Bills

Education and Children's Services Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 February 2019.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:03): I rise today to indicate that I am the lead speaker on the bill and that the opposition is generally supportive of the Education and Children's Services Bill 2018; however, we have filed amendments to the bill. The bill is predominantly the re-establishment of a 2017 bill of the same name, which was introduced by the then Labor government. Both now and in 2017, the bill could be described as a wholesale modernisation of legislation governing school and preschool education in South Australia.

It also is a combination of the Children's Services Act 1985 with the Education Act 1972. Under Labor, extensive consultation was undertaken on the bill and was largely supported by peak bodies and other relevant stakeholders. However, it did not pass the Legislative Council before parliament was prorogued prior to the election. The passing of the legislation was delayed due to amendments filed by the Liberal Party in this place, mainly around the removal of the Australian Education Union from important sections of the act. It is therefore little surprise that the new bill seeks again to remove the Australian Education Union from the legislative review processes used to determine the ongoing viability of schools in an area, and ultimately if a school can be forced to close, as well as vital selection panel processes in which teachers or leaders are hired or promoted.

Under the proposed new bill, the AEU will be replaced in these processes by a teacher from the school or schools in question. For a variety of reasons that I will outline, we do not support these new provisions. School review committees undertake the extremely critical role of reviewing the school's educational offerings and then make recommendations to the minister as to whether a school should remain open or be forced to close or amalgamate. Labor strongly believes the removal of the AEU from this process will make it much more likely and easier for the minister of the day to close a school through a review process. As we know, members of Liberal governments in the past have had a track record of forcing school closures, particularly the Leader of the Government in this place.

Without the strong voice of the AEU on the review committee, small schools, schools with decreasing enrolments, or schools where voluntary amalgamations or closures have been voted against by the school community will all be at risk. The Liberal government also wants to remove the AEU from the merit selection panel when it comes to hiring principals or a teacher applying for a promotion.

The selection process of leaders and teachers in education sites is an extremely important role but potentially contentious, emotional and difficult. For many years, the presence of identified AEU representatives on specific merit selection panels has ensured that the principles of merit, including fairness and proper processes, are adhered to. For merit selection to be truly successful, there must be a high level of trust and faith in the entire process, including from the point of the establishment of the panel. Through the provision of AEU representation on merit selection panels, the Education Act currently provides a layer of protection against a manipulation in the merit process. We know that the external placement of an AEU representative on merit selection panels for leaders and teachers assists in the promotion of faith in the process and the outcome of the process.

Currently, a panel chairperson has the ability to select or influence the selection of all other members on a merit selection panel (peer or staff), while the AEU representative is the only panel member that is not and cannot be personally selected by the principal or chairperson of that panel. Furthermore, AEU policy requires that the AEU panel members have up-to-date training in merit selection.

In order to be able to participate in any merit selection panel, AEU representatives are required to attend a full-day DECD training session, followed by follow-up retraining at least every five years. DECD does not have the same requirements for non-AEU panellists (chairperson, peer or staff representatives), which can often result in panellists who have not received any merit training for up to 15 years. With a new policy implemented in 2011, this has resulted in many panellists being completely out of touch with current expectations in merit processes and therefore the panel chairperson relying on AEU advice.

It may transpire that the Leader of the Government is more minded than his lower house colleagues to restore the critically important role of the AEU. The Hon. Rob Lucas has referred to the AEU as 'my very good friends, my comrades from the Australian Education Union', so I am sure he will keep those words in mind and look to support the Labor amendments in this place.

I would like to thank all of those who are involved in the critical task of educating our children and keeping them safe when they are at school or preschool. There is little the state government does that is more important than ensuring the next generation of South Australians have the very best opportunity to be who they are meant to be and ensuring that they are contributing to this state after their education. I look forward to the passage of this bill and look forward to support on some of the very important amendments that we say will improve the bill.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:09): I rise to speak very briefly. Much of what my party has had to say on this issue has already been encapsulated by the Hon. Mr Maher in this place and the member for Port Adelaide in the other. I only wish to underline the point I think Mr Maher went into in some detail, which is the selection process and individuals based on merit in regard to panels in schools, and, I guess, as the obvious point made on that, it seems the removal of the union in that regard.

This seems to be something of a pattern occurring with regard to some boards with which this government has interaction, and it is a disturbing one. I do not think the removal of unions is justified. I do not think it is justified on the basis that purely they are not liked by this government, or that they are found to be in some way an uncomfortable presence, if nothing else.

I note, as raised by the Hon. Mr Maher, the Treasurer has had some difficulty in his interactions with unions. Perhaps if the policies of this government were slightly adjusted, he might find those interactions somewhat easier. Since I cannot see that happening in any budget any time soon, I think that this could be something of a theme for the next four years. I place a footnote here that, again, we are running into this same problem.

As was underscored by the Hon. Mr Maher in this debate, and by the member for Port Adelaide in another place, we have again a potentially contentious, emotional and difficult situation in the placement of leaders and teachers in education sites. For many years it has been the presence of the AEU on those merit selection panels that has ensured that fairness and proper processes are adhered to—not just the union, of course, but the presence of many people, inclusive of the union.

The selection of individuals on the basis of merit is something that sometimes can cause a bit of suspicion in workplaces, particularly in bureaucratic ones. For merit selection to be truly successful, there has to be a fair bit of trust and faith in the entire process, including at the appointment of who is on the panel. Through the provision of union representation on merit selection panels, the Education Act provides a layer of protection against manipulation in regard to the merit process.

We know that the external placement of an AEU representative on merit selection panels for leaders and teachers assists in the promotion of that trust and faith to which I am referring. I caution again this government on what seems to be a bit of a trend that is forming: certainly it was on CITB, and again we see here that it has a bit of an 'it knows best', parental attitude to merit selection panels. It seems to think that the removal of people is justified on the basis that, either it does not see merit in them or that possibly it does not like them because of policy positions taken by the government. I caution them against that. I think a broad-based view of who is on selection panels, for things as important as who is educating our children, is something where it should look at everybody in society in order to have a cross-section.

In particular, I encourage them to again look to unions, such as the Education Union. They do represent a very broad cross-section of the profession, and a very broad cross-section of society. Simply removing unions because you find them ideologically uncomfortable is not a good reason to exclude them in their entirety. Even if you only look at some sectors, they represent up to 10 per cent of the workforce. I can guarantee you that, during my time working with employers, most employers who could find anyone who represented 10 per cent of their workforce were quite happy to find them and quite happy to talk to them because that meant that, quite frankly, they had less work to do in talking to the remainder of their workforce.

I encourage the government to take another look at what it is doing. I note also the comments made by Mr Maher here, and by the member for Port Adelaide in the other place, with regard to training, which is performed on their delegates versus some of the other people who form that merit-based panel. Training is performed at a minimum of every five years. That is certainly better than what we see with regard to some of the other panel members, who do not openly receive any training (that is not to say they do not have relevant experience from day to day); nonetheless, refresher training is always encouraged and certainly is looked at well by corporations such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Something that should form the basis of everybody's merit on that board, I think, is regular and updated training. I do not think it is good enough for someone to, for instance, not have received any training for up to 15 years.

So that underlines a lot of the points I wanted to make. I sound the larger warning to this government around its ongoing attitude to unions. I do not think it is a progressive or helpful attitude to have. I know there is the debate that may rage in newspapers and amongst ideological talking heads outside of this place that may get you a quick few headlines. I do not think that is going to help you in regard to the economy of South Australia. I do not think it is going to help you in regard to keeping the policy settings that I assume any government wants, in order to be fair and consistent, applied evenly to all South Australians in regard to how it wants its economy and society to run.

I encourage the government to involve everyone in its decision-making, and whether it necessarily ideologically likes them or not that really should include their very good friends in the union movement.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:16): I rise to speak, perhaps not so briefly, in support of the second reading of the Education and Children's Services Bill 2018. The bill, as we know, repeals the Education Act 1972 and the Children's Services Act 1985 and substantially reforms a number of other areas of legislation that deal with the administration and registration of teaching to support the educational institutions and standards of those in South Australia.

