Statutes Amendment (Free Menstrual Hygiene Products Pilot Program) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 April 2020.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:49): I rise today on behalf the Greens to support this bill. It would allow for a trial of dispensing machines providing free menstrual hygiene products in South Australian government schools. It is an excellent initiative and I hope that at the end of this trial we will see it becoming common practice across South Australian schools. I remember last year when we all spoke on a similar motion in this chamber and the support for student access to menstrual hygiene products at the time. Sadly, I reflect, as my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros has in her speech, that we have not actually seen action on this issue since then. I would therefore like to thank both the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos for bringing this bill before the parliament.

Students in our state are missing out on school, on excursions, on sport and physical education due to period poverty, with a simple solution of supplying free sanitary items in our schools. We can remove this barrier to education that our students currently face. Many girls and women have experienced a situation where they were caught off guard without sanitary products on hand. When this happens in a school, or when a girl, for example, first starts menstruating, the current expectation is that they will leave the bathroom and happily walk to the office (however far away that may be) without the appropriate protection. They are then expected to ask for a pad or a tampon in front of whoever may be there at the time, be it other students, parents, teachers, office staff, delivery people, gardeners and so on.

For a young girl or a girl living in poverty this would be extraordinarily hard, not only having to deal with the stigma that our society already puts on menstruation but her potential embarrassment from gossiping, and the double stigma of those who live in poverty itself rather than just period poverty. No student should have to spend time at school or at home worrying about how they are going to manage their period. Much like toilet paper, it should be considered a necessity for hygiene, and we have just seen how important toilet paper became to many South Australians.

These products should be provided to students free of charge so that should they need them they have these menstrual hygiene products so that their education is not impaired and indeed their ability to function in the school environment is not compromised. We should not be embarrassed about menstruation; however, I am sure that even those of us who do not mind talking about this even in this chamber now would remember in younger years that awkwardness that comes with it. We must recognise that for some girls this can be extraordinarily embarrassing to discuss or draw attention to and being faced with period poverty only adds to these feelings.

It is vital then that pads and tampons are accessible and available at no cost to everyone who needs them. I will also put in a plug for menstrual cups—and I did not mean to make a pun but there is always the danger with these speeches that that will happen. If anyone is caught by surprise by their period—and that can happen—these menstrual products need not be hidden away in first-aid kits; indeed, such an approach is woefully inadequate and without privacy for those students. Let's not forget that for a student to be able to ask school staff for access to menstrual hygiene products, they need to know that they are available to them in the first place, so this bill is an excellent solution and I look forward to the trial in this form being rolled out.

Menstruation has been and is still a cause of disenfranchisement, stigma and depression for girls and women in countries across the world. Indeed, when I worked for the YWCA and Amnesty International, there were many stories of particularly some villages where women are ostracised in either their own homes or indeed from their own villages, and that permeates through many, many cultures, including our own. Menstruation can have negative impacts on women's and girls' mental health due to that stigma and can be the cause of embarrassment, fear and anxiety. These are not factors conducive to a good education or full participation in our lives.

To add to this, the stress of not knowing how they or their parents will be able to afford what can be very expensive—needlessly so—sanitary products is one thing that we should not be further burdening them with. Last year, we saw the Victorian government lead the charge and become the first state in Australia to roll out the supply of free pads and tampons in schools. I hope South Australia will do the same. With that, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:54): I rise to echo many of the words that the Hon. Tammy Franks has mentioned today, but also I feel very strongly about this issue. However, to speak on this issue is important on many levels. As a student in a country school, I would have gone to great lengths to avoid any such discussion with a teacher. This was an issue rarely spoken about in my school. Even growing up in a household of three older sisters, it was never really something that was spoken about in the open. I remember in middle school the girls even had a name for it, because they were too embarrassed to say the word.

