Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 March 2025.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:54): I rise today to speak in support of the Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill 2024. We all know how essential educators are to the fabric of our society. They help shape the minds of the next generation of South Australians. They are often taken for granted and their unseen efforts are underappreciated.

As we have seen recently, the incidents of abuse and aggression towards some educators, that they face on a day-to-day basis, can no longer be ignored. This bill addresses a pressing issue: the increasing aggression and violence towards teachers from a very small selection of parents. It results in excessive emails, text messages or online posts that no reasonable person would consider acceptable. These behaviours are unfortunately becoming all too common.

Teachers and educators in South Australian schools and preschools have expressed concern about the way in which their personal and professional wellbeing is being undermined. They are feeling helpless in these situations and feel that there is little they can do when a parent or member of the school community engages in inappropriate and aggressive behaviour towards them.

It is important to note that this bill comes in direct response to concerns raised during the 2023 enterprise bargaining process, where the Australian Education Union (SA Branch) made it clear that teachers and staff needed better protection. The bill will give schools the necessary tools to protect themselves, their students and the educational environment, something that schools and parents work hard to foster.

The maximum penalty for engaging in such disruptive behaviours has increased from $2,500 to $7,500, reflecting the seriousness with which this issue is to be taken. It is also sending a message that educators must be able to perform their roles free from harassment and intimidation. The extension of the barring notice period from three months to six months, and the increase of range within which a person can be barred from, provides schools with more time and area to ensure that disruptive or violent individuals no longer become disruptive within the school grounds.

I want to also add the importance that the appeal process remains unchanged. This allows for transparency and accountability, ensuring that there are still avenues for review and that the intention of the bill is still upheld and not to be misused by teachers or educational staff. Parents will still have the right to appeal their barring notice to the minister.

This bill is an important step towards improving the wellbeing of our teachers and education staff and safeguarding the learning environment itself. It sends a strong message that we will not tolerate aggression, violence or harassment in our schools, and we stand firmly behind the teachers and educators who help shape the future of this state.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:57): I rise to say that I am in support of this bill, but I do have amendments. I have not yet heard from the opposition about what they intend to do about those. I understand that the government is opposed to them, but I will go through my concerns about that opposition later on.

I fully understand and appreciate the intent of this bill. It is unfortunate that it has reached this point where the government needs to act on the unpleasant and sometimes threatening behaviour of individuals, parents and even students aimed at our teachers and principals, who seem to experience this more than others in their school.

It has been disturbing to read the alarming statistics of the number of assaults in schools and the staggering number of times police need to be called to quell situations. I have friends who are teachers, who have also been principals in our public schools and are now retired, who recounted their experiences with aggressive students and equally aggressive parents. It is no surprise then that so many teachers, particularly males, are leaving the system, and I see the Albanese government is also looking at trying to recruit more experienced principals into our schools.

Society is certainly a lot different from what it was when I attended school in the fifties, sixties and seventies. I have seen a deterioration in discipline in schools and a lack of respect by unruly youth, particularly the generation brought up on the internet and social media platforms. I have been provided with figures showing that barring notices and warnings have actually surged by more than 50 per cent under this government

It was a good move to ban mobile phones in schools, but I still remember how much hard work it was in this place trying to convince ministers, when they were in opposition, and the opposition of the merits of it. Fortunately, they saw the light, and it is pleasing that the incidence of posting and boasting about schoolyard fights has dropped significantly.

I do have sensible amendments to this legislation, which in essence seek to address something vitally missing here: due process and proper governance for those who are issued with these orders. Back in February, I received a letter from a person who has been issued similar orders. He is a quite well respected and distinguished member of his community and the veterans community. Dr Richard Matthews is a systems engineer, forensic scientist and former officer in the Royal Australian Air Force. His work spans defence, veterans affairs, forensic science, cybersecurity and education, focusing on strengthening procedural fairness, transparency and institutional accountability across public institutions.

As a former member of the University of Adelaide council and a father of two children with ADHD, Dr Matthews brings both professional expertise and lived experience to his advocacy for systemic reform. He has previously exposed serious systemic failures within Defence, including his role in bringing the Skynet scandal at the Australian Defence Force Academy to public attention, leading to significant cultural reforms.

His advocacy for fairness and integrity was formally recognised in this place by the Hon. Justin Hanson in 2019, and he continues to work for practical, principled reforms across governance, education and public policy, but he got on the wrong side of the education department bureaucrats for strongly advocating and seeking proper support for his own children, who do have challenges.

