Education and Children's Services Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the hardworking staff in the minister's office and the department. Some of the questions that were raised before I have some answers for. Others, for example referring questions to the state Ombudsman and the commissioner for a breakdown of their figures, are in those particular organisations' hands and will be perhaps available when we come back on the next Tuesday.

On a couple of issues, if I could outline, the minister's office has advised me that the minister has indicated the Commissioner for Children and Young People has expressed general support for the bill and requested an amendment in clause 7 of the bill which deals with the involvement of parents and the community in the education and development of children. The amendment regards specifying the involvement and consultation of children, as well as parents and other stakeholders. I am advised by the minister's office that there were amendments moved to clause 7, page 14, in the House of Assembly which met that particular issue.

It may well be that the letter to which the honourable member has referred is subsequent to those particular changes and raises other issues in relation to suspension, exclusion and expulsion. I have not had a chance to speak to the minister. I will do so and, when we next meet, will be able to update the member and the council in relation to those issues.

There were also questions raised about the capacity of what are now known as learning centres. I am advised that there are three learning centres. One is the Beafield Education Centre, which has three sites: Para Hills High School, Brahma Lodge Primary School and Paradise Primary School. There is another learning centre called the Cowandilla Learning Centre, which is a single site at Cowandilla Primary School. There is the Southern Learning Centre, which is a single site at Christies Beach. There are five total sites with a total staff of about 35 and a total cost of approximately $3.83 million per annum. As to the approximate annual referrals, the average over three years (2015 to 2018) for the three learning centres combined is about 280 students. They are learning centres. I am convinced that the Bowden Brompton school provides alternative education options for students but it is not technically referred to as a learning centre.

I am sure there are, within the wide gamut of educational options the education department has, other options in addition to the learning centres which specifically cater for excluded, expelled and suspended students—I suppose excluded students in particular. But I am sure there are other options that the department has across the board to provide alternative streams of education for students who might be deemed to be challenging in terms of their behaviour.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I only have one follow-up question in relation to that. It is my advice that, in practice, some schools at least often allow students to attend, prior to placement at one of these alternative learning centres, for perhaps one or two hours a day only until they are actually placed at one of these learning centres. Based on the advice given by you earlier about the requirement for students to be at school within certain hours, is this sort of arrangement, which sees students left effectively to stay at home for the remainder of the day, with or without work given to them to do during those hours, considered appropriate under current and/or proposed arrangements?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For something as specific as that, and given we are coming back on Tuesday, I am happy to take it on notice and get formal advice from the minister and/or the department in relation to those arrangements, or indeed any others, and bring that reply back to the member when we reconvene on Tuesday week.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In terms of a question perhaps to be taken on notice, the government previously provided the numbers of excluded students for semester 2 of 2018. Could you also provide the numbers of expelled and suspended students for that same period of time and outline what the appeal processes are for a student who is suspended?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take the first question on notice and try to bring back a reply. I think I have seen figures publicised at various stages about the number of suspensions. It is a significant number, as one might imagine, but I have certainly seen them publicised. I think I referred earlier to the appeal mechanisms. If I can divide it into two areas, in relation to a decision to exclude, to which I responded earlier, that is regulation 50(1):

An appeal to the relevant authority may be made against—

(a) a decision of the head teacher…to exclude a student…or to expel a student…under these regulations…by—

(c) the student; or

(d) a parent of the student; or

(e) an adult acting at the request of the student or parent of the student.

There is a time line within which you have to appeal. Regulation 50(5):

An appeal must be instituted by lodging a notice in a form approved by the Director-General—

I am trying to quickly read this very complicated regulation. There is an appeal mechanism and I think it just goes to a panel of more senior officers. Here we go:

An appeal in relation to the exclusion of a student is to be heard by a panel of persons nominated by the chief executive including a departmental employee, a principal of the school not being the principal who made the decision to exclude or expel, and a person with experience in administering equal opportunity matters.

So there is a panel of three: a departmental employee, another principal and a person with experience in HR or equal opportunity matters. There is no provision for an appeal against a suspension. That issue can only be taken to the Ombudsman and, clearly, some of those potential issues the Ombudsman has handled (the 171 matters) might include, potentially, an issue where someone has appealed against a suspension—maybe, I do not know. There is no appeal right against a suspension provision; there is an appeal right against an exclusion or an expulsion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the government receive any concerns that there are no appeal rights with regard to suspensions in our schools?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take that on notice. I am not sure whether in the general concerns the commissioner expressed about suspension, exclusion and expulsion, the letter the honourable member read—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, this is a different letter. This is one from June, so you have had it even longer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The letter from which the honourable member read, which did refer to suspension, exclusion and expulsion, did not specifically refer to the issue of appeal rights for suspensions, but maybe an earlier letter or a subsequent letter may or may not have. Given that I do not have all those letters from the commissioner to the minister, I am not in a position to indicate whether that was the case or not. We are happy to take advice on that from the minister's office and provide a reply to the committee when we next convene.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw the government representative's (the minister) attention to the letter of 26 June from the Commissioner for Children and Young People. He has noted that the government has indeed taken action with regard to section 7 of the bill, which was the first of the concerns raised in that particular June letter by the Commissioner for Children and Young People. The commissioner then went further to express concerns about section 71, in terms of the family conferencing processes, and then specifically, and I quote:

Lack of an independent appeal mechanism for children who have been expelled, excluded or suspended.

The lack of an independent appeal mechanism for children and families who have been expelled, excluded or suspended from school should be reviewed. As countless commissions and inquiries into a vast range of institutions, governments and companies has shown, access to independent mechanisms of review and monitoring and access to 'thought' diversity in institutions is a critical way of improving governance arrangements, and reduces opportunities for abuse of power. In order for clients/consumers/patients/residents of institutions to be at the centre of decision making and the focus of services, these institutions need to be open and transparent and allow independent oversight. In areas where services are being denied such as in the case of expulsion, exclusion and suspension from education, parents and children should be able to access independent support, and appeal decisions to an independent advocacy body.

What response did the government provide to the commissioner with regard to her concerns raised about the lack of independent appeal mechanisms open to parents and students, in particular in this case with regard to this bill, specifically in her correspondence of 26 June?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take advice from the minister to find out what his response was to those specific concerns. As I have outlined, there are clearly existing provisions, I assume, under the former government and continued under this government, for appeal mechanisms for exclusion and expulsion. It may well be that the commissioner is arguing that a separate panel, which comprises an equal opportunity person, another principal and a departmental employee, is not sufficiently independent, from her viewpoint.

Again, until I speak to the minister I cannot put his comments on the record. I will do so—I undertake to do so. As a former minister all I can offer as a personal view is that there is an appeal mechanism which exists and has existed for some time under the former Labor government. The commissioner may have been unhappy with that and continue to be unhappy with the provision that exists. It may well be that the minister respectfully heard the submissions and did not agree with them, but I will either confirm that or not and provide an answer when we come back on Tuesday week.

That is in relation to expulsions and exclusions, which are obviously a much more limited group. My recollection of the number of suspensions is it is very significant. I think one of the issues the minister will be able to provide us with informed advice on is the practicality, from a principal's viewpoint, in terms of managing a school, if for every suspension there had to be an independent appeal mechanism before it could be instituted, for example.

It may well be that it is the minister's view that that may well make management of schools very difficult. I again come back to the viewpoint that if you have one particular student who is behaving in such a fashion that his or her behaviour is impacting on the behaviour of the other students and the teachers and staff within a particular school, if the principal does not have the capacity or is unable to take at least limited urgent short-term action by way of a suspension to prevent or control a situation which, in his or her judgement, is becoming out of control, then the education and the mental and physical wellbeing of other students in the class may be impacted.

