HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EDUCATION (COMPULSORY EDUCATION AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 September 2007. Page 844.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:01): I support this measure; I have always been very supportive of increasing the age at which young people can leave school. My philosophy, which I believe is reflected in this bill, is that a person has to be in education, in a job or in training: you have no other choice—you have to be in one of those three areas. In researching for this speech, I noticed that, on Monday 18 June 2001, the Democrats put out a press release which described Liberal and ALP promises to raise the school leaving age as 'a simplistic approach that plays politics with our children's future'. Well, making a decision about when someone can leave school is political, and it is a good decision at that. The reality is that, in this day and age, one needs to be more adequately prepared for the workforce than ever before—but, of course, the training and the education must be relevant not only to the particular age of the student but also in terms of preparation for that person's future.

I have not checked this out, but I was told yesterday that there is a move afoot in the UK to increase the school leaving age to 18. I understand that either this policy has been introduced or they have indicated in the UK that the school leaving age will be raised to 18. So, I imagine it will not be long before we follow suit. Once again, I would not and do not have a problem with that, provided the training and education in the school setting is relevant and appropriate, and I do not believe that is necessarily the case at the moment. I think there is room to improve, and I am heartened to see a commitment by all the major parties at both a state and federal level to reintroduce technical education.

The removal and closure of technical high schools here was a big mistake, and I think everyone recognises that. Reading the Hansard of the time, as well as other documents, I am amazed to see that, apart from the closure of Goodwood Tech (which did create some angst), the move to close technical high schools happened without much disquiet in the community. That is somewhat surprising, and I say that not simply as someone who went to one of those schools. I went to the famous Goody Tech and, whilst I did not pursue a trade, nevertheless the training received there in terms of technical skills remains useful even at my late stage in life.

The move from technical high schools to the so-called comprehensive high schools was well meaning but it has never delivered the range of options needed. That is partly because teachers, in the main, come from an academic or non-technical background, and there has always been a bias in the high school system against people who use their hands as well as their head. Sadly we have even seen that at the university level, where the University of South Australia got rid of home economics and technical studies and then, in a decision one can only describe as stupid, destroyed the training facilities at Underdale. Now we do not have facilities for training home economics or technical teachers in South Australia; theory is taught at Mawson Lakes and the practical studies are done at TAFE. However, we had purpose-built facilities costing millions of dollars at Underdale which have now been destroyed by the University of South Australia. That was a most regrettable decision.

The question one has to ask is: from where are the trained teachers to come who will work in the technical high schools, the high schools that will offer technical studies and home economics, nutrition and hospitality studies? From where will those trained teachers come? They used to do a three-year specialist degree that integrated teaching methodology as well as the technical aspects; that has all been destroyed, and we are now getting an attempt to try to recreate what was already there and functioning very well.

In terms of opportunities in high schools, as I have said there has been a bias against technical studies, the suggestion that if you use your hands and your head you are somehow less capable or not as gifted as someone who does not use their hands in their occupation. We still see that in the wider community, and I have had people crying when they have discovered that their son wants to do carpentry rather than go to university. How sad and inappropriate that is. As a community we have not valued our tradespeople and we still do not value them—in many ways we still regard them as inferior to other occupational groupings—and that is a very silly, short-sighted and inappropriate approach. It is certainly not matched in countries such as Germany and Japan where technical people are regarded much more highly than they are here.

One of the reasons we have a skills shortage is that for many years we, as a community, have denigrated and downgraded the role of technical and tradespeople in all areas. Hopefully, the wheel is now turning and we will see a return to an option in secondary schools for people to do school and workplace-linked apprenticeships as well as other aspects of technical training—whether that be computer-assisted design, robotics or the like. This will require a lot of impetus and effort from the minister and senior departmental officials, as well as from the private and Catholic school sectors, to really push the importance of technical training because, as I said, there is an inherent bias in the high school sector at the moment away from anything to do with technical training and towards having students go to university.

Most people do not go to university; in fact, 70 per cent do not. I spent 16 years at university (eight years full time and eight years part time) and I do not see myself as in any way superior to someone who has, for example, gone into plumbing, electrical, is an aircraft engineer fitter or anything like that. The sooner we move away from that snobbish and arrogant class-ridden attitude towards technical people the better.

If I am in an aircraft—and I am sure all of us have been and will continue to be—I place great importance on the skills of the engine fitter as well as on the pilot, both of whom use their hands as well as their head. In fact, if you think about it, a surgeon uses his or her hands as well as his or her head—we hope so, anyway—and dentists, so it is an artificial dichotomy and a nonsense to try to separate out those who use their hands and their head and those who may use their hands less frequently in their occupation.

This is a worthwhile measure. As I say, I predict that within five years we will be moving towards a school leaving age of 18, as is happening elsewhere in the world. It already exists in parts of the United States and in Belgium. In the United States, the district of Columbia and 11 other states already have an 18-year school leaving age. So, we are not actually setting the pace but we are doing something that is very worthwhile, and I am pleased that both the government and the opposition support this measure.

I think we are going through a very interesting phase with the consolidation of schools. We are moving to a one-stop shop. In my electorate, the Reynella East High School, I am confident, will become a B-12 school (birth to year 12). I do not think the mothers will actually give birth on campus, but soon after birth the children, or the child, will be cared for on site and that child will be able to attend that campus right through to year 12. Someone jokingly said, 'We should bring the retirement village on campus and then we can have B-R—go the whole hog.'

What we are seeing with the creation of the so-called super schools out north and the B-12 at Reynella East is a one-stop shop. The way those schools are administered is very important, so they do not just become great entities with masses of students but the children within them can identify with their peers as part of an early school, middle school and upper secondary school component. I am sure that is what will happen in those particular consolidated schools.