The bill, of course, has its genesis in the previous parliament. The former Labor government progressed it through the House of Assembly before the last election, but parliament was prorogued before the bill could be considered in this chamber. Naturally, the bill before us is not in exactly the same terms as the earlier iteration of the bill, and indeed there are several material differences which I will refer to during this contribution.

The bill's purpose is, as we know, to modernise our approach to education, comprising the school years but also the vital early childhood years, and do so in a way that makes the services and approach as seamless as possible, given the very nature of early childhood being a shared responsibility with the federal government. This modernisation by those who have worked tirelessly on the bill is to be commended and needs to be supported. Education should be a fundamental right in every society. Sadly, in many parts of the world it is not, but we are extremely fortunate in Australia to have one of the world's best education systems.

Quality education is a universal right of all South Australian children, no matter what your postcode or which school you attend, whether in the public or independent system. It is also a great leveller. For a Greek-Australian kid like me, it has opened a range of doors and presented me with a range of wonderful opportunities I once thought never possible. I echo the sentiments of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos when she said in her first speech:

Education has been my gateway. It has afforded me opportunities and broadened my work and life experiences…Education was a gateway for me but also for migrant women and migrant workers.

These words echo my own experience as the daughter of migrants who came here in search of a better life for their family and for future generations. Education and ingenuity have provided families with the key to a better life.

I was the first person in my family to progress to university. I am very pleased to say that I certainly was not the last. It was all those years of learning that led me to working in this place and ultimately to being elected to the Legislative Council many years later. It is also why having my family in this place when I was sworn in, particularly my beloved mother and father, was such a significant moment. It was the culmination of all the sacrifices they made for me to receive a quality education in the public system, to go on to university and study law and arts and a graduate diploma before eventually taking my place in this chamber. I am forever grateful to them for their commitment and for the gifts my education has given me. I hope other children also continue to benefit from such sacrifice on the part of their own families.

I turn now to the contentious aspects of the bill, the first of which is clause 82, which deals with religious and cultural activities. Of course, religion is already taught in our schools. It is part of the Australian curriculum. An understanding of comparative religion necessarily forms part of our attempts to understand society, the society in which we live and operate. This is not an issue. However, we should not be seeking to politicise the education of our children because to do so would jeopardise their futures. To use children and their developing minds for political pointscoring is dangerous and reckless and, in my view, is what has occurred with this clause—not just now but over many years.

There has been a furore in the media over arguments about an opt-out clause that exists in the bill under clause 82 versus an opt-in clause that had been moved by others with respect to religious and cultural activities and that certain persons and groups wanted to do away with Christmas carols in our schools. That is simply not the case. Indeed, Christmas assemblies and concerts are conducted in public schools. They are conducted in parishes and private schools across the state, where they feature many wonderful Christmas songs, whether they be solemn and moving, joyous and uplifting, or fun and festive.

This issue is not Christmas songs or the celebration of religious or cultural feasts and festivals, as these are to be celebrated in the culturally diverse state and nation we are all lucky to call our home. The issue has vexed the opposition, with the shadow minister for education, Dr Susan Close MP, circulating a draft amendment, dated 4 July 2018, and subsequently providing a briefing on 5 September to deal with the issue, along with other amendments to the bill.

We know that the draft provided an opt-in clause with respect to religious or cultural activity, that is, with express written consent. The draft was subsequently abandoned, some would argue unfairly, perhaps, with the media accusing the opposition of flip-flopping on the issue. As I have said, the issue is not Christmas carols, cultural feasts or festivals celebrated by so many South Australians, like Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Light, or even Chinese New Year, which the Hon. Jing Lee spoke about this week in this place, among others. These types of celebrations should be encouraged in such an ethnically diverse community as ours. Indeed, part 2, clause 7(4)(h) of the bill, which specifies the objects and principles of the act, provides, and I quote:

subject to this and any other Act or law, schools, preschools and children's services centres are free to celebrate events that are of significance to their communities (including, for example, by singing Christmas carols).

The real issue is religious instruction, that is, the teaching of faith to our children in public schools, how this is to be managed and whether this should require express consent. This iteration of the bill features the new term 'religious activity', which remains undefined. The department has advised us that, and I quote:

A religious or cultural activity for the purposes of clause 82 is not specifically defined under the Act but is intended to include activities that relate to specific religious or cultural beliefs or practices conducted by persons prescribed by the regulations, which could include clergy or representatives of churches or other religions or cultural groups [and] it could include a range of activities, workshops or performances with content relevant to the beliefs or practices of…

The current regulations, with respect to the issue, are now out of date and is of great concern to me that the content of material provided by faith persons wanting to come and provide religious instruction to children in public schools is not vetted by the Department for Education. We have been advised that these persons will have to be prescribed persons for the purposes of the regulations, but there is absolutely no detail around the criteria for prescribed persons. Consequently, I will be asking questions around the updating of the regulations and what they will look like when the bill enters its committee stage.

I note that the Hon. Tammy Franks, on behalf of the Greens, has filed an amendment that seeks to tackle the issue and separate religious instruction, further defining the term and also providing that religious instruction is to occur during specified periods outside of the regular curricula instruction.

The Hon. John Darley has two sets of amendments on this issue, and I have also filed an amendment which seeks to dispense with the clause altogether. As I understand it, the particular clause at issue will be recommitted when the Legislative Council resumes after a week's break, and I will have some more to say on those amendments at that time.

I note that the previous iteration of the bill, as introduced by the former Labor government, talked about religious and intercultural instruction. This bill, instead, refers to religious activities, an undefined and oblique term. I will be interested, at the committee stage, to inquire about the development of that term for inclusion in the bill.

Most of us would agree that proselytising to children, that is, the conversion or attempting to convert children to a particular faith, has no place in our public schools. As this clause will be recommitted when we resume after the break, the minister has undertaken to look at this issue of proselytising in terms of potential legislative drafting, and I look forward to further discussions with him in relation to that.

However, I make the point—and this is a very important point—that the making of this problem is political. It has been driven by politics and politicians over many years, some of whom have been accused of putting their own personal beliefs above the good of our schools and, of course, it has been fuelled by the media. What is certain is that for way too many years now we have all tied ourselves up in knots over what is or is not religion, and what is or is not cultural, at the expense of our children.

I want to make one final point before moving on from this topic about the importance of ethics being taught in our schools. Ethical questions are questions about what we ought to do and how we ought to live. Secular ethics explores these fundamental questions by means of reasoned arguments about values and principles rather than an appeal to religion or cultural norms. This secular approach has a long history, reaching back to Socrates and Aristotle, and is sometimes described as philosophical ethics—something I was very pleased to study at university.

Ethics classes have been provided in New South Wales public primary schools for several years now, as an opt-in alternative to religious instruction for children, with great success. In New South Wales, primary school ethics classes are run by a team of dedicated volunteers designed to support children to develop their moral reasoning capabilities. The focus of those teachings is on skill development rather than the promotion of any particular view. It is exactly what we should be teaching our children: how to arrive at their own independent, considered views.

Students are encouraged and supported to make their own judgements about whether something is right or wrong, whether something is good or bad, and to explain why, using evidence and reason. In my view, the most important lessons we can teach our children are resilience and critical thinking. The ability to think, reason, discuss and debate are wonderful, useful skills that we should be teaching our children. The government, I think, should consider introducing these ethics into the existing curriculum, raising ethical issues in relation to issues around science or history as an example, or even as stand-alone classes. I think that is something that would be very worthy of consideration by our department and our minister.