I am mindful of all of these appeal mechanisms and independent appeal rights, etc., but ultimately there is also a responsibility to ensure a quality education for all students in a classroom, not just the particular student who is acting out and whose behaviour might be ruining it for everybody else. That is the difficult position a principal finds himself or herself in; they have to make these difficult judgements, but that is what they are being paid to do.

Again, I am happy to refer the honourable member's question in relation to suspensions as well as exclusions and expulsions to the minister and bring back a reply. I can offer something. I have just been given a brief note—I will certainly refer the member's question to the minister—where the minister confirms there is no legislated appeal process for suspensions. The note says the government's view and the department's view is that establishment of such under the bill is not supported by the department as it would be impracticable given the high number of suspensions issued, over 21,000 per year—so we have an actual number there—and the brevity of their duration, not exceeding five days.

So certainly the department's professional view is that to have appeal rights for suspensions, given that there are over 21,000 of them a year and the fact that they only go for up to five days—it could be a suspension for a day or two days but no more than five days—and that to agree with the position that the commissioner may well be putting and that the honourable member is putting would be impractical in terms of the teaching environment for teachers and staff within our schools.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the minister for the confirmation that there are no processes for appeal of suspension and note that the minister has alluded to children acting out and misbehaving and needing to remove those children for the benefit of the others in the framework and context of ensuring access to education. How many of these children who have been suspended were suspended to attract student supports to them, given there are mechanisms currently within the education department where unless a student is suspended they cannot attract extra support, such as SSOs or additional teaching staff to support them with their learning?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice, but from my experience, and I know the member is uninterested in my view as an individual member rather than the government's, and I accept that, but I have had some—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not uninterested in your individual perspective, but when I ask for a government response—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But I am going to put on the record my view, having been a minister for education and the shadow minister for nine years prior to that in relation to education in schools; that is, I do not think it is correct that a student has to have been suspended to attract additional support through an SSO. For example, a student with a significant disability does not need to have been suspended. There are provisions within the awards and the agreements, etc., that students with disabilities do not have to have been suspended to attract additional support. Through the diagnosis or the processes of the department, they will have been accepted as a student with a disability and if they do have a particular disability they do attract additional support, whether it be in the classroom or in a different learning environment as well.

It may well be there are other circumstances to which the honourable member is referring where some students, if they have been suspended, attract additional support. If that is what the member is referring to, I am happy to take that on notice. If I misunderstood, I will go back to the Hansard record and check what the member actually said. If the member wants to further clarify her question, I am happy to put both the first question and any clarification to the minister and bring back a reply on Tuesday week if that would be of assistance to the member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: While I am not uninterested in what the minister has as a perspective in terms his personal views—previously, I have been asking for government responses—in this case I do appreciate his personal perspective as a previous minister for education. Perhaps things have changed since his time as education minister, as that was such a long time ago. I draw the minister's attention and the government's attention to the system structurally now where suspensions are used regularly as a tool to attract funding to a student that cannot otherwise be accessed through our current systems of behavioural management and supports.

This has been outlined in the select committee inquiry into access to education for children with disabilities. I ask for the government's response on that particular area of suspensions, which I say are without appeal process and without oversight of any body, independent or otherwise, on how the bill will ensure that those students, often with disabilities—sometimes undiagnosed disabilities rather than the diagnosed, easy, clear-cut cases that the minister has just outlined—how those children who are currently being suspended to attract that funding, those extra student supports, will be supported under this new, once-in-a-generation overhaul of our education system.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take the member's further clarification of her questions on notice and ask the minister whether or not he can provide any further information that might be of use and comfort to the member in terms of her question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw the minister's attention to his response that it would be unwieldy and impracticable for schools to allow an appeal mechanism for suspensions and ask how wieldy and practicable it actually is for parents in this state to have to go to the Ombudsman in the case of a one to five-day suspension?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify that it was not my view: that was the department's view that I was quoting earlier. They are the experts. They are there at the moment and they are managing our system. They do not have an outdated or 20-year-old view of the education system. They are the people who are managing it at the moment. That was their view in relation to being impracticable, or impractical and unworkable—whatever words I quoted from that particular response.

In relation to the views of parents, what I would say to the honourable member is if there is a particular parent who is so aggrieved about a particular decision in relation to a suspension as opposed to an exclusion or expulsion, the answer to the member's question, I suspect, is they would be unhappy that they had to go to the Ombudsman. But if they had to go through some sort of other independent mechanism to which the member might be referring (if it existed) they would still have to go through a process of appealing to another independent body. It would not be the state Ombudsman, it might be the education ombudsman under the member's model.

So they would still have to go to the extra effort of appealing to somebody. In the current case, it is the state Ombudsman; maybe in the honourable member's view of the world it is the education ombudsman. They would still have to go somewhere, and they might still be unhappy in relation to that. Whether they go to the state Ombudsman now or, in the Hon. Ms Franks' view of the world, to the education ombudsman, they might still be unhappy in terms of having to go to both. They might not agree with the decision the principal has taken in relation to a suspension of up to five days.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the purposes of clarity, I do not think necessarily that any parent would want to go to any ombudsman, education or otherwise, simply for a suspension, but I do have grave concerns that there are no appeal mechanisms, particularly when, as I say, these are not just used for naughty students who have acted out or done the wrong thing, they are tools used to attract funding to a student in need of assistance for their education. I ask the minister to respond to the Commissioner for Children and Young People's concerns with regard to family conferencing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that a senior departmental person met with commissioner Connolly about some of her concerns on family conferencing, and that some of this information was given to commissioner Connolly at that particular meeting. I will quote from the advice from the senior officer who met with commissioner Connolly, as follows:

The commissioner's letter suggested that family conferencing is just one element of a complete support package and conferences should be offered as a problem-solving exercise or restorative practice, and that it may have the potential to drive a bigger wedge between family and education.

The family conference will be just one option in a range of possible responses to the chronic non-attendance of a child at school, and is likely to occur after significant effort to engage a family with support and assistance to improve the child's attendance. The key principles of the model include that the coordination of the conference is independent of the parties to the conference. The conference is voluntary, and information about the concerns and supports available are shared openly between the parties to the conference.

The aim of the family conference is to provide the family, in its broadest sense, with an opportunity to take responsibility for the child's non-attendance at school, and participate in developing a plan to support the child's attendance at school.

Participation in the conference may provide an opportunity for the family to avoid further statutory action in the form of prosecution. Family conferences should not, however, be seen as a precursor to a prosecution or as part of a continuum. In some cases, they will not be appropriate and other interventions will be utilised. This may be in the way of family support, counselling or social work, or through a decision to prosecute.

Family conferencing is designed to avoid further deterioration of relationships between the family and the school and department by empowering the family to participate in the development of a plan that addresses the problems in a way that focuses on the best interests of the child, and leverages all the supports available to them.

The commissioner raised concerns about the role of the coordinator of a family conference in determining the eligibility of a support person to attend a family conference. The commissioner suggested that it appears to be contrary to the principles of procedural fairness and discriminates against a child on the basis of their age. Subclause 71(3)(e) of the bill provides for the attendance of a person who the student, or a person who is responsible for the student, wishes to support them at the conference, and who, in the opinion of the co-ordinator, would be of assistance in that role.