At school, some of the boys would wonder why girls would disappear into the school toilets with their backpacks and would ask many questions about it. Then there were the times when you would mysteriously have to sit on the sidelines during swimming lessons. You would hand your teacher a note that simply said you were not able to swim today and there were no further questions asked. I am sure these are very familiar stories to every female in this chamber.

For those still unsure, of course I am speaking about menstruation and periods. Unfortunately, many girls and women still feel they need to hide this very normal part of themselves. The words 'menstruation' and 'period' are words that do not flow (excuse the pun) as easily as they should, and this is exactly why this bill is needed.

For me, as I mentioned earlier, there are many sides of this bill that make it so important. There is the financial and practical side: providing free pads and tampons in schools would quite simply help end period poverty. A recent report from the Commissioner for Children and Young People, titled Leave No One Behind, revealed the ways in which period poverty is a real thing. It highlighted how many students struggle with the anxiety and stress associated with managing their period at school and how it would often prevent them from focusing on their studies or, worse, make them miss school altogether.

This is not a welfare issue. It does not matter which postcode you come from, when you get your period there is always a possibility that you will be caught at school unprepared and ultimately embarrassed. Instead, this is a state issue. That is why we have put forward a co-sponsored bill with the Hon. Connie Bonaros from SA-Best to help eliminate this unnecessary stress and pressure that is placed on young girls. It takes away the embarrassment of being a young woman and having to go and ask a teacher, admin staff or counsellor for a pad or a tampon while at school. Just imagine how it would feel to be a young girl having to do that on a regular basis, whether because you have been unexpectedly caught out or if your family is just unable to provide these essential items.

Both these scenarios cause immense stress and embarrassment and unfortunately, due to the taboo nature of periods in general, many students miss out on what is most important to them in the classroom: the ability to concentrate and learn. Importantly, the bill provides the space and choice for individual schools to distribute sanitary items how they see fit, whether this is in a toilet block, in a classroom or in a common area like a library. No matter where the items are stored, the bill ensures they can be obtained by students without supervision from teachers and school staff, giving students independence and privacy over their own bodies whilst also removing unnecessary stress and anxiety.

We have seen how COVID-19 is antidiscriminatory in the way it has wrought economic havoc on all corners of the community. For many, money is tight. Many in our communities have joined Centrelink lines for the very first time, and this is something that is not going to change overnight. Many are also struggling to get even the bare essentials, and that includes pads and tampons. This was made abundantly clear when I joined many of my colleagues at the Foodbank to help package supply packs. As a result of COVID-19, Foodbank lost countless volunteers overnight. Both the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and SA Labor leader, the member for Croydon, Peter Malinauskas boxed up food and sanitary items in packages for many in our community, many who had never required such support before.

Now it is more important than ever that we not only have these discussions but change how we tackle economic and social challenges in our community. By providing pads and tampon products in our schools, we can help reduce the financial stress that these essential items place on families, families which now more than ever are doing it tough. Periods are a fact of life, and sanitary items are a necessity, not a luxury, and it is time that we start treating them this way. Following a similar program implemented by Victoria, the only other state in the country with a policy like this, the nationwide campaign is calling for an end to tampon tax. This bill will add to the growing and much-needed movement to help normalise and remove financial stress associated with menstruation.

While the material and financial benefits to students from this bill are important, I also believe this program has the potential to help change the stigma around periods in general. I wish to congratulate my colleagues and fellow members of this chamber the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the Hon. Connie Bonaros for the amount of work and heart they have put into this bill.

I understand that the state government has also very recently taken steps to introduce a pilot program; however, there seems to be little very little detail available, and many in the industry, including the Commissioner for Children and Young People, seem to have little detail regarding this program. I hope this has not been a rushed decision to play politics with an important social issue like this. Instead, I hope it is the start of a movement and change that my daughters and many other young girls will see the benefits of, where they will be able to go to school to learn and have one less thing to worry about. Let's stop cramping their style and help remove another unnecessary barrier and source of stress and anxiety for young girls.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (18:01): I rise to place on the record some comments in relation to this bill and in so doing would like to acknowledge organisations such as Share the Dignity and Essentials 4 Women that play a role in this space and in assisting, generally speaking in our community, a lot of people who need to access these products, particularly through our homelessness services.