I turn now to another aspect of the bill which is the subject of several amendments and which has caused a great degree of controversy, that being the role of the Australian Education Union in participating in decisions, including in merit selection panels, contained in clause 54 of the bill. The member for Hurtle Vale, the Hon. Nat Cook, said in her second reading speech on the bill:

In order to be eligible to participate in any merit selection panel, AEU representatives are required to attend a full-day education training session with the department, followed by follow-up retraining, at least every five years.

The Department for Education does not have the same requirement for non-AEU panellists, which can often result in panellists who have not received any merit training being involved for up to 15 years. It is clearly a poorly conceived and executed attempt to stamp out unionism from the South Australian education sector. Should this bill succeed in its current form, our schools, teachers and students will be a force for it.

This explanation was proffered so as to justify the provision of AEU representation on merit selection panels. I was told the same thing when we met with the Australian Education Union; however, I think we have to question some of the claims that are made and whether in fact they are true. The comments made by the member for Hurtle Vale were checked with the minister's office and also with the South Australian State School Leaders Association (SASSLA).

I was advised by the minister's office that the people and culture division of the Department for Education oversee the training program for panellists. That program runs for an entire day and the input from the AEU into that full day of training is about one to two hours in duration. Further, SASSLA advised that undertaking the training is a prerequisite for participating on a selection panel. I certainly do accept that the union may do its own separate training, but I think it is a little bit misleading to suggest that there is no formal departmental training, and that is certainly the impression I was left with when I first met with AEU representatives.

There are also amendments that deal with clause 106, which deals with promotional level appointments. Clause 106(2)(b) seeks to change the structure of school leadership panels to enable the opportunity for all eligible staff to participate as staff representatives on panels for promotional level positions. Under the existing Education Act and regulations, the staff position on these panels is reserved for a nominee of the president of the AEU. As I previously noted, I have met with the AEU on more than one occasion and I have also met with Hands Up and SASSLA to discuss elements of the bill.

The AEU has outlined its views on the need to maintain exclusive union representation on these panels, that they represent 70 per cent of teachers who are members, a figure disputed by the government, and that its representatives are charged with representing the views of their members. The government, on the other hand, argues that this excludes a large cohort of teachers who would otherwise like to be involved in the process, and indeed the minister provided me with an example of the school where 24 non-union teachers out of a total of 30 teachers are precluded from participation.

The minister also questions whether indeed union membership is as high as the AEU claims, but I think it is fair to say that, despite the difference in the numbers, even the government would accept that these numbers sit somewhere near the range of 50 per cent at the very least. SASSLA made the point that the removal of union representation exclusivity would provide an opportunity for all eligible staff to participate in staff selection processes as well as providing different staff exposure to the merit process, which builds an understanding of these processes across a wider selection of site-based staff. In addition, it would prevent the potential of a single staff representative having, or perceived to be having, undue influence on selection outcomes.

As we know, there have been a number of amendments filed dealing with this issue of union representation and other significant issues, including an education ombudsman. I note the value that union representation provides for teachers with grievances, especially where a power imbalance exists with school leadership. I also note, perhaps for the benefit of the Hon. Tammy Franks, that in relation to the issue of an education ombudsman, I have requested and am awaiting written correspondence from the Ombudsman through the minister's office outlining their view in relation to the need for a separate education ombudsman. I would say if there are any advisers listening, which I know there are, I hope that that information becomes available before we get to the relevant provisions of the bill.

I look forward to the committee stage of the bill when many of the issues will be fleshed out and the proponents of those amendments will advance their arguments when they come to move them.

I have also filed amendments on behalf of SA-Best to clause 32 and clause 83 of the bill which deal with the issue of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment of students is, as we know, the intentional infliction of pain or discomfort and/or the use of physical force upon a student with the intention of causing the student to experience bodily pain so as to correct or punish the student's behaviour. There might be some members here who are old enough to remember the strap or the wooden paddle and that is certainly in keeping with the practice of corporal punishment. It is a technique that is, and over the years has been, easily abused, and one which leads to physical injury and which, of course, can cause serious and long-lasting emotional harm.

Corporal punishment does not belong in any of our schools, and I note that the practice has been outlawed at the federal level, which has created an inconsistency. Parents who send their children to parish and private schools, I think, would be horrified to know that the practice is still legal in those schools, at least on our statute books. Just by way of reference, corporal punishment in public schools has been banned since 1991, and with good cause. However, the practice of allowing corporal punishment in non-government schools has persisted in legislation and it is finally time to dispense with this archaic and brutal practice.

It is worth noting that South Australia is one of only two jurisdictions that still allows corporal punishment in non-government schools to remain on its statute books, the other being Queensland. I am utterly dismayed and shocked, as many parents are or would be, that this outdated practice is allowed to exist and that successive governments have not moved to outlaw the practice earlier. To that end my amendments to the clause will bring non-government schools into line with SA's public schools and the majority of other states.

The last known official report of corporal punishment was in one of the state's private schools, and it occurred as recently as 2014. While it may not be being used in non-government schools, it should unequivocally be banned altogether and removed from legislation. It is draconian, and it belongs in history and not in the modern era of education.

As I understand it—and I hope I am correct—the government and the opposition have come on board and will support my amendments in relation to that effect. I thank them, if indeed that is the case when we come to it. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to the committee stage debate.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (11:36): I too rise to speak on the Education and Children's Services Bill 2018. I acknowledge the comments made by members of this council, as well as the member for Port Adelaide in the other house. I am firmly committed to protecting the integrity of our education system because I understand just how fundamental education is in shaping both individuals and society. We must ensure that those working in education are given the support they need to deliver the best outcomes for young people in this state. A system that does not support and encourage cooperation and understanding between management, leadership, teachers, support staff and parents will only be letting down our students.

The bill we are discussing today is essentially a re-establishment of a bill introduced by Labor in 2017 that was designed to modernise and update the legislation governing school and preschool education in South Australia. But at that time the legislation was held up because the Liberals insisted on amendments that would remove the Australian Education Union from important sections of the act. Fast forward to today, and it should come as no surprise that the Liberal government has used this new bill to remove the Australian Education Union from the legislative review process as well as the selection panel process in which teachers or leaders are hired or promoted.

I will support measures that ensure the best possible outcome for our students, but I cannot accept measures that are purely politically motivated and will have no benefit to student outcomes or the integrity of the education system.

Let us take a look at the facts. Over recent years, there has been a move to greater autonomy within schools, allowing the leadership team more freedom to shape the culture of that school. This has been a big change and, as with all substantial reforms, there have been challenges. I am certain that with the right cooperative leadership, a school can thrive. However, there is a growing number of teachers who feel increasingly frustrated and disenfranchised by leadership styles that are undemocratic and non-inclusive.

An article published by TheSydney Morning Herald in October of last year stated that close to half of all bullying incidents reported by teachers involved problems with 'an immediate supervisor or senior manager'. Statistics indicate that 40 to 50 per cent of Australian teachers leave the profession within the first five years of their employment. That is an astounding number and, quite frankly, we should be doing everything in our power to stem this loss instead of making conditions even more difficult for teachers.

I recently met with a group of teachers who have set up an online community called hashtag #handsup. This group was established because teachers who felt they had justified grievances were finding new avenues to voice their complaints and be taken seriously. Hashtag #handsup gives teachers a voice and the opportunity to share their experiences with others in an effort to reform the grievance process. In just a few short months, the group has grown to around 90 members. Some of these teachers are AEU members but many are not. However, the one thing they have in common is a passion for teaching and the feeling that they are increasingly unable to have their opinions heard.

In light of the current climate, it would seem to me the most sensible thing would be to ensure a high level of transparency and accountability for all. Yet, this bill seeks to remove the independent AEU representative, the one person who can ensure transparency and accountability, from both the legislative review process and the merit selection process. The selection of leaders and teachers in schools is extremely important but also potentially contentious and emotional. For many years, the presence of an identified AEU representative on specific merit selection panels has ensured that the principles of merit, including fairness and proper process, are adhered to.