The role of the coordinator in ensuring a support person would be of assistance applies both to the student and a person responsible for the student. As such, there is no discrimination on the basis of age. The role of the coordinator in vetting support persons is consistent with equivalent provisions for family conferencing under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister then confirm that it is still the situation that if, in the opinion of the coordinator, the support person was not of assistance the support person would not be allowed to attend that family conference?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sorry, can you repeat that question?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister confirm that it is still the case under this bill that if, in the opinion of the coordinator, the support person requested by the family was deemed to be 'not of assistance in that role' they would be able to be precluded from the family conference?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that that is a correct interpretation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government explain why they have taken a decision to not allow support persons chosen by the family to attend the family conferences?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If there is anything useful further that I can add—but I can only assume, having read what I have just read onto the record, that the department and the government have taken the view that it is up to the coordinator to make a judgement as to whether or not a particular support person is going to be useful in terms of resolving the issue or not. That has been the judgement that the department, and then ultimately the government, has taken in relation to family conferencing. I am not sure whether that specific issue was in the—I read out:

The role of the coordinator in vetting support persons is consistent with equivalent provisions for family conferencing under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act.

That would lead me to believe that this vetting process is already in existence and I assume has passed this parliament previously in relation to the role of coordinators. Not having been involved in that particular debate, I have no recollection, but that is the written advice that I have just read onto the public record. This is entirely consistent with the vetting support person positions in the Children and Young People (Safety) Act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens express some concern that the coordinator can vet who is able to attend these family conferences. If the family is wishing a support person, I cannot see what grounds there should be for the coordinator to be able to refuse that support person if they have not acted unacceptably. How will the coordinator know that they are not an acceptable addition as a support person unless they do in fact act in a way that can be identified and quantified as inappropriate? Surely this is not a process of natural justice?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot assist the honourable member any further. I am assuming there was a similar debate in that particular Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017. Not having participated in that debate, I am not sure what the answers were, but I cannot usefully add anything more than what I have put on the public record at the moment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Do any other honourable members wish to make a contribution at clause 1? The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I might be guided by you. I have a number of questions in relation to the religious and cultural activities, but I am more than happy to not ask those at this stage and perhaps deal with them when we get there.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Acting Chairman, if they are seeking information that would be usefully put on the record now, I can take them on notice and have the information or answers provided prior to the debate. If that would assist, hopefully when we come back on the Tuesday, to resolve all those issues, that would be useful. If there are questions where you are seeking information, as opposed to debating or arguing the point about the merits or otherwise of particular amendments, my advice, with your concurrence, Mr Acting Chairman, would be let's get those questions on notice. I will take them on advice and we can at least get answers to honourable members prior to Tuesday week.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): That sounds like a good suggestion. The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With that in mind, I will certainly put some things on the record that I will be seeking answers to that are perhaps best done in clause 1 rather than further into the debate. I note that I have previously asked some of these questions in this place. What are the appeal and complaints mechanisms for students, parents and guardians complaining about school chaplains in our schools?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice and have an answer ready for the member on Tuesday.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The minister outlined some of the diversionary programs—Beafield, Cowandilla and the Christies Beach options—and assured this council that there were probably more and alluded to Bowden Brompton school. Can that information be taken on notice, specifically with the ages at which those options are available to children? What have been the outcomes of the previous behavioural intervention service at Enfield CAMHS, and what mental health supports exist in those diversionary programs currently, given the loss of the BIS program at Enfield CAMHS?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My question is asked specifically in relation to division 4 and clause 82 regarding religious and cultural activities. Clause 82(1) provides:

The principal of a school may set aside time for the conduct of religious or cultural activities (or both) by a person, or a person of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

Have the regulations pertaining to this particular provision been drafted?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can answer that one now: no, they have not.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I understand that to provide religious activities to public schools a person or organisation wanting to provide such activities may be prescribed for the purposes of the regulations. What do we anticipate the threshold for a prescribed person or organisation will be?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is 'religious activity' defined or going to be defined in the regulations?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take that on notice, but my understanding is no. I think the honourable member raised that in her contribution. I think there was a long debate in the House of Assembly about that. The minister gave some views, but it is not defined in the act, it is not proposed to be defined in the act and it is not proposed to be defined in the regulations, as I understand it, but I will take that on notice and bring back a deliberative reply from the minister.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Specifically in relation to the regulations, so thank you. Is the material to be provided to students in public schools going to be vetted by any means to ensure that the content does not contravene Australian law?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take the question on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am sure this will be something you might want to consider further. We passed the Marriage Equality Bill federally in 2017. Faith-based schools are still allowed, understandably, to teach according to the beliefs of their faith. Does the government have a view of what ought to be the case if a priest, an imam, or anyone came to teach in a public school that marriage is between a man and a woman, which effectively goes against what is now Australian law?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In the same vein, given that it is not defined, could a religious activity extend to the proselytising of children? In a follow-up to my discussions with the minister, is this something that the government can give a commitment to in terms of not allowing it in our public schools?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do believe this is my final question, unless there is a supplementary to it. Much was made in the debate in the other place in the previous incarnation of the bill that it would have potentially allowed Christmas carols to be banned. Can the government give a perspective on whether or not this bill will allow Christmas carols in schools to be banned?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My understanding is that there is a specific provision in the bill which allows Christmas carols, so therefore they cannot be banned. There is a specific provision in the bill that allows Christmas carols to be sung, so they cannot be banned.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the minister aware that currently some Christmas carols are banned in preschools and particularly Rolf Harris's Six White Boomers, given his conviction for child sexual abuse? Will that continue to be able to be banned by those preschools?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am aware of some types of media speculation about Christmas carols being banned in various educational institutions. I think that is why this issue was debated last year and the year before, publicly. I do not know it for a fact. I know there are media reports that have indicated that that is what has occurred but I cannot attest to whether or not it is factual. That was the reason why there was this whole debate, that is why there is this particular amendment in the bill and that is why it is specifically allowing Christmas carols.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just a supplementary on this particular matter. Some years ago, as we know, Rolf Harris was convicted of offences of a sexual nature against children. Since that time, preschools have taken the action of banning Rolf Harris songs, including the Christmas song Six White Boomers, from being conducted within their children's services centres. Will this bill overrule that ban?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not know any of the detail of that particular claim. I am happy to take it on notice, provide it to the minister and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps just on from that, and I do not know whether this will shed any light on the question itself, but is it not the case that schools have the discretion to choose which songs or carols are allowed in their schools? For instance, Silent Night might not be allowed but Jingle Bells may be allowed, based on their context.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice but I would be surprised if a provision that said Christmas carols were allowed should somehow allow Silent Night to not be allowed to be sung in schools. That would surprise me, but the honourable member is a lawyer and I am not, so I am happy to take it on notice and seek advice from the minister. I must admit I would be surprised if the answer came back and said that Silent Night, for example, could be banned.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Do we know how many schools in South Australia, divided by primary and secondary, actually offer these religious activities?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on from that, is there a list provided to these religious groups so that they can identify the students who they wish to target? For instance, if a Catholic priest was to preach at a school, would they request a list of the Catholic students enrolled at that school rather than generally all the students?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice, but I am advised that these days, contrary to when I was at school—which was many, many years ago—the information in relation to the religious association of a particular student is not collected. When you enrol you are not actually asked and it is not recorded as to whether you are Catholic or Callithumpian or agnostic or whatever else, so the information does not exist for students these days in relation to publicly available information. That is the advice we have. We will check that and provide an answer to you.

For those of us who either have grey hair or no hair and have been around a lot longer, when we were at school in public schools, the Catholics went off to speak to the Catholic priest for their religious instruction once a week, the Anglicans went off to speak to the Anglican pastor or whatever it was and others went off, and those who did not want to speak to anyone sat in the classroom and did drawing or something. I know the world has changed, as the Hon. Ms Franks has advised me, and one of the things that has changed is that we do not collect any information about the religious association of students when they enrol or at other stages.