The government certainly recognises that there is a significant group of girls and young women throughout our community for whom these issues are very, very genuine. I note that since the election of the Marshall Liberal government, along with our colleagues in the federal Liberal government—indeed, I recall the Treasurer making comments in this place about this—jurisdictions have acted to remove the GST from tampons and pads, making these essential items cheaper and more affordable for all families. I am sure we all welcome that move. Nevertheless, for girls and young women in a range of different circumstances, this still can be an issue, and this was referenced in the report last year by the Commission for Children and Young People, Helen Connolly.

Because our schools work hard to support their students across the board to achieve their best, many schools have for many years made their own local arrangements to provide sanitary products to students. Some do so with the support of local service organisations, charities and businesses, and some do it through the volunteer efforts of their own students. It is disappointing that these arrangements were described in speeches introducing this bill as 'woefully inadequate', 'ad hoc' and 'appalling', and I hope that honourable members would reflect upon the efforts of school communities and the charities and organisations that have been assisting them already.

I understand that the purpose of the legislation is to highlight an important issue, and we all want to ensure that any example of disadvantage for any young person is addressed, but given the negative way in which the current situation has been described, it is appropriate to place on the record the thanks of the government to all those local organisations, charities and businesses and school leaders and staff who have worked hard to do their best to support South Australian girls and young women whose own families or circumstances are such that they do not or cannot provide these essential products.

If it is opposition members who want to use the negative terminology, I would like to point out that the arrangements being described are similar to those there have been during the 16 years of Labor government, when products themselves had a 10 per cent tax applied to them, so the issue was potentially even more acute.

The fact is that there are a range of positive endeavours made across South Australia to support girls and young women under this government and including in this area. As the proponents of the bill are aware, a trial for female students attending disadvantaged government schools to access sanitary products has commenced in 15 selected secondary and primary schools. Selection of the trial schools was based on having a mix of secondary schools, area schools and some primary schools that have an index of disadvantaged category 1 or 2. Schools were informed of their decision in term 1.

The trial has been well received by all principals who will take part. Schools have the flexibility to source products according to their local context, and use existing community partnerships and approaches already in place in these schools. The method of distribution is being determined by schools according to the needs of their students. This may include a service run by the students themselves or a discrete self-access set-up. These are just two examples of offerings by schools prior to the trial.

I note that the bill being debated today proposes a pilot where the minister is required to determine the ways in which products are to be dispensed to students. We believe that the ingenuity and local initiative allowed through our trial is preferable, and will enable insights into a broader range of approaches, ultimately to be shared and applied to the broad range of local contexts that make up our 500 public schools throughout South Australia.

Information collection by schools has begun, which will guide the development of a policy position on access to sanitary products in schools. This information includes: the number of females using the school-provided product; any rise in usage as a result of the trial; the method of distribution and how it was designed; the impact on female student attendance, engagement, health and wellbeing; and, any cost to the school to supplement this provision.

During the trial input will be sought from primary and secondary students, families and staff as well as principal associations. Student opinion in particular will inform the design and distribution methods, alongside the availability of appropriate product in the school. It is not anticipated that every young woman will need or want these products, and the department does not seek to replace the role of families to supply them.

The Commissioner for Children and Young People is currently conducting a survey on this issue, as well as a range of other matters, I understand, at the same time, and I am advised that she has agreed to share those aspects of the results and feedback from this survey that are relevant to the issue, with the department to assist in its assessment of the trial alongside the critical feedback from schools. Initially this was intended to be a trial through term 2, although at the suggestion of the Children's Commissioner the minister advises me that he has requested that the department extend the trial throughout term 3 as well. Advice from participating schools, along with feedback and data from the Children's Commissioner's survey, will inform policy considerations from there.