For merit selection to be truly successful, there must be a high level of trust and faith in the entire process, including from the point of establishment of the panel. By safeguarding AEU representation on merit selection panels, the Education Act currently provides a layer of protection against manipulation in a merit process. Currently, a panel chairperson has the ability to select or influence the selection of all other members on a merit selection panel, peer or staff, while the AEU representative is the only panel member who is not and cannot be personally selected by the principal or chairperson of the panel.

I have also recently met with AEU representatives who have reiterated their commitment to ensuring that all AEU panel members have current and ongoing training in merit selection, education department policies and procedures. This includes a full-day DECD training session followed by follow-up retraining at least every five years. Teachers deserve our respect and our support. They need to have faith in the system they work within, and they need to have a system in place in which their concerns are heard and taken seriously.

By removing AEU involvement in these essential processes within schools, we would be undermining these needs and removing a layer of accountability. We need to strengthen the trust that exists within school communities, not chip away at it because of political ideology. That will not help teachers prepare the next generation of South Australians to reach their full potential. For this reason, I support the amendments to the bill that we are proposing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:43): I thank the Hon. Mr Darley, the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Maher, the Hon. Ms Bonaros, the Hon. Mr Hanson and the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, who have all spoken at varying stages at the second reading of the bill. I have had brief discussions with members in relation to the progress of this bill. I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros has outlined her understanding of how the government would like to proceed with the bill.

We would like to go through the committee stage today but not vote on the third reading of the bill today. That is, at the end of the committee stage, I would report progress. That is for the reason that, at least on three specific clauses and two issues—religious instruction and corporal punishment—amendments have been filed in the last week. Whilst I am in the position to at least share the initial views of the minister in relation to this, we, at least on our side of the council—I am not sure about the Labor Party's side of the council—have not had the opportunity for our party room to look at the amendments and to consider their position in relation to the amendments.

The issue of religious instruction is a complicated one with a range of competing and contrasting amendments and, certainly from the party room's viewpoint, they are entitled to at least have a say and we will be in a position on Tuesday when next we sit to conclude the debate in that particular area. The issue of corporal punishment has always been a controversial one. Again, our party room will want to have the opportunity to put a point of view in relation to what the government's position is on the amendments that have been moved in the last few days in relation to this particular issue.

On behalf of the minister and the government, I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised on behalf of the Minister for Education. The first broad area where there has been considerable debate and contention for a number of years now is the issue of the Australian Education Union's position on school review committees and selection committees for promotional-level teaching positions.

Both the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Ms Franks have filed amendments with respect to the representation of the AEU on committees considering closure or amalgamation of schools and selection committees for promotional-level teaching positions. It is the government's position that, while representation of staff in these matters is critically important, the very fact of somebody's membership or otherwise of an individual body should not determine their eligibility to represent their fellow staff members.

As has been articulated on a number of occasions, the government's position is that identifying the AEU specifically in the bill is contrary to the government's preferred position. The bill should not specifically reserve a place for the AEU in relation to these matters. The government has amended clause 54(2) to provide that a school review committee will consist of a number of members, one of whom will be 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 regulations.

Clause 106(2) has been amended to provide that a selection committee must include members appointed by the chief executive, at least one of whom must be an officer of the teaching service elected or nominated by other officers of the teaching service to represent them on such committees in accordance with the regulations. The government does not support any changes being made to these provisions. They already provide for appropriate staff representation on these committees.

I thank the Hon. Ms Bonaros for outlining to the committee in part a response to the claims that are being made that it is only the AEU representatives who are in some way trained in merit-based selection. The Hon. Ms Bonaros was provided with information, either directly or indirectly, through the department in relation to the training that goes on. I can even remember, in my day—and I am not sure whether it continues—that one of the two parent bodies, which I think at that stage was SAASPC (the South Australian Association of School Parent Clubs) was provided with government funding for them to train parent representatives on panels. I am not sure whether that practice still continues or whether someone else has taken over that particular role.

Certainly, the notion of appropriate training for panel members or review committee members is one that governments, Liberal and Labor, have taken pretty seriously over the years in relation to appropriate practice that should be adopted. I thank the Hon. Ms Bonaros for placing on the record the information that had been provided to her in relation to the issue. Certainly, the government's strong position—certainly, a position that I endorse strongly—is that, ultimately, staff, in this case generally teachers, should be represented on these panels.

It is my view that, given the high percentage of AEU membership in significant parts of the state—not everywhere but in significant parts of the state—it is highly likely that an AEU representative would be the person elected by the staff at the particular school as being the appropriate person to represent the staff on the panel, if the government's amendments were successful. The government has no objection to that at all; that is, if the staff at the school think that a particular person is their best representative on a merit-based panel process, then that is a democratic process and why not let the views of the staff prevail?

However, equally I would say—and this might be in a minority of circumstances—if there is an outstanding teaching advocate in a particular school who, for whatever reason, has either never been a member of the AEU or has fallen out of love with the AEU and resigned from the AEU on a matter of principle or something, and the staff at that school would like that particular person to represent them on a panel because they think they are the best possible person, then why on earth should not that particular person be entitled to be supported and elected by their peers at the school in terms of representing them on the panel? It seems not only unfair but incongruous that a person nominated democratically by staff as being the best person to represent them on a panel, whether they are AEU members or not, should be precluded by legislation from being able to represent the staff at the school.

What is so wrong with staff at a school having the opportunity to vote for their representative on a panel? I think the simple answer to that is there should be nothing. But why should we as a parliament legislate to say, 'If you want to go on a panel, even if you're the best person for the job, you actually have to sign up and become a member of an industrial organisation'? Whatever your personal beliefs are, the only way you can be on a merit-based selection panel is if you sign up, pay your membership fee and become a member of the Australian Education Union. I think that is the kernel of the argument that we will have when we get into the committee stage of the bill as to the inherent unfairness of the current arrangements and the arrangements that the Labor Party and others are supporting.

I also absolutely refute the notion that the only protection for a fair, merit-based process is by having an AEU representative on a panel. With the greatest of respect to my comrades and friends in the Australian Education Union, with whom I have had a long association over many years and continue to have cordial discussions with on a regular basis, I am sure even they would not go so far as to say that they could guarantee that every one of their members was as pure as the driven snow and that every one of their members had a much greater level of integrity than other teachers in the teaching force who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to become members of the Australian Education Union.

It may well be the case that in many cases that is correct, that the AEU representative is the best person to ensure the integrity of the panel process, but no-one can guarantee that there is not a member of the Australian Education Union who may not hold the integrity of the selection panel processes in the way that the vast majority of them would. There are always rogues in any organisation. There are rogues in the parliament, both past and present, I suspect. There are rogues in the legal profession. There are rogues in the judiciary. There are rogues in the medical profession. And, sadly, there are rogues within the union movement as well.

The mere fact of saying that, because you happen to be a member of the Australian Education Union, ipso facto you guarantee integrity of the selection process, is nonsensical and ludicrous, to use a phrase that has gained some popularity in other discussions. As I said, in the vast majority of cases it can certainly be defended, but in some cases it cannot. In circumstances like that, why not allow the local staff and the local school to be able to accept or reject a particular person as their nominee on a selection panel?

The second broad area that has attracted some debate has been the area of religious and cultural activities in schools and special religious instruction. We now have amendments from the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Ms Bonaros, all filing various versions of amendments to clause 82. The Hon. Ms Franks' amendment proposes to amend clause 82 to remove references to cultural activities, so that this provision would only deal with special religious instruction and restrict its delivery to time outside the formal school day and at lunch times.

Inherent in the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment is a debate that also continued in the House of Assembly in relation to the new phrasing or wording in the government's bill, as opposed to the phrasing and wording that existed in the current act. I think the former government's bill made mention of 'intercultural'. The new government has used the phrase 'religious and cultural activities'. I suspect, when we come to the debate, there will be questions, as there were in the House of Assembly. I think the Hon. Ms Bonaros raised the issue of what is the actual definition of 'religious or cultural activity', and I am sure we will be asked to explore that in the committee stage of the debate as well.