I am told the only case where that might be collected is where there are particular needs for a particular child, for example, where it is important that, for their needs to be catered for by the school, the parents and/or the child—generally the parents, I guess—have shared that information with the school principal to say, 'For these reasons, we think you should know,' and then that might be part of their record. But in terms of the normal collection of information when you enrol, the department does not ask what the religious association is.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you for the clarification. Just on from that then, and take this on notice, how will somebody who goes into a school determine which children they are going to be addressing during their visit?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In terms of the complicated processes at the local level, let me take it on notice and get some advice and come back to the committee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: While we are at it, and I am not sure if this is possible, is any sort of list collated as to the organisations that have requested or continue to request access to public schools in South Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You mean currently?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take it on notice and see what information we can share with the committee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Again, in the same vein, could we confirm whether the department has received complaints about the Scripture Union providing religious activities to children?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The what union?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Scripture Union.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not aware of this particular union infiltrating our schools. The Hon. Ms Bonaros has raised this question, not I. Given the Hon. Ms Bonaros has raised the question about the Scripture Union, I am happy to take it on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have perhaps three more questions.

The CHAIR: That is fine. Ask as many questions as you wish.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Thank you. On the issue of complaints, does the department collect figures and, if so, what are the figures in terms of the complaints that have been raised with them about religious activities being provided to children, perhaps in the last two years?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take it on notice and bring back a reply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Again, in the same vein, perhaps we could also clarify how many of those complaints received were about the opt-out provision in clause 82 specifically?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure whether that sort of detail is available but, if it is, we are happy to take it on notice and see what information we can share with the committee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Again, on notice, if a student is exempted from the religious activity because the parent has not given permission for the child to participate, what will they be engaged in during the conduct of the religious activity in what is described in clause 82(4)(b) as 'an alternative activity'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice and provide an answer to the committee.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps, again, we can take this on notice: does the Treasurer know what the effect would be if clause 2 were in fact dispensed with altogether? I note that this is a discussion that I had briefly with the minister, but it is certainly one that I would like to get some further clarification on because I think some of the points put to me by the minister were counter to some of the advice that I had. I would like to clarify, if we dispense with that altogether—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Dispense with what?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Clause 82.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The whole clause?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes. What limitations would that provide in terms of religious teachings or cultural activities in schools?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that question on notice and provide a response to the committee.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have raised a number of questions today with regard to an education ombudsman and the specific perspectives in support of that, and the options of appeal and independent complaints mechanisms, so I am not willing to proceed with this clause and move to that debate until the government brings back those answers. So I move that we report progress.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am reluctant to do that. I understand that the honourable member has asked questions, but what we are trying to do is to progress through the committee stage with a commitment to recommit various clauses. If we get to the end of the committee stage today and the member wants a commitment to recommit the clauses that relate to the education ombudsman, I wonder if that is a satisfactory alternative.

The other controversial issues, which are the religious and the corporal punishment ones, we have certainly decided to recommit those particular provisions. We could do the same thing with the education ombudsman. I guess I am seeking an indication from the Hon. Ms Franks as to whether or not that is an alternative course that she is prepared to contemplate.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am going to note that I did actually ask what the government's position was on an education ombudsman in my second reading contribution. The response brought back in the summary went to consultation that the government undertook, but that consultation did not include the Commissioner for Children and Young People and it did not include the South Australian Association of State School Organisations, just two organisations that have actually indicated support for such an education ombudsman.

So I have some grave concerns that the government has not been transparent in its debate in terms of the true support for an education ombudsman. However, in doing so, I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 10, after line 17 [clause 3(1)]—Insert:

Education Ombudsman means the Education Ombudsman appointed under Part 10A (and includes a person acting in that office from time to time);

I reiterate that time and time again, in such bodies as the Select Committee into Access to the Education System for Students with Disabilities and in various reports into the failings of the education system, an education ombudsman has been supported.

The member for Bragg, now the Attorney-General, brought to this parliament a bill that was supported by the then Liberal opposition, now in its new incarnation as a government. In opposition, the Liberal Party members of this parliament supported an education ombudsman and they came here today without having done their homework on an education ombudsman and with a quite extraordinary, I thought, claim that an education ombudsman would be largely associated with bullying.

The items that an education ombudsman would look at would be those systemic, intractable issues in our education system that the Debelle inquiry said have to be addressed, where a governing council was not given the supports they need because we have a lack of proper, independent complaints processes in our education system. This is a once-in-a-generation overhaul of the Education Act. This is a once-in-a-parliament opportunity to fix at the very root of their causes some of the problems we see time and time again.

Perhaps an education ombudsman in this particular form is not what the government would propose, but certainly the government has not come back with its suggested amendment. So the Greens would contend that at this point an education ombudsman would be the appropriate compliance mechanism, an independent authority to actually start to really transform our education system and the failings that it has. I note the words of the South Australian Association of State School Organisations Incorporated, and they state in their newsletter that:

Beyond the Debelle Inquiry, multiple reports have revealed a 'culture of cover-up' and a department which 'lacks accountability and transparency'.

They go on to say that:

The pressuring and bullying of the Governing Council exposed in the Debelle Report is not unique. It wasn't the first case and it continues today.

The tragic events in the sex abuse case have revealed an inarguable truth: constant, external scrutiny is the only way to hold this department to account.

This isn't a matter of the community losing faith in the education department—this department has proven it is not entitled to their faith.

It is clear that parents and Governing Councils cannot rely on the department, for either accurate information or to act in the best interests of their children.

Parents and school Governing Councils must, therefore, be empowered to protect their own rights and thereby, safeguard the best interests of their children—because our children really are at the heart of everything we do…

And this was in support of an education ombudsman. This ombudsman would be a specialist, unlike the generic state Ombudsman, and it would ensure that those students, parents and staff within the system—that in opposition the Marshall government acknowledged was a somewhat broken system that does not, at the very grassroots of it, have the transparency and accountability that one would expect of a state education system. An education ombudsman would ensure that.

As I say, the government has not come forward with some other process to ensure that there is transparency, accountability and a way to address these issues before they become intractable and lead to situations that we have almost seen time and time again, which need close to royal commissions or high-level inquiries to fix them.

Surely the government should have given greater consideration to this proposal and certainly not come to this place claiming that there was no support for it when indeed there is from no less than the parents' groups themselves and, in particular, the South Australian Association of State School Organisations, among many others—many groups—particularly those representing parents of children with disabilities. With those few words, I note that this amendment No. 1 will be a test amendment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, I took it that you were indicating you were going to report progress, because otherwise it would not have been a debate—for the benefit of Hansard. Now you have moved this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, when I indicated I would report progress, the minister got up and gave a speech, so I figured that we had not moved to the procedural.

The CHAIR: That is alright. I am not remonstrating with you; I am just clarifying for the purposes of Hansard. Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will speak on the substance of the amendment in a moment. It should be placed on record that the opposition is always ready and willing to progress government business and assist in the smooth operation of this chamber in the parliament; however, I do take on board the Hon. Tammy Franks' concerns. She did have a number of questions that were pertinent to the need and the operation of an education ombudsman, and I understand that the Leader of the Government will take those on notice and bring them back, but some of those may actually assist us in whether we support the amendment or not.

My suggestion for a way forward for the time being is: perhaps we get people's views on record, and that may help the Hon. Tammy Franks decide whether to report progress, which is obviously something that she is capable of doing at any time during the debate and before the vote on this amendment. If that is of assistance, that is how I will proceed, and maybe after I speak other members may wish to place their views as it currently stands, noting that things may be recommitted.

The view of the Labor opposition is that we support the Franks amendment, that is, the Franks amendment No.1, and the second amendment, and I can indicate that we will also be supporting the third Franks amendment that inserts new clauses 123A to 123M, which is a substantive amendment in terms of creating the ombudsman.