Parents of these children do get emotional when they perceive unfair treatment or that they are not being heard by the school hierarchy, and it seems Dr Matthews falls into that camp, along with his wife. He wrote that for the past five years he and his wife have been tireless advocates for their inclusion in obtaining an education free from the barriers of discrimination. He says he has been met with barriers every step of the way and it is a common experience for many parents in similar situations.

I can relate to that, because my wife and I experienced that ourselves at one point in our younger son's schooling. We were told that our son's erratic behaviour was due to bad parenting. When we sought professional advice, we and the school were able to recognise what the problem really was: he was neurodiverse, something they had little experience with at the time. Thankfully, the school changed its policies. Our son then flourished and went on to achieve an ATAR of 99.8 and become dux of the school, although a former deputy principal had told him he would never finish or do anything with his life. So I can understand when parents like Dr Matthews and his wife become upset. However, the Malinauskas government to their enormous credit have moved very swiftly to address that by creating a special ministry for neurodiverse children and young people and also allocating specialised staff in our schools to deal with these problems.

But back to Dr Matthews, who has expressed his concerns about perceived conflicts of interest by the minister and the department and the lack of independent reviews of decisions which are made—in essence what my amendments are trying to do, which is to seek due process and at the same time provide fairness to parents who may be subjected to these barring orders so they have an opportunity to perhaps go to a place and be able to defend themselves rather than be issued with these blank barring notices and then have no recourse. I fail to understand why nobody in this place seems to think that is a fair thing to do in what I must say is pretty strong legislation like this.

Let me read from the letter I received from Dr Richard Matthews on 25 February 2025 where he writes about perceived ministerial conflict of interest:

The Honourable Member for Wright is currently the subject of several active complaints before the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding the administration of barring notices under Section 94 of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019. The earliest of these complaints was filed on 1July 2024 and alleges disability discrimination in the Ministerial review process.

The Minister has acknowledged awareness of these complaints through direct correspondence with the AHRC on 25 November 2024, 3 days prior to introducing the Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill in the House of Assembly. Despite this, there is no record in Hansard of the Minister disclosing the existence of these complaints to the House of Assembly, nor has any notification been made to the Legislative Council during the introduction, reading, or debate on the Bill. Given that this Bill proposes amendments that directly affect the Minister's discretionary powers in the review of barring notices, this omission raises concerns regarding transparency and proper disclosure.

The complaint before the AHRC alleges that the Minister failed to provide reasonable adjustments in the barring notice review process, in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The proposed legislative amendments expand the Minister's authority to determine review procedures through guidelines. Nothing prevents the Minister from issuing such guidelines which shift decision-making responsibility from the Minister to the Department. This would fundamentally alter the minister's role in reviewing barring notices while an unresolved complaint challenges the fairness and accessibility of that very process.

The Bill also introduces no requirement for independent oversight of these guidelines, allowing the Minister to define their own procedural obligations without external scrutiny. Additionally, the amendments may codify written-only, or 'on the papers', review processes, the key issue raised in the AHRC complaint. If passed, the Bill would enable the Minister to retroactively change the legislative framework governing their conduct, effectively removing the legal basis for the complaint and preventing similar claims in the future. This presents a direct conflict of interest as the Minister stands to benefit from legislative changes that would insulate them from scrutiny while discrimination allegations against them remain unresolved.

Under Westminster principles, Ministers are expected to recuse themselves from legislating on matters where an active conflict of interest exists, particularly in cases involving human rights and discrimination complaints. The lack of disclosure to Parliament regarding the AHRC complaint, combined with the Bill's potential to influence the Minister's own legal position, raises serious governance concerns.

I will just pause from the letter and ask whether the minister has raised these complaints as part of the Ministerial Code of Conduct that applies? I will go back to the letter:

There is precedent in South Australia for Ministerial resignations and formal inquiries when conflicts of interest have compromised the integrity of decision-making. In 2022, Vickie Chapman faced a parliamentary inquiry following concerns over conflicts of interest in planning decisions, leading to her resignation. In 2017, Leesa Vlahos came under scrutiny for governance failures in managing aged care complaints, resulting in her resignation. In both cases, concerns over conflicts of interest and accountability led to formal action and scrutiny on a bipartisan basis. The circumstances surrounding the current Bill warrant similar scrutiny.

I will pause and ask whether the opposition and the crossbenchers have actually had a really good look at this and considered this? Going back to the letter:

Given the direct relevance of the Minister's personal legal exposure to the legislative amendments under consideration, I humbly request that this matter be referred to the Ethics and Privileges Committee for formal review based on well established precedents and traditions.

Further, I humbly submit that debate on the Bill should be deferred and adjourned until the matters before the AHRC have been addressed to ensure that legislative changes are not used to circumvent accountability.