The government supports provision for a school principal to determine whether to permit religious or cultural groups to conduct activities at their school that are relevant to the needs and interests of their particular school community, and that time be set aside for such activities. Under clause 82 of the bill, parents would be notified of any particular activities and could request that their child be exempted from participation on conscientious grounds.

The Hon. Mr Darley recently filed two amendments to clause 82: the first would require the conduct of religious and cultural activities in a school to be approved by the school's governing council and the second seeks to ensure that religious or cultural activities conducted for students under the provision are not of an instructive nature but rather for the purpose of providing information or knowledge about a culture or religion.

These amendments, and those of the Hon. Ms Bonaros, are amendments that the government's party room has not yet considered. I am able to share that, certainly on the minister's initial reading or viewing of these amendments, from his viewpoint he is unlikely to be recommending support for the Hon. Mr Darley's first amendment, the argument being that it makes it possible for the views of a small number of parents to dictate whether these activities are offered at a school rather than allowing individual families to decide whether their child or children should be exempt from participation in these activities on conscientious grounds.

In relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, the minister's initial feeling (and, again, as I said, we need to have a debate in the government's party room in relation to this) is that there is certainly an argument that this would make the provision unworkable in practice, and that argument would be that it is likely that most religious or cultural activities will, to some degree, be instructive in nature, whether that is morally or ethically instructive or practically instructive in respect of some of the practices or traditions of a particular religion or culture. Requiring principals to discern whether an activity proposed merely imparts information and knowledge or would be instructive in nature would likely be unreasonable in the circumstances and may make the provision of religious and cultural activities unworkable.

I can see what the Hon. Mr Darley is seeking to do in his amendment, but I think the minister's initial response is that the drafting of what he seeks to do is extraordinarily difficult, and certainly the drafting that is currently in that particular amendment, in our view, or in the minister's view, would make the whole provision potentially unworkable. I am not sure that is actually what the Hon. Mr Darley is seeking to do by way of his amendment. He is seeking to clarify, and the minister's initial advice is that rather than clarifying it may well just make it all so difficult that there would be no prospect of religious or cultural activities being able to be provided.

Also recently, the Hon. Ms Bonaros has filed an amendment that is opposing clause 82. Again, our party room has not considered the Hon. Ms Bonaros's amendment. The minister's initial reading of it is that certainly from his viewpoint he is unlikely to recommend support for the amendment, but as I said our party room has not yet had the opportunity to have that particular debate.

In relation to progressing the issues today, the government will be moving through clause 82. It may well be that at clause 1 there is a series of questions that might relate to this issue, where we can answer questions at clause 1. We will propose that we move through clause 82, but with the commitment that we will not be going to a third reading today, and with the commitment that on the next Tuesday of sitting we will recommit clause 82 for the purposes of considering the amendments that have been moved. Indeed, for that matter, if as a result of the debate and further discussion a particular member wanted to refine their amendment they could, as long as they do it in plenty of time prior to the next Tuesday.

Rather than us arriving at the next sitting week with an amendment about to be filed, I ask the Hon. Mr Darley and the Hon. Ms Bonaros, if they on reflection decide to amend, to give all of us plenty of notice before our party room meetings. In our case, it is on the Monday prior to the sitting. In the Labor Party's case, it is the Tuesday morning, I think. Their shadow cabinet, I suspect, meets on the Monday afternoon and may will consider it, but it is up to the Labor Party to look at their processes. Certainly, from the government's party room viewpoint, we meet on the Monday prior to the next Tuesday of sitting, and so if any member wanted to refine, improve or clarify their particular amendment, I would respectfully ask them to provide advice to the minister and the government prior to that Monday.

The next area where there has been some debate is in relation to the education ombudsman. The Hon. Ms Franks has filed amendments to establish an education ombudsman. The government's position is that it will oppose the proposal. The minister advises that feedback from the state Ombudsman, the chief executive of the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, the Director of Catholic Education South Australia and the Department for Education concurs with the government's position.

The state Ombudsman has jurisdiction over complaints in relation to government schools and children's services and does handle such complaints, and has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal to establish an education ombudsman. This is, for the benefit of the Hon. Ms Bonaros, I am advised, a direct quote from the state Ombudsman in relation to the education ombudsman:

I advise that I do not believe it is in the public interest to establish a separate education ombudsman. My position on this is informed by the following considerations.

In 2017-18 my office fielded 171 complaints about the Department for Education (the department). In the last four financial years the department has contributed $200,000 per annum towards my budget. This has been sufficient to cover this volume of complaints. On these figures, a separate office dedicated to complaints about the department is not economically justified and, certainly, the cost of creating a new office will far exceed the $200,000 per annum currently provided to my office for external oversight of the department.

My office is in regular contact with the department's Education Complaints Unit and is aware of their efforts to resolve complaints from parents and caregivers on a range of school and education matters. In my view, the department has a reasonably good internal complaint management system which the department is continually seeking to improve.

Relevant to this, I advise that I am currently monitoring the final stages of the implementation of recommendations from my November 2016 audit of the Department for Education's education-related complaint handling practices. To date I am satisfied that the department has responded appropriately to my recommendations to improve its complaint handling practices.

Given that the department is being proactive in its responsibilities to address complaints, the creation of an external oversight mechanism such as an education ombudsman, that is, in addition to the current oversight bodies, is unnecessary.

I understand that the Hon. Tammy Franks MLC has a particular concern about the department's handling of complaints about student bullying and I note that the proposed amendment filed in 2017 had a focus on investigating issues associated with school discipline. In regard to that issue I make the following points.

Only a small proportion of complaints received by this office about the department relate to its handling of student bullying issues—38 of 171 complaints about the department. To create a new office primarily in response to this issue is a blunt mechanism and a heavy-handed response to such a specific concern.

As was evident at the recent Keeping Children Safe from Bullying Conference in Adelaide, the department is actively working to empower schools to prevent, identify and respond to bullying between children and young people. I believe these efforts need to be given time to take effect before any decision is made to establish an education ombudsman.

Under the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016 the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Child Death and Serious Injury Review Committee have only recently been established. Both these bodies have functions that are relevant to exercising oversight of the department in that they have responsibilities regarding the safety and wellbeing of children.

Under section 40 of the act the committee may refer a matter for inquiry by the commissioner under section 15 of the act, and under section 42 the commissioner may make a complaint on behalf of a child or young person to my office. To add an education ombudsman to this framework will result in duplication of oversight and potentially undermine the responsibilities of the commissioner and committee.

I understand that one of the arguments in support of establishing an education ombudsman is that it would provide a specialist complaint mechanism with expertise in the education sector. I advise that Ombudsman SA has been dealing with complaints about the state's education system for decades and has the experience and skill necessary for assessing and investigating such complaints. Where necessary and relevant, investigators within the office do call upon other authorities, such as the Commissioner for Children and Young People or the Guardian for Children and Young People, for their specialised perspective on an issue related to an investigation. I do not believe a specialised education ombudsman could add anything more to the process.

That is a very long quotation from, I am advised, correspondence from the state Ombudsman on the issue of the education ombudsman.

There are many other issues of course but the final major issue is the one in relation to corporal punishment. The Hon. Ms Bonaros has filed amendments to clauses 32 and 83 in recent days concerning the prohibition of corporal punishment in preschools, children's service centres and schools. As I indicated, the government's party room has not considered these particular amendments; however, I understand that the minister, certainly in discussions with the Hon. Ms Bonaros, is minded to recommend support for the principles behind those particular amendments. However, as I said, that will be an issue for the government party room to have its view and come to a final decision, having listened to the expert opinion of the Minister for Education on the particular issues.