I might by way of a question for the Hon. Rob Lucas to answer, as a question for the government, ask: can he confirm that if these two amendments are successful they will be used as a test for the amendment later on, that is, the Franks amendment No. 3, which is the substantive one? I would just be keen for the government to go on record to confirm that if these two are successful they will treat this as a test and understand that that is the will of the chamber for the final amendment, because of course there would be no point in these being successful if the final one was not included.

As I said, the opposition is supportive of these amendments. We do note that there have been growing calls from parents' groups for the introduction of an education ombudsman. Although the South Australian Ombudsman can investigate education matters, there is a view that a dedicated ombudsman will provide a better understanding of the issues in schools and be able to make more specific determinations in cases, as is the case with the health and community services complaints ombudsman.

The increasing size and complexity of the public school system in South Australia means the number of parent complaints and incidents in schools is increasing. It may well be the case that with the impending move of year 7 to high school we could see an increase in terms of the pressure of that cohort of students, where there are some that are younger going into high school that otherwise would have stayed in primary school, and the issues of younger people with older students may lead to an increase in the need for an ombudsman as year 7 moves from a different campus.

There has regularly been disquiet about how the Department for Education at times handles complaints, and I think an independent body, as is being proposed by the Hon. Tammy Franks, would give peace of mind to those parents as well as teachers and others who have worked in the school that all are being treated fairly.

I have placed on record one question to confirm that the government will treat these as a test clause and that if these are successful will allow the third amendment, that is, the amendment inserting new clauses 123A to 123M, to pass. The other question I would ask of the government is: is it the case that the creation of an education ombudsman has previously been a Liberal Party election commitment and if so what election were they commitments for?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government's position is clear, as we outlined in a rather long discussion in the reply to the second reading and then in debate on clause 1, so I do not propose to repeat all of the arguments against. I quoted at length from the state Ombudsman as to why the state Ombudsman did not believe the notion of the education ombudsman was required or made any sense.

Can I just clarify an incorrect claim that has been made. At no stage have I ever said there is no support for an education ombudsman and it is wrong to infer or say that I have. I have indicated that the position the government is putting is now supported by, I think I said in the reply or the second reading, the state Ombudsman and the non-government school sectors and the principals association as well, I think—there was another group, anyway. I listed the ones that were supporting it, but I did not indicate that no-one supported an education ombudsman and, clearly, I am sure there are some people who support an education ombudsman.

Indeed, to come to the second question, that was indeed the position of the Liberal Party in opposition on a number of occasions. I am not sure whether it was ever elevated to the position of an election policy—it probably was—but I think, as the Hon. Ms Franks indicated, it was actually introduced as a bill at one stage by I think the member for Bragg where she had a period as the shadow minister for education. There is no disputing that in the past the Liberal Party has had a position to support an education ombudsman.

The position we are putting now, based on advice we have from the state Ombudsman, non-government sectors and others with whom we have consulted being in government is that we have changed that particular position. Certainly, I do not believe—and I can have this checked—we went to the election in 2018 committing to an education ombudsman, but I will stand corrected on that. I am happy to check the record in relation to the 2018 election policy platform. But it is largely academic. There is no doubt at varying stages in the past the Liberal Party has supported an education ombudsman and, as the Hon. Ms Franks indicated, on one occasion at least we introduced a bill to do so. But for the reasons that I have outlined, we have changed our position in relation an education ombudsman.

In relation to the question from the honourable Leader of the Opposition about test cases, I think it is eminently sensible that the first amendment, or two amendments, be treated as test clauses. If they are passed in this chamber, we would indicate opposition to the remaining package. We would not debate each particular section. Ultimately, it would then be a matter for resolution, if possible, between the houses. The government's position has been made clear by the minister that he is not prepared to support that. I think the former government allowed the whole bill to lapse because they were unhappy about the position the Legislative Council adopted in relation to particular amendments. It may well be—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: It's a very important chamber, this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, exactly, indeed. All governments have to give due deference to the will of the Legislative Council. It may well be that the options available to the government will need to either agree to some compromise or for there to be a changed position in the Legislative Council, or for the bill not to proceed as a result of irreconcilable differences between the houses. But we are getting a long way ahead of ourselves at this stage. That is further down the track. The simple answer to the leader's question is that, yes, we would agree, and I suspect that all members would agree, that the first vote or votes on these two amendments would be taken as test clauses for the package of amendments for an education ombudsman.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the suggestion in terms of potentially recommitting this clause. The issue of a dedicated ombudsman certainly is not without merit. In fact, I think the opposite of that is true for some of the reasons that have been outlined. For example, if no appeal mechanism is to be implemented for suspensions and for the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. I am also mindful of the advice that the government has provided in terms of the response from the Ombudsman as to why he believes that it is not necessary, and I do have questions in that regard specifically in terms of whether this could potentially be a resourcing issue as well as anything else.

I think those concerns, ultimately, have to be weighed against the concerns that have been raised by parents, by groups like SAASSO and even the Commissioner for Children and Young People, who has certainly highlighted some concerns around this very issue. At this stage, I am not convinced by the government's arguments, but I would certainly welcome the opportunity to consider further the information that the Treasurer has undertaken to provide back to us on this issue. At this stage of the debate, I am prepared to support the amendments moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks now on the understanding that, of course, this clause may be recommitted so that we can consider it in the context of the advice that is going to be provided.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: If it assists, I can say that I was always going to support the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments, and still am.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of completeness, if it was not absolutely obvious from my speech, we will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments.

The CHAIR: On what I have listened to, I will put the motion, unless any honourable member has a further contribution. As I have listened to it, the Hon. Tammy Franks has moved the amendment and therefore I am about to put the amendment, unless anyone else wishes to speak or put an alternative course of action.

Ayes 13

Noes 8

Majority 5

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Divisions are not the opportunity for social engagement. We are still in debate in committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 12, after line 4 [clause 3(1)]—Insert:

school discipline means the manner in which a school regulates or enforces standards of student behaviour and includes—

(a) suspension, exclusion or expulsion of students; and

(b) proactive practices for school staff in their interactions with students; and

(c) practices to reduce bullying in schools;

school discipline policy means the policies, guidelines, legislative requirements and other matters relating to school discipline with which Government schools are obliged to comply;

This is consequential.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the amendment, but we are not going to prolong the debate. We accept that the first one was a test clause. We will not divide, but the government nevertheless opposes the provision.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 to 31 passed.

Clause 32.

The CHAIR: There is one amendment, amendment No. 1 [Bonaros–1]. The Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My understanding is that I will not move that at this stage, but we will deal with that by way of recommittal.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I reaffirm the commitment I gave that on Tuesday, when we next sit, we will recommit clause 32 for the purpose of allowing the Hon. Ms Bonaros to move her amendment and test the will of the committee.

Clause passed.

Clauses 33 to 53 passed.

Clause 54.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Maher–1]—

Page 40, lines 28 to 30 [clause 54(2)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) a person (not being a teacher at a school that is subject to the review) nominated by the Australian Education Union (SA Branch);

I went through the issues that deal with this amendment in great detail in my second reading contribution. It relates to Australian Education Union members being part of committees representing schools. I went into detail about the specific training that such AEU members have and why it is beneficial to such committees to have them there, particularly for decisions that are being made on the merit of employment or promotion but also the critical decisions about amalgamations or closures of schools to have AEU representation. We think it is absolutely critical.