I have humbly submitted the above to the President of the Legislative Council for their consideration but understand and respect the independence of the Council. I therefore provide the above should it be of assistance.

Under the heading 'Reviews under S94 of the Education and Children Services Act', Dr Matthews writes:

Acknowledging that the above does not assist in the current legislative agenda put forth I take this opportunity to propose suitable amendments which might act as safeguards within the current Bill.

Currently, barring notice decisions, which can restrict parental and carer access to school premises for up to 3 months, are reviewable solely by the Minister under s94 of the Act. This mechanism is meant to provide independent oversight and afford natural justice. In contrast, other administrative decisions, such as child protection orders and tenancy disputes, incorporate independent review mechanisms via the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). At present, SACAT has no jurisdiction over administrative decisions made under the Education and Children's Services Act.

Documents released to me under FOI have shown that the Minister is not independently conducting these reviews and is instead merely 'rubber-stamping' decisions made by the Department for Education's legal department. This means there is no independent review conducted. In order to challenge such a decision, affected persons must apply for a judicial review to the South Australian Supreme Court, a costly undertaking.

Therefore, I humbly offer the following modifications to correct this oversight for your consideration:

I will not go through these amendments, but I seek leave to table the letter sent to me by Dr Richard Matthews.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In doing so, I will just briefly go through the amendments that I have filed to this. Amendment No. 1 proposes that a barring notice may only be issued by a designated person who was not directly involved in the incident or incidents that form part of the ground or grounds on which the notice is proposed to be issued. Basically, it is saying that you get independent decision-making in issuing barring notices, and the person looking at the facts is not part of the facts. At the moment, the principal can be in the dispute or incident and then issue the order. How is that fair?

Amendment No. 2 proposes that if you are barred you can apply to SACAT for an independent review. At the moment, it is the minister, but really it is the department reviewing itself—we know that. Again, this has been put in because there would be very few parents in our community who could possibly afford to seek an independent judicial review through the Supreme Court. They just would never be able to afford that.

Amendment No. 3 is similar to the amendment I have just outlined. Amendment No. 4 is similar and gives a right of review to SACAT. This clause makes this right, and the timing quite clear. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:17): I rise today to speak in support of the Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill 2025. We expect schools and educational settings to provide a safe and conducive environment to encourage children and students to learn and develop their full potential. This bill aims to introduce safety measures to address antisocial behaviours and protect students and staff from harm and disorderly incidents.

It is concerning to hear that there has been a significant increase in the frequency of barring notices being issued in educational settings, despite the power to prohibit or bar individuals from entering premises having been given to educational leaders for over 20 years. This increase of up to 200 per cent of barring notices, along with circumstances where the current legislation does not adequately meet the needs of our education environments, shows that it is time to address the sector's concerns and make these amendments.

However, we should be mindful and keep in perspective how few of these notices are issued each year. In 2024, there were only 108 issued, with the peak in 2023 of 134, which was a significant increase on the 58 in 2020. It is common sense to ensure that physical altercations that occur just outside school premises but are visible to children, or incidents that happen during excursions, are addressed by legislation, which is not currently the case.

Additionally, the rise of online communications, social media and misinformation have also created new challenges that our current legislation does not cover. This bill seeks to expand the existing powers of the current act to support our frontline educational workers. Where a site leader reasonably believes that a person poses a risk to someone else, disrupts the learning environment or engages in vexatious communications with staff, such as bombarding them with contact even after being asked to stop, they can issue a barring notice. The maximum period of these notices will be increased from three months to six months, providing more scope and flexibility to address those challenging issues.

It is reassuring to note that any staff member can ask someone to leave the premises if they are behaving inappropriately. Currently, such individuals cannot return for 48 hours, but this will be amended to read 'two business days'. This change ensures that incidents occurring on a Friday do not allow the individual to return on Monday, giving more time for school leaders to address the situation or seek a barring notice.

The bill also allows for responses to threats made over the phone before any actual incident occurs. The maximum penalties for these offences will be increased and conditions can now be placed on barring notices, such as maintaining a distance of 25 metres from the premises. This is crucial for situations where individuals hang around the gates or yell at people during drop-off and pick-up times. This amendment aligns South Australia's legislation with that of Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, which have similar provisions. Importantly, there will still be allowances for parents to safely drop off and pick up their children and communicate with a specified staff member.

Data from The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey in March 2024 highlighted concerning trends regarding sources of bullying and harassment within schools. Parents and carers figured prominently in reports involving bullying (57.9 per cent), cyberbullying (88.5 per cent), gossip and slander (65.1 per cent) and sexual harassment (39 per cent). They are very concerning statistics.