In relation to most policy issues, if an outcome can be achieved quickly without legislation, we would argue that legislation is unnecessary. In this case I would argue that the flexible time being undertaken by the government will be more informative than a rigid pilot as described in this bill, and has the further benefit that it is taking place immediately rather than six months after the passage of the bill.

In relation to the provisions in this bill compelling the Children's Commissioner to undertake a review six months after the pilot proscribed in the bill, I draw members' attention to sections 15 and 16 of the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016, which clearly allows the commissioner to undertake a review without this bill, and gives her significant powers to do so. The department is eager to incorporate the commissioner's work into the existing trial and, should the commissioner wish to undertake a further review into the issue, into the trial, into any subsequent policy formulation or any other relevant matter, then the commissioner has significant resources and significant legislative powers to do so without the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:08): Can I start by once again thanking, first, my co-sponsor of this bill, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, for her tireless efforts on this issue, and those other members of the opposition who have also worked tirelessly to promote what we have called a multi-partisan approach to this most important issue, a multi-partisan approach which this government has failed to acknowledge.

If ever there was an example of extending the olive branch to the government and saying, 'Let's work together on an issue. We are all on the same page, let's work together on an issue that everyone is happy with, that we can sign off in this place, hold our heads high and say that we've met the recommendations of the commissioner based on the report that was prepared on ending period poverty, that we have met the requests of the 1,800-odd respondents to the survey that was put out, including students, parents and teachers, that we are taking period poverty seriously and that we are going to make a stand in this place altogether,' then this would have been it, but of course we do not have that.

My problem here is not with the Minister for Human Services. My problem here is with the Minister for Education, and I will tell you why. Not only have we extended the olive branch to the Minister for Education, we have made several attempts to have this discussion with him. We have made several attempts since last year to have this discussion with him personally, and they have been declined. At no point has he come to us and said, 'Let's sit down and work out something that everybody can agree to.'

Instead, in the most recent and last-ditch attempt to try to get an outcome on this bill, the minister remembered to tell us that he had instigated a pilot program. He did not tell us about that, he did not make any public announcements about that, and he did not even notify the commissioner, who prepared a report which still has not had a response from the government because COVID-19 broke out. 'So we had a pandemic, and there was no publicity on that. We had a pandemic, and we didn't notify you guys of it. We had a pandemic, and we didn't get to forward the report to the commissioner. We had a pandemic, and we did not seek a response from the commissioner about the pilot program that we have instigated.'

We have had every opportunity since last year to thrash this out with the minister, and he has politely declined on every single occasion. During the week before this bill comes for debate, not at his request but at the request of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and my request, he has kindly thought to fill us in on the pilot program that he has instigated. The details of that program as he has related them to us as of last week is that 15 class I and class II schools were given a $10,000 grant to come up with a scheme, a pilot scheme, that may work for them, and if at the end of that scheme those funds were not necessary for that pilot they can go back into the school's general revenue.

My question to the minister automatically was: what if we did the same with toilet paper? What if we said, 'Well, here's your yearly allocation of money for toilet paper.' Would we be considering putting those funds towards other areas that the school may consider more appropriate? The answer is no, we would not. The whole point of the commissioner's report was to drive home to this government that we need to end period poverty and that we need to treat this the way that we treat every other essential item in schools.

Toilet paper is not up for discussion, soap is not up for discussion, hand sanitiser is not up for discussion, access to toilet blocks is not up for discussion, but when it comes to sanitary products that is up for discussion and we need to work out whether or not that is really necessary. That flies in the face of everything the commissioner has said about ending period poverty. That is what the minister has done in this instance.

He has completely ignored the olive branch that has been extended to him, he has completely ignored the call of the commissioner and he has come up with a scheme that says, 'Well, you know what? We'll just leave it to schools to decide.' We know, when it comes to mobile phones, that what schools have been asking for, pleading for, is, 'Just set the rules and let us work within those rules. If you are going to have a rule about mobile phones, make it consistent across schools. If you are going to have a rule about sanitary products, make it consistent across schools so we all know what the parameters are.'