I will place on record, as we are dealing with this amendment, some questions for the government to answer. My first question for the government in relation to this clause, which I think goes to why we are moving the amendment, is: what consultation was held in relation to this part of the bill, particularly on removing the AEU from review committees for school closures?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I referred to this earlier and quoted at length from what the minister said at some previous stage, and that is that the then Liberal Party's view in opposition was informed by considerable consultation it had when in opposition about this and a range of other issues that were canvassed in the former government's education bill. This particular issue was widely canvassed at the time. We debated it and, ultimately, the government was unhappy with the will of the Legislative Council at that time.

We were elected on a clear commitment to institute these particular changes. Certainly, the AEU were well aware that the shadow minister, who became a minister, was intent on introducing these changes. The minister was aware of the AEU's position in relation to the proposed changes, that is, that they opposed them. The die was cast, in that the new Liberal government's position was well known, the AEU's position was well known and there was no agreement in relation to both.

Whether or not there was further consultation in terms of the normal discussions the minister has with the AEU on a range of issues and whether this was ever raised at one of those meetings, I do not know. However, as I outlined, there was no formal extended consultation period with the AEU in relation to asking, 'What's your view in relation to this particular aspect of the bill?', as I understand it. They were obviously aware of the government's position and opposed it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If this amendment is not successful and the AEU is entirely removed from review committees that look at school closures, how will that review committee be selected? How will the membership of that review committee be selected to look at a school closure if the AEU is no longer necessarily involved in it?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In brief—I am sure the member, who is a trained lawyer—there is clause 54 of the bill which establishes how the review committee is established. Particularly in relation to this aspect it is a person representing the staff of each school to which the review relates, elected or nominated by the staff of each such school in accordance with the regulations.

The general point I made earlier was that, if a particular person has the confidence of all the staff in the school, both the AEU members and the non-AEU members, then he or she should be entitled to be the staff representative. In many cases, as I said, I suspect that, given the AEU representation or membership might be strong in most worksites, in many cases it is likely that the staff member to be elected under this provision, the government's provision, would be an AEU member anyway. There is nothing in here which precludes an AEU member, delegate or otherwise from being elected by the staff as their representative. If that person has the confidence of the staff at the local level, they will be elected.

In many cases I suspect that will be the case but, equally, if there is a particular person who has the confidence of all the staff then why should he or she not be entitled to be elected? The closure or amalgamation of a particular school has as much impact on a teacher who is not a member of a union as it does on a teacher who is a member of the union. In our view, they are entitled to put their hand up and become the representative if they get the support; if they do not, then they will not be the nominated staff representative.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I confirm then that the Leader of the Government is saying that there will be a person who is elected?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Of course, there is 'elected or nominated by the staff of each such school in accordance with the regulations'. It says 'elected or nominated by the staff', not by anyone else.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can I get an indication from the Leader of the Government then, if it is not 'elected' what 'nomination' means? Who would be the person doing the nomination and how would that be proposed to work if it is not an election of the person?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that will be outlined in the regulations. Speaking off the top of my head, I am not sure. It says 'by the staff'; it does not say any subset of the staff. What the difference between an election by staff or a nomination by staff is in actual fact I cannot myself envisage. Again, the Leader of the Opposition is a lawyer and he might be able to envisage some circumstances where it is different, but it says all the staff 'by the staff', so no-one is excluded.

It may well be that there is some process under the regulations which allows a nomination and not an election process that has to be conducted. That is, if only one person nominates to be the representative and everyone is prepared to support that particular person, that would not formally constitute an election perhaps. I am scrambling to get an explanation of the difference between election and nomination.

It may well be that it is trying to envisage circumstances where there is no election and there is only one person who is willingly or unwillingly going to be the person who represents the school on the review committee, and they are nominated to be it by a majority of the staff at the school.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess that is what I am getting at: when we are asked to take it on faith that the regulations will provide for something that is not provided for in the act. I take it then that the Leader of the Government is saying that there is no possibility that nomination in this case could mean nominated by a principal or by the leadership group or any subset of the staff; that he is in fact saying that the whole of the staff will always get a say in this and, if that is the case, why have 'or nominated', why not just have 'elected unopposed'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have just tried to explain that but I am happy to take that on notice. It clearly says 'by the staff'. It does not say 'by the principal in certain circumstances' or 'by the leadership group in certain circumstances'. It says 'elected or nominated by the staff'. If the words 'or nominated' have any work to do in a legal sense, I will take advice as to whether it does or it does not. I find it hard to understand what the distinction might be, other than in the circumstances where no-one wants to be the elected member and there is no election. Was this drafted in a way by parliamentary counsel to cater to the circumstances where the staff, not the principal, nominate one of their number to be their representative on the committee?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to flesh that out, given what the Leader of the Government has explained, I also do not understand the purpose of the 'or nominated' in that particular clause or what work the 'or nominated' has to do. Is the leader then ruling out any possibility that the regulations could, for example, provide, for the purposes of clause 54(2)(d), that a person is taken to be nominated by the staff if the leadership group of a school agrees with that person being the nominated representative? Is he ruling that out as a regulation possibility?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not involved in the drafting or otherwise of the regulations. As a non-lawyer reading that, when it says 'elected or nominated by the staff', I am just not sure how you could get into that by way of subordinate legislation, which is a regulation, that it is not actually by the staff but it is a veto right by a principal or a leadership group or something. Again, the leader is a lawyer, if he thinks that is possible through subordinate legislation, then I am certainly happy to get the minister to take further advice in relation to the issue. But that is certainly not the intention. The intention is as the subclause is drafted that this is someone who is elected or nominated by the staff of the school, not by the principal, not by the leadership group. Clearly, if that was the case, there would objection from the staff.

The government's position is clear, as I have outlined it. We are not arguing that this is a covert or backdoor way of getting the leadership group to nominate a patsy from the staff to support a particular position. That is not the government's position. All the government is saying is, if the staff have greater confidence in somebody who does not happen to be an AEU member, then why should they not be entitled to elect or nominate a non-AEU member as their representative? In most cases, if they are happy with the AEU member, then why should they not be allowed to do so? They should be. That is the government's position. There is no hidden intent to try to subvert the intent of this particular legislation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the leader for his explanation because when it comes to interpreting these sorts of clauses, it is helpful to have the government's intention placed on record so that it can provide assistance when we are looking at it. I am glad the Leader of the Government has ruled out certain ways that this could possibly be interpreted. Can the Leader of the Government outline the criteria used for making the decision to close a school when such a review committee is formed?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice. I suspect the answer is the same as under the former government. Whatever criteria you used, I suspect similar criteria are going to be used by the new government. The act essentially is remaining the same, other than the constitution of this particular committee. I do not understand that there is any other changed provision in relation to these amalgamation/merger decisions in here. If I can usefully get anything further from the minister, I am happy to provide it to the committee at a later stage. Whatever the process was under your government for 16 years, my understanding is that, broadly, it is going to continue. To answer the question, the obvious ones are if there are hardly any students there, that would be an obvious factor as to whether or not a school should be closed or merged if there is a nearby schooling option.

For example, if you are in the bush and you only have eight or 10 students at the school, but the nearest school is two hours away, then clearly there is a greater argument for keeping that particular school open, whereas if you were in the metropolitan area and you had 10 students and there was a school 10 or 15 minutes away there would be less of an argument for keeping that school open because parents had voted with their feet and gone somewhere else. Clearly, that would be a factor in relation to a review or a merger decision.

The former government took a wide range of decisions, I think, to forcibly amalgamate junior primary and primary schools. I think the former government's position was partly budgetary. They wanted to make some savings, because there was one less principal. You have a principal in a junior primary school and a principal at a primary school, and the former government took the position that you could make some savings by only having one principal by amalgamating both, and you could reduce some leadership positions, etc.