I can share some information in relation to the minister's view on these new amendments. He says it is worth noting that offences already exist under the Education and Care Services National Law that prohibit the use of corporal punishment in both government and non-government preschool services. Clause 32 of the bill will prohibit the use of corporal punishment and enable it to be dealt with as assault under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. There is the potential for higher penalties under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act compared to those under the national law. The proposed amendment at clause 83 further clarifies that the clause is intended to prohibit the imposition of corporal punishment in both government and non-government schools.

Clause 4 of the bill, the minister advises, sets out which provisions of the bill are intended to apply only to government schools and outlines that all other provisions are to apply to non-government schools. However, the minister is indicating that, whilst clause 4 exists, his personal view is that he would not be opposing inclusion of this extra clarification in respect of clause 83. He indicates that representatives of the non-government schooling sector have indicated to him that they have no objection to the amendments, and I put that on the public record in relation to the information that the minister has on those recent amendments. With that, I look forward to the committee stage of the debate, and the process will be as I outlined earlier in my second reading closing contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could you provide, as the representative of the government, what the position on this bill is from the Commissioner for Children and Young People?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On the whole bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Well, with specific reference to bullying and the Ombudsman.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that we do not have anything specific from the commissioner in relation to the bill or the particular aspects of the bill to which the honourable member has referred.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the government aware of the letter of 15 October 2018 from the Commissioner for Children and Young People with regard to this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The letter to whom?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To the Minister for Education with regard to this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not have a copy of the letter the honourable member has referred to but if the letter is addressed to the minister then clearly the minister would have received it, and if it was dated October, I assume the minister has responded. My advice is that there might have been some reference in the debate in the House of Assembly that there was some amendment as a result of the commissioner's letter to the principles of the bill, which was raised, evidently, in the commissioner's letter. Again, I do not have a copy of the commissioner's letter. If the information that I have just placed on the record is incorrect, I am happy to correct the record when we return either this afternoon or when we reconvene on the next Tuesday of sitting.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government outline when they consulted the Commissioner for Children and Young People with regard to this bill, on what dates and in what format, and why they have no knowledge of the correspondence of 15 October?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify: clearly, the minister would have had knowledge of the letter of 15 October because the letter was written to him. I do not have the minister here advising me at the moment. I have an officer from within the department. It is a very big department so I am sure the honourable member would understand that if the question was directed to the minister responsible then I am sure he would have been in a position to give the member a more specific and definitive reply.

From that viewpoint, the minister would have been aware of the letter I am sure and, as I said, I assume he has responded to the letter. In relation to whether—in the first instance when this bill was being constructed by either the former government or the new government—the commissioner was specifically asked for comment, the answer to that is, my advice is, no, the commissioner was not consulted in terms of the original drafting of the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Was the commissioner consulted with the Marshall government drafting of the bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Sorry, I assumed that was the question you were asking me. I could not speak—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, this is another question altogether. You have just said the previous government was involved.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not in a position to know what the former government did in relation to consulting. I was answering the question in relation to this government. The advice was, in relation to this government, no, we did not consult with the commissioner in relation to the Marshall government's bill. I cannot answer for what the former government did or did not do in relation to the commissioner.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why did the Marshall government not undertake any consultation with the Commissioner for Children and Young People with regard to the bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Was that when or why?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why did this Marshall government, which is now the government and which has the responsibility for consulting on their legislation, not consult with the Commissioner for Children and Young People with regard to the bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: All I can share with the member is some comments made by the Minister for Education, as I understand it, in another place when the issue was raised about consultation and changes to the bill. The minister said, I am advised, as follows: that the changes to this bill from that introduced by the previous Labor government reflect amendments which were moved in parliament in 2017 when the bill was debated in the other place. It also reflects some technical amendments which were identified by the Crown Solicitor's Office and parliamentary counsel.

I note that the minister has said this bill is significantly similar to the bill previously introduced by the former government, albeit that there are significant amendments in some areas. The minister continued, saying that he noted that the version of the bill brought to parliament by the member for Port Adelaide was also released for public consultation on the YourSAy website early in 2017, prior to the commencement of the sitting year. The then opposition, the now government, took the opportunity at that stage to consult widely as well. We spoke to a wide range of stakeholders, and those stakeholders had an opportunity to talk to us in opposition. This consultation informed the amendments that were moved in 2017.

There was further consultation on the fact that there was an election. Indeed the people of South Australia were well aware of the Liberal Party's position on these amendments. It was our commitment in many public fora before the election that we would be reintroducing the bill, and the member for Morialta—the then member for Morialta—indicated in a number of those speeches at events during the election period that we would be introducing the bill with such amendments. So the opportunity for people to be aware that the opposition would be reintroducing this bill in the amended form as identified was very clear before the election, and the election itself is, of course, the ultimate form of consultation, etc.

The minister's position, in summary, was: there was a former government bill and he and the opposition consulted at the time with a range of stakeholders. Whether the former government consulted with the commissioner in the drafting of the original bill I cannot indicate, but essentially the process the new minister and the new government adopted was: here was a bill, we announced the sort of positions we were going to adopt, everyone knew what our positions were and the bill went through that particular process.

It was not as if we went to a consultation process with everyone right back to first stages and consulted every stakeholder in education and those who are not directly in education but might have a view on things, like the commissioner. That was not the process the government adopted with this particular bill because it had been through the process that the minister had outlined.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It is my recollection that from my first question I asked what was the view of the Commissioner for Children and Young People on this bill, and I was told with specific reference to an education ombudsman and bullying that there was no view. Can the minister clarify that that was his original answer on behalf of this government?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, that was not my original answer. The original answer, and I am happy to check the Hansard, was: was I aware of the letter of 18—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No; that was several questions in, after. I said, 'What were the views of the commissioner with regard specifically to bullying and the ombudsman on this bill?' and I was told in the very first question that there was no—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No. Mr Chairman, with great respect, and we can check the Hansard, that was not the first question in relation to bullying and harassment. I am happy for the Hansard record to stand. I was asked a question in relation to whether the commissioner had been consulted in relation to the issue, or something along those lines. My advice at the time was that, no, there had not been and then you indicated, 'What about this letter?' from whatever date in October in relation to those issues. That was the subsequent question. I am happy for the Hansard record to be checked, if the member would like to query those particular interpretations of the events. In relation to specific questions about bullying and harassment, I do not have a copy of the letter. The member does. If she wants to share the particular questions—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It was sent to the minister. I am cc'd into it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I accept that it was sent to the minister but I am not the minister, the Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You are the government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Of course I am, but I do not have a copy of every piece of correspondence the Minister for Education receives on a particular bill. It might surprise the Hon. Ms Franks, but I do not have a copy of every piece of correspondence the Minister for Education has received on the bill. I stand here on behalf of the government and the minister with an adviser from within the department, not within the minister's office, to do the best we can to try to assist the member in terms of responding to her particular questions. That is all I can do and I am happy to do the best I can in relation to assisting the member in clarifying any questions or issues that she might have.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the position of the Commissioner for Children and Young People on this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to get a copy of the letter—the member obviously has a copy of the letter—and to read the letter—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think there is more than one letter. I just got one following up from the first letter.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, it might surprise the Hon. Ms Franks that I do not have all the correspondence that the Minister for Education has received. So I do not know what specific concerns, if any, the commissioner has in relation to provisions of the bill. The member can ask me as many questions as she likes but I do not know the specific answers to that particular question. I am happy over the lunch break to try to get copies of the correspondence, to read the correspondence and, when we reconvene this afternoon, to wax lyrical about the issues that the commissioner may or may not have raised in letters to the minister late last year in relation to aspects of the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could we be provided with a list of the organisations and individuals who have provided feedback on this bill, including in its previous incarnation, or if you do not have control over that information, certainly under the Marshall government and minister Gardner? I note that I asked what the position of the commissioner was on the overall bill as a first question but you asked for a bit of clarification, so I reduced it simply to be about the ombudsman and bullying. I was not expecting an answer that there was not any information regarding a position by the Commissioner for Children and Young People because I was cc'd into a letter written to the government in October 2018, which states:

Dear Minister

As South Australia's Commissioner for Children and Young People my mandate under the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2006 (the Act) is to advocate for the rights, interests and wellbeing of all children and young people in South Australia. It is also my role to ensure that the State, at all levels of government satisfies its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under this Act each State authority must, in carrying out its functions or exercising its powers, protect, respect and seek to give effect to the rights set out in the CRC.