This legislation is designed not only to empower school leaders but also to serve as a significant deterrent against future abuses. By enhancing the scope of protective measures for educational professionals, we seek to foster a safer and more respectful environment conducive to learning and teaching. It is encouraging to hear the overwhelming support from the sector for this change and the department's commitment to supporting school leaders with other measures before issuing barring notices.

It is not in the school's interest to bar parents prematurely because they are important and long-term members of the community. Restorative actions are necessary to reintegrate them. Since 2019, there has been a 250 per cent increase in operational options, such as formal warning letters, restorative meetings and communications. These measures, along with additional flexibility for school leaders, should help decrease the number of barring notices issued. Barring notices are highly modifiable, depending on the situation, location, safety and best interests of the student. They are not intended to be purely punitive but often provide a reset or a breather to help repair the relationship with the school.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has indicated that he will be moving amendments, which I will consider at the committee stage. This bill seeks to provide a safer and more supportive environment for our education workforce, and also provides them with the necessary tools to protect themselves and their students. With those remarks, I support the bill.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (17:23): I rise to speak in support of the Education and Children's Services (Barring Notices and Other Protections) Amendment Bill. If passed, the bill will fulfill the government's commitment to improve protections for staff and students at schools and preschools made during the recent enterprise bargaining agreements.

There can be no place in our schools, preschools or education and care services for violent, abusive or threatening behaviour. It is not acceptable towards students and it is not acceptable towards staff. Unfortunately, there has been a disturbing increase in threatening behaviour directed towards staff in schools.

There has been a 200 per cent increase in the number of barring notices issued by government schools, and a more than 250 per cent increase in other responses, such as formal warning letters and reminders about expectations of respectful behaviour. The Australian Education Union has found that, on average, 35.9 per cent of educators feel unsafe at work. At the end of March, the Australian Catholic University Annual Principal Wellbeing Survey was published. The survey found that instances of physical violence have increased by 82 per cent since they first started recording in 2011. This year, just under 50 per cent of principals have reported experiencing physical violence, and almost 55 per cent had been threatened.

The behaviour of some parents and caregivers is a major contributor to the stresses that are faced by teachers and school leaders. Feedback from the sector has been clear for some time now, and this most recent survey confirms that the issue is getting worse and that we need to take action to ensure that schools and preschools remain safe and supportive environments. All working environments deserve to be free from violence, threats or abuse. An unsafe working environment makes it incredibly difficult for people to do their jobs, and the jobs of educators are vitally important. We cannot properly take care of our children if we do not take care of our educators too.

This bill seeks to address the current problem by building on and improving the protections in part 8 of the Education and Children Services Act. The bill will expand the type of harmful behaviour that is captured by this act and increase the penalties for all offences under part 8.

New types of behaviour to be captured by the act will include, for example, offensive behaviour targeted at students when involved in an education activity away from the premises of the relevant school, preschool or service, or offensive behaviour that occurs just outside the boundary of the premises, such as yelling abuse from outside the school gate.

The bill will add a 25-metre area around the school where any notice applies. This is to curb behaviour where banned parents stand on the edge of school grounds to interact with or intimidate staff or parents and students.

The measures in this bill, as with the current provisions in part 8, would not prevent parents, caregivers and other community members from raising reasonable complaints or advocating for their child's needs. They seek to promote positive interactions with the staff of schools, preschools and other services by improving safeguards against the worst kinds of behaviour. There is also a thorough review process available to any person who receives a notice whereby the minister of the day can overturn or amend a notice.

There are many work, health and safety challenges for teachers, both physical and psychological. This year, the AEU is launching a dedicated campaign focused on building a culture of safety for educators. In the January 2025 edition of their journal they wrote some words that resonated with me, as a former educator, that I would like to share:

Being an educator is more than a job—it's a commitment to nurturing and inspiring the next generation. But for too many of us, this commitment comes at a cost. For years, educators have carried the emotional and physical toll of workplace violence and aggression, often believing it to be an unavoidable part of the profession. This has to change.

I believe the measures contained in this bill will move us forward in helping to make that change. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Autism, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:28): I would like to thank the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Mira El Dannawi for their contributions today on this very important bill, which seeks to create a safer environment not only for students but, most importantly in this circumstance, for people who work in our schools as educators and as staff, to make sure this is a safe environment for all involved.

I think we have heard alarming reports about some of the behaviours that teachers and educators have been experiencing, from teachers being spat on, stalked, harassed, pursued and having their personal space encroached upon regularly, including parents standing outside school grounds yelling and swearing.

This bill is an important step forward in modernising legislation to make sure that teachers and educators feel safe when they rock up to work and can provide that support to our students so that we can have incredible leaders in our community in the future. Thank you to everyone who participated.

Bill read a second time.