The minister says, 'We don't like to implement unnecessary legislation.' This is not unnecessary legislation; this is extremely important legislation. Again, the commissioner has completed a report, provided it to the government and it has gone unanswered. The commissioner has made it clear that we need to be doing everything we can to end period poverty in our schools, and that means ensuring that sanitary products are provided across our schools just like toilet paper and any other essential item in our schools.

I will say it again: just imagine the furore if a young boy had to go to the front office and say, 'Mrs Smith, Mr Jones, I need some toilet paper.' It would be unacceptable. But in the case of young girls who do not have access to sanitary products at home, who cannot afford them for whatever reason, they are forced under the current system to go to the front office and ask for a sanitary product or, worse still, they do not get to go to school at all. They miss out on daily activities and they fall behind their peers because they have their period. It is as simple as that. That is what the commissioner has said we should be striving to stamp out in this jurisdiction and that is precisely what this bill intended to do.

If ever I have seen a case of a lost opportunity for all of this parliament to come together, make a stand and say, 'We will be legislating something for the good of all students in South Australia,' then this is it. The government, and the minister in particular, has given up that opportunity. The feedback—and this is important—from the commissioner since we found out about the trial is this: he did not tell her that he had instigated a pilot. The same person who instigated the report into period poverty and provided that to the government was not told that we were instigating a pilot program across schools.

The commissioner also said that the current pilot program does not go for long enough. Term 2 is almost over and she is suggesting that we need more time—six months—which is what the bill provides for. Six months would be an adequate time frame to work out an appropriate pilot program, but of course we have left it until term 2, again without consulting with the commissioner. She has also said that the program does not enable an appropriate independent evaluation, which, under the bill, would be undertaken by the commissioner. The commissioner herself has said that this pilot program does not enable an appropriate evaluation program.

Everything that the commissioner has said has been ignored and minister Gardner has put in place a pilot program that he, and apparently he alone, considers appropriate. That is what he has done, so congratulations to him. Congratulations to him for letting down every young girl who attends school or is unable to attend school because they have their period and they cannot afford a sanitary product. That is what the minister has done by putting in place this so-called pilot.

It also ignores the fact that the commissioner again has a SurveyMonkey on at the moment, which has been going for about 10 days or so. So far, 1,700 young girls aged predominantly between 12 and 18 years old have responded to that and said that they support having sanitary products provided at their school as an essential item and that they support the education department and the government providing those products and ensuring that they are available to students in schools. We have ignored all of that and said, 'Well, we are just going to press ahead with this program', which is actually going to expire very shortly. We will be no better off in terms of having done anything that the commissioner has asked us to do.

I am very confident that this bill will pass today and I absolutely implore the minister to take on board not my comments, not the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos' comments, not any other member's comments, but the comments of the commissioner—the commissioner who he failed to consult with before he instigated this program, the commissioner who we consulted with. We only heard from the minister after we had spoken to him and asked him the question, 'Does the commissioner know that you have actually instigated this pilot?' Her response was categorically, 'No, I don't.'

I will not keep harping on about it but, given that this bill is likely to progress today—and I can see you nodding, Mr President—I am once again, in a last ditch effort, extending the olive branch to the government and imploring the government to work with the crossbench and the opposition and come up with a solution that we can all hold our heads high about and say, 'This is what we are going to do to ensure that period poverty is ended in our schools in accordance with the recommendations of the commissioner'—not with us, but with the commissioner.

With those words, I thank those members who have made a contribution today. I am disappointed with the government's response. I am not surprised, given my discussions with the minister; I am disappointed. Once again, I thank the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the other members of the opposition who have worked with us on this issue. This is not about acknowledgement; this is about getting a good result for our students in schools.

Bill read second time.