I am writing to update my position on the Education and Children's Services Bill. Since my previous correspondence I have had many conversations about bullying with multiple stakeholders. Through these I have been made aware that it is intended this Bill be used as a tool to address bullying, mainly through the use of suspensions, expulsions and exclusions. This has prompted me to provide additional feedback and recommendations.

My concern with this Bill is that children's fundamental rights will be overlooked to address behavioural issues through measures to 'teach children lessons'. The literature has shown that excluding children.¹ Children who are excluded from education by any of the above-mentioned methods are less likely to do well at school, are more disengaged and are more likely to leave school earlier. Children who are already doing it tough and marginalised are more likely to be targeted with these types of interventions.

Article 29 of the CRC states the education should develop the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, State parties have a duty to develop children's and young people's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Charter in the United Nations. This is reaffirmed in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, Education and Training. The State also has a duty to develop children's respect for themselves, the environment and other people. I believe using suspensions, exclusions and expulsions as tools to address bullying behaviour will not achieve these ends.

The letter goes on and is obviously signed off by the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Helen Connolly. My question to the government is: what actions have they taken with regard to the bill and the serious concerns raised by the Commissioner for Children and Young People that the provisions in the bill are not acceptable to the Commissioner, based on her work on bullying?

Further, I note that when I raised the issue of an ombudsman it was then brought back that this was somehow about bullying. In my second reading speech I referred to the commissioner's work on bullying. That is not the only reason for having an ombudsman and certainly not the main reason for having an ombudsman.

I also express my deep concern that in the very first question, when I asked what the position of the Commissioner for Children and Young People is on the bill, the government purported that there was none, yet this commissioner has raised serious concerns about the impact of the approaches to bullying and the behavioural management techniques currently used and to be enshrined in the bill. I am quite concerned that an important voice in this debate has not been heard and I ask what the government's response is to ensure that the commissioner's concerns have been addressed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only repeat, again, that it is incorrect to say that when asked the first question I said that the commissioner had no views at all about the issue. The Hon. Ms Franks can make that claim as often as she wishes, but it is incorrect. I never said that, and her repeating the statement that I did does not make it fact. In relation to the commissioner, I will take advice from the minister over the Christmas break—sorry, over the lunch break.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: No Christmas carols today!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly—over the lunch break. Let me speak as an individual member of the government, therefore not formally speaking on behalf of the government but as a former minister for education who has a little experience in terms of running schools in this state and having heard the concerns of parents and students in relation to the management of schools.

It is fair to say I have only heard one of her letters and it may well be that she is referring, as the member indicates, to previous letters, but if the commissioner's view is that in some way there is something wrong with exclusion, suspension and expulsion, ultimately, in terms of managing bullying behaviour, I do not think, frankly, they are views that would be supported by the vast majority of parents, where the education of the vast majority of students in a particular classroom may be significantly impacted.

Not only their education but their wellbeing may be significantly impacted by the bullying behaviour of a particular student in a particular class. My previous experience with education is that sometimes even the most magnificent of teachers and the most magnificently run of schools can just not cope in the normal classroom environment with the bullying activities and behaviour of a particular student in a classroom. That becomes a subject of complaint by every other student and parent of those students in the classroom.

It is just a natural result of the system that in some way, on some occasions, despite the best endeavours of teachers and staff, that a student who refuses to change his or her behaviour has to be either excluded or suspended, otherwise, as I said, the education and the physical and mental wellbeing of every other student in the class is significantly and negatively impacted by that particular behaviour.

I listened to the letter being quoted by the honourable member, but if the view of the commissioner is leading to an argument, as it appeared to, at least on the surface, that in some way we should be reducing the capacity for suspension, exclusion and expulsion, then personally, as a former minister for education, I do not think that is a view that most parents and teachers would support. Inevitably, as part of managing student behaviour and wellbeing within schools, yes, you must consider what is best for the individual student who might be engaging in the bullying behaviour, but equally for every other student in the class who is not engaging in bullying behaviour, their rights and entitlements to an education and to physical wellbeing conducive to good education should be considered as well.

It is possible—and let me consult with the minister—that the minister respectfully listened to the commissioner's views and in the end did not agree with the particular views on the exclusion, expulsion and suspension provisions of the bill. I cannot speak for the minister because I have not had a discussion with him. I will have the discussion with his office to clarify what his response was in relation to that. But if that was his position, it would be an entirely reasonable position to put and one I think would be supported by the majority of parents and teachers within our schools in terms of how you manage what is sometimes the entirely unreasonable behaviour of bullies within our schools.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is all very nice, but I asked for the government's position not an individual, personal belief of a particular member of this chamber. If the minister representing the minister could bring that back, that would be much appreciated.

My next question is: will the government be exercising a conscience vote on the religious instruction provisions in this bill?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is an interesting question and one that I should have an answer for. I am happy to take advice from the minister in relation to this issue. Our general process in relation to this is that on any issue a member of the Liberal Party has the entitlement to vote according to his or her conscience anyway, so it is an entirely moot point, as has been demonstrated relatively recently in relation to other legislation. Members are entitled to vote according to their conscience and they do not get expelled from the party. However, as the honourable member would be aware, we do nominate particular issues as being conscience issues for members of the Liberal Party. I cannot recall whether the issue of religious instruction was nominated as a conscience issue when we first discussed this a couple of years ago when it was a government bill. I suspect it might have been, but I will check that over the lunchtime break and bring a reply back to the member after lunch.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can I ask through the Chair for the minister: what is the position of the South Australian Association of State School Organisations Incorporated on an education ombudsman?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, while the Treasurer is taking advice, you are seeking the call. Is it on this issue or another issue?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have questions in relation to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and also the education ombudsman.

The CHAIR: I will give you the call after this.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, I am happy to consult with the minister to see whether he has received correspondence from SAASSO on the issue of an education ombudsman. I am advised that the honourable member in her contribution did indicate that SAASSO supported the concept or proposal for an education ombudsman, so if that is an accurate reflection of the honourable member's second reading contribution, then she might be aware that they do support it, if that is her claim.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate the advice of the Ombudsman that has been placed on the record, and I will have to think back to it now that I am asking this question. I think the Treasurer indicated that there were 171 complaints: is there a breakdown in relation to how many of those pertain to children and how many pertain to teachers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is, no, not that we are aware of. I am assuming the Ombudsman might be able to provide that, but we are not aware of that breakdown at this stage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Is the Treasurer aware, or can we find out perhaps, how many matters the Commissioner for Children and Young People has dealt with that pertain to education issues, as opposed to the Ombudsman's office?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, my advice is that we are not aware of that at the moment. It may well be possible, between now and the next Tuesday of sitting, to seek information from the commissioner to see whether they are in a position to give us some information on that, and maybe within the same time frame we might be able to get some information from the state Ombudsman. I am not sure how searchable their database is, or how easy it is for them to answer the honourable member's question, but I am sure that through the minister's office, given that we have a week and a bit between today's sitting and the next Tuesday, if there is any information we can share with the honourable member in the committee stage, we will endeavour to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would be particularly keen, if it is possible to get those figures, to also consider the question of the proportion of complaints that are actually related to bullying versus other issues. I mentioned, during my second reading contribution, hashtag #handsup, the Voices of Educators group, which I understand has had ongoing complaints regarding bullying issues that pertain to teachers in particular, so if any of those complaints have been made to the Ombudsman I would like, if we can, to get an indication of how many relate to bullying versus other matters, and the same for the Commissioner for Children and Young People.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We would need to seek some advice from the state Ombudsman in relation to that. As I understand what the honourable member is saying, there may well be bullying complaints that relate to children, but there might be bullying complaints from staff, that is, being bullied by other staff, by the principal, by the department, by parents, or whatever it might happen to be, which might have been characterised as bullying.

