Education and Children's Services (Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 February 2024.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:29): I rise to speak on the Education and Children's Services (Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill 2024, which claims to align reporting obligations for non-government schools with those required of public schools. Whilst I respect the intent of this bill insofar as it relates to promoting transparency and the continued efforts by the Hon. Robert Simms to ensure a level playing field for all students, I have to say that I have serious reservations about whether this bill is necessary or prudent.

First, it is worth noting that non-government schools are already subject to extensive reporting standards. I have been provided with a recent response to the bill from Catholic Education South Australia and the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, which does provide a comprehensive analysis of current reporting requirements. Of particular concern to me is the aspect of the bill that would require schools to report the number of students suspended or expelled from individual schools.

This provision raises, I think, significant privacy issues for children and young people who may already be struggling. Public disclosure of these figures could unintentionally lead to individual students being identified, especially in those smaller school communities, and that could undermine their wellbeing, making an already challenging experience even harder to bear.

Additionally, the policy could have the unintended effect of discouraging schools from using suspension or exclusion as valuable interventions. These mechanisms sometimes serve as necessary circuit breakers for students dealing with behavioural or personal issues. Of course they are not something we like, but they exist for a reason. If non-government schools feel compelled to weigh every disciplinary decision against the potential for public scrutiny, one of the risks we run is hampering their ability to respond appropriately to complex situations.

Schools have to be trusted to make these decisions based on their professional judgement and knowledge of the unique circumstances of each student, without the looming concern of public exposure. Adolescence is hard enough, with the weight of peer pressure, academic expectations and other personal challenges, and the prospect of singling out students who may have been suspended or excluded risks adding public shaming to an already difficult situation, with potentially severe impacts on young people's mental health.

I do not think any of those things are the intent of the mover of the legislation. As I said in my opening, I understand the member's intent in doing so. What I am trying to highlight are some of the concerns that have been raised in terms of the potential consequences the bill could have. I am certainly not in a position to say whether or not they will eventuate, but they have been flagged and raised and it is important to bear them in mind when considering this debate.

As it stands, I am not in a position to lend my support to this bill, but I am hoping that the government will perhaps provide further clarity around any concerns it may have around those reporting requirements as they compare to what is already required under existing frameworks, and refer again to those items of correspondence I have alluded to and the concerns that have been raised therein. With those words, I indicate that I will not support the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:33): I rise today on behalf of the Liberal opposition to speak about the Education and Children's Services (Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill 2024. Our understanding is that the premise of this bill aims to increase reporting requirements on non-government schools. While we recognise that improving transparency around the use of public funds is a noble cause, we believe the Hon. Robert Simms' proposition requires closer examination. For instance, it should be noted that, of the approximately 200 non-government schools in South Australia, which are split almost exactly evenly between the Catholic system and the independent sector, all of them are not-for-profit.

The proposed amendment bill may not have taken into account the significant concerns that have been raised by the non-government schooling sector. These concerns are best articulated by the Chief Executive of the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, Ms Anne Dunstan, in her letter to the Hon. Mr Simms, where she makes some compelling arguments against the bill. I would like to share these concerns with honourable members today.

As Ms Dunstan highlighted in her letter, every school already has ethical and legal responsibilities to their community and, in particular, to their students. They are already heavily regulated and there are already a wide range of matters on which public reporting exists. As written by Ms Dunstan:

All South Australian schools, regardless of school sector, must be registered under the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Act 2011 and meet the standards for registration…non-government schools must also meet an extensive range of Commonwealth and State government legislative requirements and obligations, including in regard to reporting.

It is concerning that many of the measures in this bill are duplications of existing reporting requirements and would unnecessarily double up on that effort. For example, a number of compliance obligations on non-government schools are already required under the Australian Education Act 2013, which also requires the provision of information for public reporting on the My School website, along with a wide range of financial reporting requirements, including the provision of audited financial statements.

It is concerning that this bill does not take into consideration that there is an emphasis currently being placed by education departments around Australia on improving outcomes for students by reducing the time that school leaders and staff have to undertake administrative duties so that more focus can be put into teaching and learning.

