Education and Children's Services (Enrolment and Attendance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 November 2025.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:19): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Education and Children's Services (Enrolment and Attendance) Amendment Bill 2025. School attendance is fundamental to children's educational, social and emotional development. When a child is not attending school regularly or is not enrolled at all, their long-term outcomes are directly affected. This bill seeks to strengthen South Australia's legislative framework around compulsory schooling by refining enforcement mechanisms, improving communication with families, and clarifying departmental powers. The opposition supports those objectives. We recognise the importance of a system that encourages early engagement rather than punishment, promotes timely intervention and ensures parents understand their obligations under the law.

The bill introduces amendments intended to modernise and strengthen compulsory attendance provisions by focusing on statutory warning notices. These formal notices must now be issued before any prosecution can occur. They outline the parents' obligations and the basis for concern. This constitutes a shift towards early written communication rather than sudden escalation. Expanded information gathering provisions within the bill clarifies and broadens what information the chief executive may request to help determine the reason behind a student's non-attendance. This may include medical, psychological or wellbeing information, where relevant and voluntarily provided.

The bill also reduces the timeframe for absence notification. Parents must give notification of absences within three days, down from five days, aligning the act with existing departmental policy. It also strengthens authorised officers' powers. Officers may now seek enrolment or attendance information at a person's residence, reflecting the practical realities of where some interactions occur. These amendments are aimed at supporting children back into school sooner, establishing clearer expectations and enabling the department to intervene appropriately where chronic non-attendance persists.

When the bill was introduced, the opposition sought clarity on several matters, particularly those affecting vulnerable or disadvantaged families. One was around the expansion of authorised officer powers, particularly the ability to request information at a person's residential premises. We asked how these powers would be limited, monitored and safeguarded. We also asked questions on the impact of reducing the parent notification window on disadvantaged families, those without stable internet or phone access, families experiencing domestic violence, or families managing complex health circumstances. We also sought to ensure that expanded information powers would not amount to coercive access to sensitive personal or medical documents.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Flinders, Mr Sam Telfer MP, whose questioning in the House of Assembly ensured that these issues were comprehensively addressed. The minister provided reassurance on central points, including on the purpose of statutory warnings. The minister emphasised that they are intended to be a support-first mechanism rather than punitive and that the majority of the cases will not progress beyond this stage. On access to medical or psychological information, the minister clarified that parents cannot be compelled to provide private health documentation. Information is only considered where parents wish to have relevant circumstances taken into account.

On authorised officers attending residential premises, the minister noted that this does not expand coercive powers but simply reflects where lawful requests for information may occur, with existing safeguards applying. On disadvantaged families, the minister reinforced that discretion will be central to decision-making, including circumstances involving trauma, disability or family complexity, and that prosecution remains a last resort. These clarifications were appreciated by the opposition in addressing our concerns.

Consultation with the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia and Catholic Education South Australia confirmed that neither sector objects to the bill. Both emphasised the importance of early support for families before enforcement escalates, including the risk that fines or legal action can disproportionately affect vulnerable families. We agree with that position: the framework must always encourage engagement, not alienation.

Having reviewed the bill, the second reading speeches from the house, and the minister's committee stage assurances, the opposition are satisfied that our concerns have been addressed. The bill provides clarity, consistency and fairness in the administration of the compulsory enrolment and attendance. It modernises provisions that are decades old, aligns statutory requirements with current departmental practice, and provides families with clearer information at earlier stages of this process.

We are confident that the legislation strikes a reasonable balance between supporting families and ensuring that children's rights to attend school are upheld. The opposition will therefore support the bill. At this stage, I will have some questions during the committee stage but I do appreciate the information that has been provided by both the department and the minister to date. With that, I support the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (11:25): I rise briefly to put on the record that I support the bill.

The PRESIDENT: Good contribution; it is one of your better ones.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:25): I also support the bill. It seems like a very sensible measure, and may my short speech inspire others in this place.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bonaros is up for the challenge.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:25): I have been inspired, and I support the bill.

The PRESIDENT: Minister, I have the Hon. Mr Wortley listed but I do not see him. Would you like to conclude the debate and if he has a meaningful contribution he can do it at clause 1.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:26): I thank all members for their inspirational speeches on this bill. It really is an important bill because we all want kids to be where they should be. We want them to be kids but we also want them to be learning, and this is really about putting them at the centre of this policy. I welcome the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to school avoidance, are you able to provide details about what the process would be to support families? We know there are children who are reluctant to attend school, and it can be really challenging especially if you have a teenager who may not want to attend school or is refusing to attend school, so what measures will be put in place?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I want to highlight at the outset that this is not about capturing people who may not want to go to school for other reasons. This is really about the worst of the worst. I was thinking about this when listening to your speech. This is really about parents who are going out of their way to prevent a child from being a child.

The worst of the worst stories are about kids being forced to work instead of going to school. We are talking about a small minority of people, but the bill before us today is rightfully giving the minister and the department some extra levers to pull to make sure that these kids can get back into the classroom, or learning where the appropriate space is for them to learn.

This is not about homeschooled children. This is not about a cohort of people in our community who do not have, sometimes, the ability to choose or not choose where they want to learn. This is about a very small cohort. I am coming with my autism hat on here. We often hear about what we can do to make sure that kids still have the opportunity to learn. As advised today, people will work with the families, they will put plans in place to make sure that there can be opportunities to come back into a learning environment, or perhaps homeschooling is the best environment for them. The education department does absolutely try to make sure that they can find that right environment, but the bill before us today is really focused on a small cohort of people in our community.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wortley has been unavoidably detained. He has a contribution to make. We are at clause 1. Be brief.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you. I will keep it brief. I will try, Mr President. The bill makes modest but important changes to the act to strengthen the effectiveness of the current scheme for the enforcement of compulsory enrolment, attendance and participation of South Australian children at schools and approved learning programs. The changes aim to address various issues which have been identified through efforts to enforce the current arrangements and ensure procedural fairness for those parents who may be considered for prosecution.

The bill was subject to an extensive public consultation, including through the YourSAy website, from 20 May 2025 to 13 June 2025 and there were strong levels of engagement compared with consultation on similar legislative reforms in the past.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Thank you, Mr Wortley, for that contribution. Just to clarify, if a parent has a child who is refusing to go to school, they will not be fined or prosecuted?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that if a parent is proactively attempting to get their child to school or into the learning system in some way, this is not going to cover them. It is not going to cover the situation I am sure we have all been in before, where you might forget to say your child is sick that day. If you can rightfully prove that your child was sick that day, that is not who we are after either.

I was thinking when the Hon. Michelle Lensink walked in, being a minister and having stories that you would have heard as well, there is a very small cohort in this community that no-one ever thinks could be real. Essentially, there are examples where a child might be needing to work and not go to school. They are the people this is after, not the broader network.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I just want to put my concerns on the record in regard to the fact that there is definitely a cohort of families where it is quite challenging at the moment to be able to get children to school. I do hope that there are appropriate supports in place from the department to make sure that if these children do want to return to school they are able to get in there as well. Are you able to clarify in regard to non-enrolments what the fines are and also what the process is for prosecution?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that the failure to enrol is a maximum fine of $5,000. Obviously, discretion is placed over this in determining whether the full penalty would be required. I also just highlight and go back to provide reassurance about the concerns that you have raised: this is evident in the fact that both Catholic Education and independent schools are also seeking these changes and are supportive of them. I think it highlights that across the board there is a need for a lever to be able to be pulled so that we can get our kids into either a classroom or a learning environment that works for them.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 8) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.