Education and Children's Services Bill

Final Stages

The House of Assembly agreed to amendments Nos 3 and 6 made by the Legislative Council without any amendment and disagreed to amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9.

Consideration in committee.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, thank you for your forbearance. As I said, there have been some discussions with other members and the reason we are trying to bring this on quickly or more quickly than we normally do is because of the strange sitting habits of this parliament over the next two weeks, where we sit for one day and then we have two days at the end of next week. My understanding is that as a result of what happens here this afternoon it may well be that there has been general agreement to enter into a conference of managers between the houses and that would obviously be able to be expedited between today and next week, and then a final resolution in relation to the bill might be achieved by the end of next sitting week, so my apologies for the delay.

The Minister for Education has kindly given me some riding instructions which I will now place, on his behalf, on the public record:

The Legislative Council made nine amendments to the Education Children's Services Bill. The House of Assembly has agreed to two of those amendments put forward by the Hon. Ms Bonaros relating to corporal punishment in non-government schools, and disagreed with seven. The seven amendments disagreed to are in relation to three issues:

1. The proposal for an education ombudsman with broader powers and jurisdiction than the existing ombudsman;

2. The mechanism for approving religious or cultural activities being undertaken by public schools; and

3. The role of the AEU or staff rep on promotional panels and school review committees.

In relation to the question of an education ombudsman, members would be aware by now of the happy news that agreement has been reached between the government, crossbench parties and the Labor opposition for a review or inquiry, as suggested by the Hon. Ms Franks, looking into matters relating to suspensions, exclusions and the complaints process in general, including the existing powers and jurisdiction of the ombudsman and what other processes potentially, including an education ombudsman, would be of benefit to our system, to schools and teachers, to families and students.

We expect that this review will provide a report with recommendations for consideration by the government and anyone else at some stage during 2020. It will be held under the auspices of the Child Development Council and the government will provide sufficient resources to the council to enable a suitably qualified reviewer to be appointed and to undertake this work.

As a result of the government confirming our support for this inquiry I understand that the proponents of these amendments have indicated they are happy to not insist on them and consequently both sides in the Assembly did not agree to these amendments.

In relation to the religious or cultural activities amendment, the amendment to clause 82 of the bill, our council supported the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment to insert the governing council as a decision-maker in relation to whether or not activities take place. The government does not support this amendment. I remind members that in the current act, religious activities—a visit to an Easter service or a talk with an Imam about Ramadan, for example—are allowed to take place and exemptions may be sought by parents. The bill imposes an additional requirement that parents be informed if such an activity is to take place on the decision of the principal and consequently parents can opt out if they wish.

I note the previous government preferred an opt-in clause. In either version the decision-makers are the principal and the parents. We do not believe that a third layer of decision-maker in the governing council is appropriate and we fear that it may change the nature of governing councils in a negative way. If need be, we may have to explore alternatives in a conference of the managers, but we encourage councillors to consider not insisting on this amendment.

In relation to the role of the AEU or staff rep on review committees and promotional panels, the government maintains our position that we do not believe that the AEU should have a privileged position and prefer a general staff rep who may be an AEU member. The council's amendment would double the staff representation but leave the AEU in a privileged position. We do not believe it would improve on the status quo and we therefore remain opposed to this amendment. We may be open to exploring alternative approaches in a conference of the managers.

The minister thanks staff for their assistance and to other parties for good faith negotiations. The minister, on behalf of the government, asks that the council do not insist on any of the amendments. But, if the government has to go to a conference of managers, the minister indicates that he and the government will do so in good faith and in the expectation that we may not be far from agreement.

I understand it is likely that the council may have differing views on some of the amendments. My understanding is that on the first two, there might be agreement.