In the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership report, titled 'Shifting the balance: Increasing the focus on teaching and learning by reducing the burden of compliance administration', it was concluded that, on the basis of much research, analysis of evidence, case studies and consultation, school leaders and teachers are spending an increasing amount of time on administrative tasks, and this has broad ramifications for school leaders and teachers and affects both those working within the profession and its attractiveness to those outside it. However, this bill would hamper current efforts to reduce administrative duties so that focus can be put back into teaching and learning.

Additionally, it is a concern that this amendment bill also ignores that every extra regulation that is introduced in any setting creates a new compliance burden, and that the impact is felt most keenly by smaller and less wealthy schools. This bill would create a negative loop effect that disadvantages less wealthy schools, which are dependent on public funding.

The bill requires the information to be provided to the chief executive of the education department as well as to be published in the school's annual report, and it must be made available on a website. If the school is unable to comply they will lose public funding. However, it is this public funding that schools are depending on to manage the increase in administrative burden that would be proposed in this bill, and losing this funding would make it increasingly difficult for schools to provide the information that is requested in the first place.

Lastly, there is a particular negative consequence attached to the legislation's proposals about reports of complaints, notifiable incidents and exclusion data. The imposition of school level reporting of such matters for independent schools would create significant risks to the privacy of minors. In fact, Ms Dunstan wrote that:

The AISSA would strongly oppose the public reporting at an individual school level of complaint and exclusion data and notifiable incidents. It is not clear how this type of reporting will improve educational outcomes for all students and…it is difficult to know how this data could be reported at a disaggregated level without breaching a person's privacy.

It is quite disappointing to many in the sector that the proposed amendment bill seems to have a misconception that non-government schools are not currently accountable.

The non-government schooling sector raises significant concerns with the bill because they believe that the propositions raised by the honourable member are mostly duplicates of existing measures which create unnecessary additional administrative burdens and cost at a time when the education sector as a whole is calling for less red tape in order to facilitate improved focus on teaching and learning. Other unintended consequences could also potentially disadvantage smaller and less wealthy schools, as I mentioned before, and put at risk the privacy of many, including minors.

Through the diligent work of the shadow minister for education, the Hon. John Gardner, member for Morialta in the other place, the Liberal Party has consulted with the Association of Independent Schools of SA and also with Catholic Education South Australia and they share similar points of view that I outlined in my contribution today. For those reasons I mentioned, the opposition will be opposing the Education and Children's Services (Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (20:40): I rise today to speak in opposition to the bill. I do so for several reasons: primarily because the premise of this bill is that our private schools are not currently being subjected to strict reporting requirements, when it is indeed the case that they are and they are quite extensive.

I would like to thank the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, the South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools and principal Alan Connah from St Martins Lutheran College in Mount Gambier for their feedback on this bill. They have raised some concerns regarding it and how it purports to address a problem that does not in fact exist, and how it could threaten privacy and undermine the core and trusting relationships between schools and families.

I refer to a letter that has been provided to me and co-signed by the Independent Schools Association and the South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools, which states as follows:

Foremostly, we consider the bill fails to respond to the quantifiable problem, nor do we consider that it has been subjected to proper consultation.

Catholic and independent schools are subject to comprehensive regulatory and public reporting requirements and our schools already meet all the material reporting requirements of the proposed amendment bill.

In correspondence I received from Mr Alan Connah, principal of St Martins Lutheran College, he states as follows:

While our college understands the need for accountability for the receipt of Government funding, we have significant concerns. The proposal, as outlined in the Bill largely duplicates the current extensive commonwealth and State legislative reporting processes and will place an unnecessary additional administrative burden on our staff. It is disappointing that the focus in the proposed bill appears to reflect the belief that non-government schools are not currently accountable.