When the Ombudsman's office referred to 38 of the 171 as being bullying, I guess we will need to seek clarification as to whether they have characterised that as bullying of students, which seemed to be the subject of the earlier questioning from the Hon. Ms Franks, or whether it relates to bullying generally and might include also the second category, that is, where teachers or staff perhaps have been bullied by, as I said, possibly another teacher, a parent, a principal, or, I suppose, even a senior student. We will have to seek clarification from the state Ombudsman's office. All I have is that direct quote from the Ombudsman's letter, which referred to 38 out of 171.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: In terms of that clarification that is being sought, can we also get some clarification in terms of the nature of not just students, children and teachers but also SSO support staff, because there may be complaints by them?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to, through the minister's office, see what information we can share in relation to all of these issues that the honourable members have raised, and if the Ombudsman is in a position to provide greater clarity about the numbers and the breakdown of those, and also the separate question about the commissioner, we will seek that information. We, of course, do not have direct access to it. We will be reliant on them responding, but we do have a little bit of time between now and the next Tuesday.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I want to put on the record that my concerns about an ombudsman were not specifically with regard only to bullying. The Ombudsman's response with regard to feedback about the bullying statistics are appreciated, but I would also note that I had the 171 figure last year from my briefing with the government, which I am grateful for, and I was told that a further breakdown would be provided. It has been some months since I was given that information, so I would expect that before we continue this debate we actually have a breakdown of that information.

Also, could the government update the council with regard to what consultation they have undertaken with the South Australian Association of State School Organisations, in particular their quite strongly expressed views that the Department for Education's internal dispute resolution processes are failing as far as that organisation is concerned?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just on the first issue, I am reading again the quote from the Ombudsman's letter. They do actually say, 'the department relate to its handling of student bullying issues—38 of 171 complaints about the department.' That would appear to lead us to believe that that is the specific category of student bullying. I will seek further information in relation to the issue of teachers, SSOs, principals and others who might be complaining about being bullied.

In relation to the issue of SAASSO's attitudes about complaint handling and to the education ombudsman, as I indicated earlier, I am happy to seek advice from the minister as to what, if any, advice he has received in relation to their views about either the education ombudsman or concerns about complaint handling within the department.

It may well be that something as broad as complaint handling may be a general concern that they have expressed, not specifically in relation to a piece of legislation, and therefore will rely on the minister being able to track that down. Whether they have expressed it to him would be easy enough for him to track down; if they have had actually had discussions with officers at some level within the department it might be a little more difficult to track down.

Certainly, if they have expressed a view to him, as the commissioner did by way of correspondence to him, that is directly within his purview and responsibility and knowledge, he should be in a position to say, 'Yes, SAASSO has written to me or emailed me and expressed concerns about complaint handling or support for the education ombudsman or not.' We undertake to ask the minister and his office to see whether they can assist the member in terms of an answer to that question.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just go back to the issue of exclusion of students for a moment. I note that under the bill there is a requirement that students not be excluded for more than 10 consecutive weeks, but that must follow a five consecutive days' suspension. Is the Treasurer aware whether it is indeed the practice that there is always a five-day suspension before that is actually imposed, and does the Treasurer have any numbers in relation to the numbers of students who have been excluded?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Reading from the little blue and white book, which is the Education Regulations 2012, regulation 45(3) states:

Before excluding a student under this regulation, the head teacher must first suspend the student from attendance at the school for a period not exceeding 5 consecutive school days.

It is clear, according to the regulations, that they must first suspend before excluding. So excluding is not the first option: you suspend and then exclude. In relation to the numbers, the department has advised me that summary statistics for term 2 of 2018 show that 231 students were excluded. This represents 0.13 per cent of the student population. There were 56 fewer students excluded in term 2 of 2018 than in term 2 of 2017, a 19.5 per cent decrease. On that basis, there must have been 287 students excluded in term 2 of 2017 and then 231 excluded during term 2 of 2018.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I appreciate that is what the regulations say. Is there any action that can be taken if the regulation is not adhered to by the school in terms of the five consecutive days' suspension being imposed prior to an exclusion being imposed? The bill has clear provisions in relation to a penalty that could apply if a student does not comply. Is there something similar for the school itself?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The regulations, guidelines and practices of the department do provide for an appeal process. This is not specifically about the question from the member, I know. If a parent, for example, wants to appeal against what they think is an unfair decision to exclude, even if they have been suspended for five days, there is an appeal process that you can go through. If someone was automatically excluded, that is, they were not suspended, they can also appeal because there is an appeal process.

However, in relation to the specific question from the member, again, I probably need to get some legal advice on this but if a principal breaches the Education Act or education regulations, that is, he or she has just automatically excluded someone without actually following the regulation that says you have to suspend, and if there is no other provision which allows in extenuating circumstances that sort of action to be taken—for the safety of other students in the class or something, but let's assume that is not the case, there is no exemption provision—then I would imagine that principal would be subject to the potential for disciplinary procedures.

He or she has breached the Education Act or regulations under the Education Act in terms of an appropriate process. If, during an appeal process, it was clear that they had not suspended the student when they were meant to have suspended the student before exclusion, not only might the decision be overturned in relation to the individual student, but I would imagine that that particular principal would leave themselves open to disciplinary action by the chief executive ultimately, under whatever disciplinary processes the education department has.

I can really only answer generally, but that would be my expectation, that if a principal does not abide by the law, and acts contrary to the law, then they would, under the normal processes of either the Education Act or other processes, be subject to potential disciplinary action.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a couple more questions on this particular issue, and I appreciate the Treasurer's comments in relation to those disruptive behavioural issues but, of course, there is often a whole array of issues which might result in a student being excluded. Specifically, my question is: given that a student can be excluded for up to 10 weeks, and even if it is only half that, what role or, indeed, whose role is it to ensure that there are alternative arrangements for those students in terms of being placed somewhere for something during normal school hours, and not less than school hours, and are those arrangements actually meeting the demand, especially given the figures that have been provided?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The honourable member raises an important question. There is a requirement under the Education Act for students of compulsory schooling age that the department, if it excludes someone from a mainstream classroom—if I can refer to it that way—has to be provided with alternative education options. The member may or may not be familiar with various alternatives—they used to be called behavioural learning centres in my day but they have probably been modernised and called something else now, alternative learning centres or something. It would appear that they are now called learning centres or an alternative program.

Students under 16 may be moved to another school, so you could actually be excluded from one school and if a principal at another school is prepared to take on this particular student that can occur or they could be referred to a learning centre or an alternative program. There is a range of very successful learning centres, behavioural learning centres, as they used to be called, or alternative programs where you have highly trained staff, skilled in managing what may be difficult young children or young adults but nevertheless, at the same time, trying to provide them with training. It is sometimes related to trade training options or various other options like that. They have flexible arrangements in terms of their learning programs and they have much smaller class sizes and student to class ratios.

There are a number of very successful options. In terms of whether they are meeting the demand, I will take advice on that, but I am assuming the answer to that will be yes, in relation to it, particularly as the numbers in 2018 are significantly less than the numbers in 2017. If there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the numbers in term 2 then whatever the capacity there was in 2017 would be still there in 2018. I am not aware of any changes or reductions that the new minister has made in relation to learning centres or alternative programs but there has been a 20 per cent reduction, at least in term 2, year on year, in terms of options.

Can I move, with great respect to the honourable member—and that way she can think of other questions on this particular clause after the break—that we report progress, Mr Chairman.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:15.