I suspect they might have also argued that in some ways it was still better in terms of the continuity of students moving out of year 2 into year 3, from junior primary to primary, and that it was better for them educationally not to change from one principal, staff and school to another. They were the sorts of arguments the former government used, I assume, in relation to the forced mergers or encouraged mergers of junior primary and primary schools.

There is a range of reasons the former government used. I assume those particular reasons would be open to the new government in similar fashion. There are many other reasons why it might be countenanced. I know in some other jurisdictions, where schools that are small have been so appallingly bad in terms of their performance and there was a convenient other school nearby, those jurisdictions have closed those schools down and moved the students into a neighbouring school. I am not sure whether that has occurred in the last 16 years under the Labor government, but certainly that has been used as a reason in some other jurisdictions for either mergers, amalgamations or closures.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: With schools amalgamating, I know the Leader of the Government often likes to feign his inability to explain things by saying he is not a lawyer and there are other people who are lawyers in this chamber so they should know more than he does about a bill he is handling, but I am afraid most of us are at a significant disadvantage to the Leader of the Government on the topic of the closure of schools. He is a former education minister who has great expertise in the closure of schools.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Sixty-seven.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: A record number: 67 schools that he was able to close in the time that he wreaked havoc across the education system. Is it in the minister's experience or is he able to advise, in terms of the closure of schools, is there a list that ministers are provided with on a regular or occasional basis of schools that are close to the criteria and kept on a watch list, in effect?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Not to my understanding but, as the Hon. Ms Franks reminded me, I have not been the minister for education for 20 years. But certainly on the Budget and Finance Committee we often asked questions of departments about enrolment figures in schools. My understanding is that, under the former government, I do not know that there were watch lists of schools in terms of criteria.

Ultimately, there are enrolment figures and clearly one can look at enrolments to see whether or not people are supporting a particular school. As I said, that will vary depending on whether you are in a regional area and you have no other option, as opposed to a metropolitan area where people are genuinely voting with their feet because for whatever reason they do not like the educational option at a particular local school and have chosen to go somewhere else.

I would be pretty confident in saying there is nothing that is as grotesque or as blunt an instrument as a watch list in terms of possible school closures. There are enrolments and I would imagine all ministers and departments would keep a watching brief on whether or not some schools are getting so low as to not be able to offer the educational offerings that they should be offering. If you have low numbers of students you have low numbers of teachers and therefore your capacity to offer a breadth of curriculum is significantly lessened. That is obviously the case with high schools in the metropolitan area: if your numbers are extraordinarily low, you have fewer teachers and the range of subjects that you can offer with specialist teachers is obviously much reduced because you do not have the number of teachers across the board.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Leader of the Government for his response. I know he says he doubts there is any such 'grotesque' list such as a 'watch list', but is he able to take on notice and ask the question if there is such a thing as an indicative list of schools that are getting close to certain criteria and, if such, bring that back to the chamber?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice but I would be very confident that there is no 'at watch' list for possible closure because they are nearing a criteria for closure list. I am happy to take it on notice and see what response, if any, the minister is prepared to provide.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister referred to one of the guiding criteria as number of students, therefore number of teachers, therefore range of courses that can be taught and offered as a criteria that is taken into account. Will the minister take on notice and commit to bring back a full list of enrolments at each of the government schools across South Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take that on notice. As I said, it has been provided to the Budget and Finance Committee on an annual basis in the past, so I cannot imagine the new minister and the department will have any particular problem in relation to that. What I will say in relation to this whole area, as one comes to an annual budget process where departments and agencies have to make savings, they would have to have a look to see at that particular point in the cycle whether or not potential savings could be made.

So at that particular time in a cycle, and certainly the minister has referred to the cycle back 20-plus years ago when I was minister, and the cycle was the State Bank disaster and we obviously had to seek information as to where we could actually make savings within the department. In any budget cycle, if there are savings that agencies have to make, well then a minister of the department would obviously then have a look at it to see, 'Okay, are there both budget savings potentially able to be made, and also educational improvements that might be made via merges or amalgamations of some particular schools?'

I would imagine on occasions over a 20-year cycle, the former Labor government and the new Liberal government would have to have had a look at those sorts of issues. But in terms of keeping an ongoing annual watching brief in terms of a criteria for closure and, if you get close to it, you sort of swing the axe, I would be surprised if there was that sort of annual ongoing assessment of, 'We're near the criteria and we now need to swing the axe on this particular school, or not.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Leader of Government for committing to bring back the list of enrolments. Can he also bring back the corresponding list of enrolments and teachers at each school, given that was one of the factors mentioned? I suspect that is one of the things that annually the Budget and Finance Committee has asked for in the past.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, your suspicion is wrong. We only ever asked for enrolments. I can ask the question in relation to teachers. One of the challenges with teaching numbers is that the department allocates the number of teachers but principals with their allocation of funding are able to employ additional staff at a local level, and the capacity for the system to keep track of what principals do, because they may well for a six-week period provide additional assistance by a 0.6 a week contract teacher in literacy or something to do some catch-up but that particular person is not a permanent ongoing employee; it is funded out of their school-based resources.

So actually being able to capture at a particular point in time—well, at any particular point in time—is likely to be different, and whether the department does that on an ongoing basis or once a year—I suspect they will have to do it once a year when they prepare the budget documents. So it may well be that at the end of last year—sorry, not the budget documents; I suspect that at 30 June when the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment requires workforce information, I assume the department has to do its best endeavours in terms of providing information.

That would be accurate as of 30 June last year, so it may well be that there is information publicly available through the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment's workforce survey about the total number of teachers. That would only be in the total. Whether or not there is a breakdown allocated to every school and preschool centre in the state, I do not know. I am happy to take it on notice and see what, if anything, the minister is able to provide.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer to that question and indicate that whatever the most recent figure is, whether it is a point in time or a consolidation, we are very happy to receive. Given the clause we are debating seeks the removal of AEU representation on committees, can the minister outline details of specific committees where the AEU being involved has caused significant problems or issues?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Look, I do not know. I am happy to take advice on that from the minister to see whether he is able to provide any information on the issue. I am sure that whatever information we are able to provide is not going to change the honourable member's position in relation to this particular issue, but if the minister has got any information I am happy to see whether we can provide something. I will take it on notice.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the minister for his answer. I think that is the point I am making, I am getting to: what is the evil we are seeking to overcome in removing AEU members from these committees? As I outlined in my second reading speech, the extra training AEU members have that help them better participate and understand their roles in committees are reasons for AEU members to be on the committee. But I thank the Leader of the Government for outlining that at this stage there is no specific problem with such members being on the committee, that is, no evil that has happened that they are seeking to overcome with this change in the way things work.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I think the member did take my comments a bit further than I offered them. That is, I did not say there was no evil; I said I do not have the information. But then again, I am not the Minister for Education, and I have not been involved in the department for a number of years. So, as I said, I will see what, if anything, the minister is able to provide.

Can I just clarify: I think the honourable leader needs to be aware that the training to which the honourable member is referring actually refers to the other issue, which is in relation to selection panels, that is, merit-based selection. What we are talking about here is actually a review committee to either merge or amalgamate a school. I am not sure that the AEU provides one-day training every year with renewal courses every five years for these particular issues. I think it is merit-based selection; I think the member is conflating the two issues. When we come to debate the second issue—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: You are conceding the other one, then?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, when we come to debate the second issue, he can use that particular argument there, but I think his argument is wrongly placed in relation to this issue.

The point that I again make is that whether or not there is evil that has been committed by union bosses and AEU delegates is a matter of judgement, of course, and I will see what information the minister has, but the point that I have made here is: what is wrong with an AEU rep being elected by the staff if he or she is the best person for the job, or if a non-AEU member is the best person for the job and AEU members and non-AEU members are prepared to elect this person as their representative on an amalgamation review committee, what is the problem with that?