The reporting requirements are specified at both the federal and state levels and outlined in the Australian Education Act 2013, the funding deed between the state minister and private schools and other pieces of legislation. Some of the existing requirements are as follows:

under the Australian Education Act 2013, all schools are required to publish on their website an annual performance report. The act also requires the provision of information for public reporting on the My School website, along with a range of financial reporting requirements, including the provision of audited financial statements;

as registered charities, private schools must report financial and non-financial information to the ACNC;

regular reports need to be lodged with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority;

school incidents must be reported to SafeWork SA;

teaching staff qualifications are published in the school's annual report as required by the Australian Education Act; and

funding to Catholic and independent schools is tightly regulated. They are required to spend recurrent public funding in accordance with existing guidelines specified by federal and state government legislation.

In summary, this bill will lead to duplicative reporting requirements and unnecessary compliance costs upon non-government schools. At the same time, it will place a greater burden on government departments responsible for its ongoing administration.

We as the Liberal Party always support initiatives that would lead to greater transparency and accountability, but we will not support a bill that is unnecessary. That is the feedback that I have received from various stakeholders and is evident given the current reporting obligations already in place. On that basis, I will oppose the bill

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (20:43): I rise to speak on behalf of the government and indicate that the government will not be supporting the bill in its current form. However, the government does recognise the potential opportunity in the near future to improve reporting by government and non-government school sectors in certain areas, particularly in respect of reporting on children with a disability. I will speak to these opportunities later in my contribution.

I note that concerns have been raised about the current reporting requirements for non-government schools. It has been suggested that there is a significant disparity in the information non-government schools are required to report and the information being reported by government schools. In particular, the Hon. Mr Simms has noted concern about the level of information publicly available about the way public funding provided to non-government schools is being spent.

This bill would amend the Education and Children's Services Act to require the governing authority of a non-government school that receives public funding to provide a report to the chief executive within six months of the end of the financial year. The Education and Children's Services Act does not currently include reporting requirements for government schools that are equivalent to those being set out in this bill, nor does this bill seek to introduce any requirement with respect to government schools.

There are, however, national reporting requirements for all government and non-government schools that cover much of the information required to be reported under the bill. These requirements are set out in regulations made under the Australian Education Act 2013. Non-government schools that are registered charities are also required to report relevant financial information under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012.

In considering the potential implications of this bill and changes to reporting requirements generally, it is important to understand the level of reporting that is currently required for schools and that any changes ought to be properly balanced against the risk of an increased administrative burden on school leaders, who are already subject to a high level of responsibility.

The further public disclosure of specific information at a school level also risks unfair impacts on individual schools as opposed to reporting at a system level. There is a risk that establishing the standalone reporting requirements for non-government schools in South Australia, as proposed by the bill, would result in a duplication of some existing reporting requirements for non-government schools, an increased reporting burden for those schools, and entrenched legislative reporting requirements for non-government schools that do not equally apply to government schools.

There may be a public interest in improving, where possible, the transparency of non-government school reporting in respect of matters related to the wellbeing and inclusion of children and students, such as, for example, students with a disability. However, the introduction of additional reporting requirements should be carefully considered in consultation with the non-government school sector and other relevant stakeholders to ensure they do not duplicate existing requirements or impose an unreasonable administrative burden on South Australian schools and school leaders.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability made a range of recommendations to improve inclusive education in schools, including improvements to the reporting of data about students with disability. The government's recent response to the disability royal commission accepted in principle the recommendations relevant to inclusive education, noting some of them involved changes to reporting requirements for schools and/or may require legislative reform.

Some of the recommendations relate to improving information and data being reported. I can advise that the government intends to engage with disability advocacy groups and peak bodies from the non-government school sector on potential amendments to the legislation to implement the intent of relevant recommendations of the disability royal commission and improve the sector level reporting and transparency for both the government and non-government school sectors.

Following that engagement, the government anticipates that it will bring to parliament a bill to make any necessary amendments to legislation. We look forward to working with Mr Simms on this legislation. There is an opportunity through this work to enhance transparency, accountability and equity for students with disability, particularly in relation to complaints management and resolution and reporting on exclusionary practices, to improve inclusiveness of our schools and other education services and provide better outcomes for children and students in the future.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (20:48): I rise briefly to respond to the Hon. Robert Simms' Education and Children's Services (Reporting Requirements) Amendment Bill. While I appreciate the honourable member's commitment to increasing transparency and accountability for private schools' use of public funding, I would also like to point out that private schools are responsible for generating a considerable amount of their own funds to provide a range of services to students within a free market filled by parents with high expectations for the care and education of their children.

