and the responsibility to protect, enhance, develop and grow the wellbeing of their children.

I want to put on the public record, because it was a very clever bit of speech by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks when she mentioned a certain health minister—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: You mentioned him.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, I did not. I said 'future leader, future Premier'. There could be two or three, depending on what happens.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: You did actually say it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I named him?

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Yes, you did.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: If I named him—and we will see what the independent arbiter and umpire, Hansard, produces.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: I think you are going to be disappointed.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Alright. I do not believe that I did, but if I did—I did; okay. Well, I categorically withdraw that because, to put it on the public record, I have never spoken to the health minister about the Safe Schools program that I can recollect, but I have spoken to other Labor members.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Many Labor members. I do not know whether or not some members are asleep in the Labor caucus when things happen, but let me tell you this: there is not 100 per cent agreement in the Labor caucus. This is what I was alluding to, so I apologise to that particular member and the minister. I do not know whether he will become the premier or not. What I did say I stand by is that this current Premier does strongly support the existing Safe Schools program. Of course, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, SHine SA—which I have no confidence in—has been awarded a lot of money. I had better double-check everything tonight: was it $250,000?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Two-fifty.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Two-fifty; we got that right at least. They have been awarded $250,000 to develop this left-wing policy, but not everybody in South Australia is actually left wing. Many people come to us and say that they are not happy with this program. If it is broadened, if it becomes totally inclusive to all and if it teaches total tolerance to everyone, whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, gender fluid, skinny, fat, glasses, or whatever, then we are happy. We are happy with that because that is representing all people, but if it is delving into putting question marks into young people's minds without the approval of their parents then we will never support that.

With those words, and again apologising if I named that minister, because I have never talked to him about this that I can recall—he is a good man and he has good values.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: He has got good values. The Minister for Health has excellent values, in my opinion. Having said that, the bottom line is that New South Wales has got rid of it, Tasmania has got rid of it and I, on behalf of a lot of South Australians, would like to rub this program out and start with a program that talks about caring for each other, irrespective of what we are, having a tolerant society and just about no bullying, no harassment, whatever the situation, let's work together as a community. That is what the program should be, but that is not what the program is.

I will finish with this: if they want me to load up my ute and bring material in here and dump it on the steps of parliament, there's a swag of material that confirms our concerns over this Labor government's so-called 'Safe Schools' program. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion negatived.