It just seems to be unreasonable and unfair that a person who might have the confidence of all of the staff, both union and non-union, in a school is precluded by legislation from representing that school on a committee. They may well have decades of experience in terms of fighting or arguing or knowing about the department's knowledge of amalgamations, etc. They might be the best person to represent that school community on this particular issue. Just because you are an AEU member does not necessarily mean you are the best person to represent all of the staff. If all of the staff think you are the best person, then terrific, but if all of the staff do not think you are the best person and think that somebody else who is not a union member is the best person, why should not all staff have the opportunity?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister please define 'staff'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is it is teachers, and it would include SSOs, admin staff and others. So it is not just teaching staff, it is the staff collectively at the school.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that the current clause states 'staff'. It does not say 'all staff', but also that 'staff' is not defined in the bill. 'Teacher' is defined. What clarity and assurances do we have that teachers are not actually being shut out of these decisions by this particular clause?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That teachers are not what?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What guarantees do we have that teachers will be represented on these review committees given we now have a different definition and a different selection process that in fact could include, by my reading of it, the administrative and grounds keeping staff of the school?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The assurance you have is the law that passes the parliament. It says 'staff', which includes teachers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister identify where that definition is contained within the bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The staff of a school includes teachers. You cannot have staff in a school and not include teachers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Does the minister acknowledge that the staff at a school includes non-teaching personnel?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I answered that question three questions ago. The answer is yes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: How will we be assured that teachers are guaranteed a spot on these review committees if it is not an AEU selection process but is, indeed, this new government-proposed criteria? Will teachers potentially not be on these amalgamation review panels?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The staff will elect the person who they believe best represents the staff at the school. Ultimately, unless the regulation, which is still being drafted, places any restriction on the person who could be elected by all the staff—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, it could not override it—elected or nominated by the staff, so the staff would have to elect or nominate. But in relation to who they could elect or nominate, my understanding—and I will take advice on it—is that the staff could elect any of their number to be their representative. If the staff believed that a school service officer who had been there for 40 years best represented the school in terms of a review committee and decided that was to be the case, then they could so elect. If the staff believed that the AEU member who had been there for 40 years was the best person to represent the school, they could do so. If the staff believed that a non-AEU representative who had been there for 40 years was the best person, they could elect to do so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am not a lawyer and neither is the minister, but why is there no definition of 'staff' in the bill when staff are referred to in the new clause that the government seeks to introduce? Why has that not been done within the previous clauses in the bill to provide that clarity?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As we have found, I think in relation to religious activities, there are a number of words that are used in the bill and in many bills that are not specifically defined in the definition. I think parliamentary counsel would probably argue that there is a common understanding of what 'staff' means and therefore the normal understanding of 'staff' would apply.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The current act stipulates that the AEU nominee is not a teacher at the school the subject of the amalgamation or closure. The act as currently in place ensures that the AEU nominee is not a teacher at the school in question. I can only assume that that was inserted into the bill to ensure a level of transparency and perhaps independence to make sure the teacher's views are not coloured one way or another by the particular interests of that school. So they are removed from the situation insofar as—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You are saying in the current act?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What, the teacher is not allowed to be on the committee?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, they are not allowed to be from the school that is facing closure.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But you could be a teacher?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: You could be a teacher, but you are not allowed to teach at the school that is the subject of the amalgamation or closure. The bill, on the other hand, provides that the teacher, the staff member or the SSO (whoever it is) will come from the school in question. My question is: what happens to that level of independence and transparency, and why is it no longer necessary to ensure that we have that level of independence and transparency in that very important decision-making process?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I might have to take that question on notice. The honourable member obviously has a greater understanding of the current act in relation to this than do I. Is the honourable member saying that a teacher at the school that is the subject of potential closure is not allowed to be on the committee?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: As the AEU rep.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: But in any guise?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes; they must be from a different school.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, sure, but what I am saying is that, if a school is subject to review for closure, the honourable member says that the current act does not allow a teacher at the school, an AEU member teacher, to be on that committee?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: That is my understanding.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will clarify that, but I am not sure why people would want to support that. If your school is being closed, why should you not be entitled to sit on the committee that is going to argue whether or not your school should be closed? The honourable member is arguing that perhaps that is a good thing because they are independent and that therefore that independence should be protected, and what the government bill is doing is allowing a person who is a local at the school to be on the committee.

The member raises a good point. If the member is saying that you need an independent person, that you should not allow a teacher from the school to be on the committee, I guess that is a valid point for the member to argue, particularly if it is an accurate reflection of the current act. I will take advice on what the current act provides. That would surprise me, but then again I am 20 years out of date.

It would surprise me if, for example, this thing that is being fought for, I just assumed was being fought for, and certainly the inference of all the argument has been that the teachers want to have somebody who has been trained—as the Leader of the Opposition was trying to say, and others who were there—to actually represent the views of the local teaching community in that particular area and, I guess, argue for whether or not the school ought to be closed. I will take that issue on advice and see whether or not the member's interpretation of the act is correct or not.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I can clarify for the record, I was not arguing for that position; it is just something that is obvious to me is the case, so I am just seeking clarification in relation to that issue.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Does the government envisage that, under the new bill, staff, whether they are teachers or SSOs, will be involved in a nomination and election process, and will that be formalised in any way?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros and the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos and others are raising some very interesting questions and, given that it is 25 to 6 and we have about another 25 minutes to go, I might propose that we report progress and I can take advice and share that with committee members. The Hon. Ms Bonaros is right. I have just been given—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Yes, she is.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is what I just said. I just said that.

The Hon. I. Pnevmatikos: We are agreeing with you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Okay, well, thank you. I have just been given information. Under section 14C(1)(d), it would appear that:

A person (not being a teacher at a school that is subject to the review) nominated by the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch);

would be there. That is under the current act. I am not sure which government brought it in. I assume it must have been the former government, because I think this was a provision brought in over the last 16 years. Anyway, it is there. In essence, the teacher at the particular school is incapable of being elected under the current act.

I would need to go back and see what the former government's bill was in relation to this and whether it replicated that, whether it did move to allow an AEU teacher at the school to be on it or whether it stuck with the current act. I will need to check that. I think the member has raised an issue. That is what the act says. What did the former Labor government's bill do? We have rightly confirmed that the new government's proposal is that it could be a staff member.

I am advised that the AEU has coverage of school service officers within schools, so he or she could still be an AEU member; they just do not happen to be a teacher. We do not see them as any less a person in terms of the future of the school than a teacher. I am interested in the thought that, 'This might be a terrible thing that an SSO might actually represent the school,' even though they might be an AEU member and have been there for many years. Those of us who know the value of SSOs within schools will know that they are the living embodiment of many schools, because they have generally been there for much longer than many of the teachers and principals in leadership positions. They are the heart and soul of the survivability of some schools, particularly primary schools but also some schools.

I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros has raised a very interesting question. Other questions have been raised as well, which I have taken on notice. Mr Chairman, given that I think the Hon. Mr Pangallo has a magnificent speech that he needs to place on the record before 6 o'clock on another issue, if the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos has another question that I can take on notice, I am happy to do that. Once I have the questions on notice, I will move that we report progress.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I would just like some clarity in terms of why the government has a problem with representative democracy, because certainly that is reflected in the bill. If the union represents 50 to 70 per cent of the staff in a school then why does the government have a problem with representative democracy?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is a pretty easy answer to give: we do not have a problem, but our representative democracy says, if the union represents 50 per cent or 70 per cent, there is another 30 or 50 per cent who are not represented by the union and all the 100 per cent should have the opportunity to vote for their particular representative.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Progress reported; committee to sit again.