Private schools must be run like a business, which means not only doing all the important things schools must do regarding education but also turning a profit and maintaining the viability of a quality service to students and parents. It also means a lot of marketing, highlighting not only sporting and technical facilities but also academic achievements and a commitment to the individualised care of children and teenagers.

Adding further accountability measures for private schools will only add another onerous task to the long list of administrative and legal obligations that already contribute to a highly stressful environment. Public schools are supported by a multilayered government system, which sometimes I agree does not always match the outlook and facilities offered by some private schools, but many public schools still offer quality education for a reasonable price; however, the core values and ethos are often very different from that offered by private schools.

The ongoing growth in private schools also shows that many parents prefer a private education for their children for many different reasons. It must also be noted that private schools are very different in structure and size, and many have only small student cohorts and limited facilities. The extra administrative burden imposed by these accountability measures will be extremely challenging for these schools, and it is still uncertain exactly what this extra burden will ultimately achieve for our community education.

I can only conclude that this proposal is ideologically driven, to punish the privilege associated with some private schools. It is unnecessary. It can only have a negative impact on the quality of education in our private schools.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:50): I am not very good at maths, but I can tell the numbers are not really likely to move in my favour on this one. I am disappointed that there does not seem to be an appetite in the parliament for more transparency in terms of private school reporting. I think it is important to note that private schools currently receive $290 million in state government funding each year.

Pembroke, for instance, receives $1,236 per year per student from the state, in addition to $5,340 per year from the commonwealth. Each year Sacred Heart College, one of the state's most elite schools, receives over $10,000 per student in combined state and commonwealth funding. The funding received by Blackfriars Priory School each year for each student is even higher. It receives over $13,000 per student. In fact many catholic schools receive over $1,400 per student. This is a significant amount of public funding. Indeed, six independent and 15 catholic schools received more combined federal and state funds in 2019 than the lowest funded government schools, according to the Sunday Mail.

The ABC reported that in 2019 in Sheidow Park their primary school was one of a thousand schools across Australia that spent $25,000 over a five-year period on new facilities while the richest private schools were spending roughly $100 million. These institutions are getting a lot of public money, and I do not think it is too much to ask, to say that if you are getting a large amount of public money, you need to be subject to transparency measures.

I know that a lot of the private schools will say they are already required to provide some of this information, but what my bill is seeking to do is provide all of this information in the annual report. What the bill would do is include the following information in those reports:

audited financial statements, including income from sources and expenditure on purposes;

attendance rates for each year level;

number of complaints made, including complaints about student behaviour;

workforce information, including staff qualifications;

the number of work health and safety, and student-related incidents;

fee structures; and

issues around discipline as well, and suspensions and expulsions.

That is really important because there has been a spate of scandals over the last six months engulfing some of our state's most elite private schools. The Advertiser has reported extensively on these scandals, and there is not transparency around how these matters are being handled. If this sort of behaviour occurred in a public school, the way in which the matter is being dealt with would be subject to an FOI request, and so that information could be publicly disclosed, but private schools remain at arm's length from that. That is a problem.

I have had a parent who has reached out to me who has sent their child to a private school who has had a less than satisfactory experience, and they have not been able to get any recourse from the government because, of course, the government does not control these schools. Well, if these private schools were required to report on how complaints were managed and the number of student incidents and complaints then this would provide further impetus to private schools to change their culture.

This is an issue I will continue to look at. It may be that I need to consider reforms of the FOI Act to ensure that some of the activities of private schools are brought under some level of public purview. I understand there has been significant resistance to this reform from some schools, but it seems to me to be a very sensible proposition.

I am encouraged to hear, however, that the government is open to having the conversation around how we improve transparency, and I look forward to engaging in those discussions. But watch this space, because I think members of the community are tired of our private schools, these elite institutions, being able to take huge amounts of public money and simply pull across the drapes and conceal the way in which they undertake their affairs.

Second reading negatived.