Amendments Nos 1 and 2:

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

That the council do not insist on amendments Nos 1 and 2.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For clarity and as to how this may play out, amendments Nos 1 and 2, which have been moved, and the last two amendments Nos 8 and 9 all relate to the education ombudsman. I indicate that Labor will not be insisting on the Legislative Council amendments on these. We will be supporting the government's review into the impact of suspension/exclusion policies and practice on students and into whether the ombudsman currently has sufficient powers to undertake systemic reviews in relation to education, as needed. I would like to acknowledge, in particular, the Hon. Tammy Franks and her role in not just the original amendments but in what has been a pretty sensible outcome and way forward in relation to this.

As we are speaking to amendment No. 1, I might speak on the other amendments. I think they are amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 which fall broadly into a couple of categories. One, as the Treasurer has outlined, is the inclusion of the employee representatives—that is, the AEU—on various panels, including the review committee, which look into school mergers and closures, and also the committees which look into the appointment of senior positions. The Labor opposition will be insisting upon the Legislative Council's amendments to those.

Finally, on the matter of the governing school council having input into what religious activity a school can undertake, we understand that there is no perfect way to construct a law about the secular school system that can allow students to undertake religious activities while at school. We believe the amendment that the Legislative Council has made and agreed to, allowing governing councils to be responsible for decisions made on what activities are appropriate to offer school students, the student body and their parents, is one that Labor will be supporting as to that empowerment of governing councils. Therefore, Labor will be insisting on this provision. In summary, Labor will not be insisting on Legislative Council amendments Nos 1, 2, 8 and 9 but will be insisting on amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that with regard to Nos 1 and 2, and then later Nos 8 and 9, which relate to an education ombudsman, the Greens will not be insisting on those amendments. That does not mean that we do not look forward to the review of the possibility of an education ombudsman and what role they would play or a review of the school complaints process, which I would acknowledge has been improved in recent years and has come a long way since the member for Bragg, in fact, previously moved for an education ombudsman.

I note also that the CDC, an independent body, will do a thorough analysis, as the Victorian ombudsman did, of those suspensions, exclusions and expulsions of students—what became known as the missing students, the students who are detached from the education system, when it is a fundamental human right to an education—and the use of those behavioural management techniques and whether or not they are used in a way that supports education or hinders that education.

As a member of the previous select committee into disability access, the select committee that the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. Kelly Vincent had some great leadership in, about access to education for children with disabilities, we know there are children falling through the gaps. We know that there is inappropriate use of behavioural management techniques and we know that it is affecting children's access to education in this state.

Similar to Victoria, we hope that there is leadership from this state government on those issues. With that, we willingly do not insist on these particular amendments but look forward to the progress in these areas. It is once in a generation legislative reform for our school system and we would not want to lose that once in a generation reform for the sake of not being able to agree on an education ombudsman here today, but we certainly believe that we should be back in this place sometime soon debating better complaints processes, independent complaints processes and reforms that ensure all children get access to education in this state.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, could you give me some guidance on your view on amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7, just so I can put the questions in an orderly fashion?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We will be insisting on amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7.

The CHAIR: Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7; 6 has been dealt with.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be insisting on amendment No. 5, but I will not be insisting on any of the others.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, I would welcome some guidance on whether you are going to insist on amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I will be supporting the opposition and the Greens on their moves, Mr Chair.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7:

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

That the council do not insist on amendments Nos 4, 5 and 7.

For the reasons I outlined at the outset on behalf of the government and the minister. However, I acknowledge, from previous indications from enough members to constitute a majority in this chamber, that our position is unlikely to be sustained in this Legislative Council chamber, so I will accept the decision on the voices.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Simply, I wish to put on the record the Greens' strong insistence on these measures with regard to the existence of religious instruction in our school system. We believe that the highest safeguards possible and the most transparency around that religious instruction should be present. Indeed, we are open to a discussion, should there be a deadlock conference, with all of the options being on the table.

Certainly, the role of the AEU, which has been defined by the Treasurer today, and I think by other members of his party previously, as being a privileged position is exactly right. That is actually the point that we have the AEU in these roles because they are in a privileged position. It is a privileged position where their voice at the table is resourced, is informed and is unable to be compromised.

Motion negatived.

Amendments Nos 8 and 9:

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

That the council do not insist on amendments Nos 8 and 9.

Motion carried.