If you look at the private school sector, they have moved to early learning centres. I call them early enrolment centres because you enrol a child at an age pre five, and then the school can say to the parents: 'Look, if your child stays here we guarantee a place through into the secondary school.' It is a very smart recruiting technique and the state schools have to do the same. So, we are going to see more consolidation, I believe, with state schools offering a one-stop shop where a child will go to a school from the crèche and childcare right through to year 12.

In conclusion, the essence of this bill is about ensuring that, as best we can, young people are given the best opportunity in life. I do emphasise, once again, that the training and education has to be relevant and appropriate, not just a form of enclosure where you keep young people contained until they reach the age of 18 and then release them. It has to be meaningful. It will need to involve off campus activities and workplace training. If it is approached in that way and the schools are able to deliver meaningful training and education that helps young people not only for their future but also for their present, I think we will be doing the right thing for our young people. I support the bill.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:15): I am speaking briefly in relation to the government's measure to increase the school leaving age to 17. Strictly speaking, it is a little bit broader than that: it is to ensure that 16 year olds have some sort of meaningful occupation, whether that be as a student, in a training institution or working. I support the bill, but I do not think it is straightforward. If the bill ensures that our 16 year olds have meaningful activity, whether they be at school, whether they be training or working, then that will be a good thing.

The real challenge is to provide quality education in schools that is relevant to 16 year olds. Looking at the other side of it, then, if we do not achieve that, we are going to have 16 year olds at school who do not want to be there, and nothing could be worse for them, for their other classmates or for the teachers. There are already a number of teenagers who, quite clearly, do not want to be at school, and that shows in behaviour, in grades and in a negative influence on the people around them. So, I think it is not as simple as passing a law; I think it requires more resources and better programs for 16 year olds.

Having sounded that note of caution, I would like to applaud the many schools which focus on vocational training within the public high school environment. In fact, two high schools which I have had something to do with—Seaview High School and Hamilton Secondary College—have a strong emphasis on vocational training and/or pathways to work outside of school, whether that be acquiring trade skills or simply doing unskilled work. So, it can be done, and it is being done in some schools, but I do not believe that that applies across the board. In principle, because it is a good thing that 16 year olds all be provided with something meaningful to do, I support the measure, but I think there are those concerns that need to be addressed.

One particular provision which I have made public comment about is the fine for parents who do not take reasonable measures to ensure that their children are at school. When I say 'children' I mean 16 year olds—once this legislation passes. They are children in the eyes of the law, although most 16 year olds I know or have met do not think of themselves as children. They are, in a real sense, young adults, but for so many things they need to be 18 to fully participate in adult life legally.

The interesting thing is that parents have not been prosecuted for failure to ensure that their children attend school. I think there is some common ground when we consider this issue. When teenagers are failing to attend school or getting roped into criminal conduct, one looks at the parents, one looks at the school, one looks at the young person involved, and there is a question mark of responsibility in relation to each of the parties. In some cases, the parents might be doing absolutely everything they can and, yet, the young person becomes wayward. In some cases, the school will be doing absolutely everything it can and providing the best of care and, yet, because of other factors, the young person will stay away from school and be seduced into other things. One cannot ignore the partial, if not full, responsibility, of a 15 year old or a 16 year old for their actions.

In that context, the question that I raise—whether it is dealt with at this stage of discussing legislation or when we look at it in more detail—is why we have a criminal sanction for parents if in fact it is not being used. I would like to know exactly what the education department policy is on whom to prosecute and when to prosecute. I do not think that is clear at the moment. If it is there just as a reserve provision which is not intended to be used, then the question is: why increase the penalty from $200 to $500? With those remarks I support the legislation.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (11:21): I rise to support this bill. Ensuring that young people complete their schooling is pivotal for the continued prosperity of this state, and, most importantly, it is essential for the well being of young people themselves. The quickest and most effective way to ensure that more young people stay at school longer is to legislate for it. This will be the second time that this government has lifted the school leaving age, having already raised it from 15 to 16 in 2003. Legislating to ensure that children stay at school is, however, only one plank of our reform agenda for this complex problem. The need to have young people complete their schooling is abundantly clear to anyone who has looked at the statistics involved.

Students who fail to complete their schooling are locked out of further study options and consequently are excluded from the majority of job employment opportunities in our modern knowledge-based and skills-based economy. There are always individual exceptions—I have known quite a few of them—who have done remarkably well in life without finishing school, but on the balance of statistical probability young people who fail to finish school find it difficult to obtain long-term stable employment. The SACE review released in 2006 found:

37.5 per cent of school leavers in the year 2002 who had not progressed beyond Year 11 were unemployed in May 2003

That is 37.5 per cent. It continues:

For school leavers who had completed Year 12, the unemployment rate was 17.5 per cent, half that of the early school leaver group.

Confirming these figures, in 2004 in South Australia 82.2 per cent of people with tertiary qualifications were employed, compared to 73.3 per cent of those who completed year 12, and only 57.5 per cent of people who left school before year 12. That is the group that this legislation is targeting. It is a group of which only about half were able to find secure employment on leaving school as opposed to nearly three-quarters who had gone the extra year who were able to attain an employment outcome. Moving from 50 per cent to 75 per cent is really the target of this legislation.

Young people who do not finish school find it difficult to find a job, because the proportion of jobs requiring tertiary qualifications is greater than the proportion of the population with these qualifications. As a society we are basically moving to a position of needing a very skilled workforce, but at the moment there is a direct skills mismatch within our community. Unless something is done this gap will only continue to widen, because skilled jobs—those requiring certificate III or IV or university degrees—are growing at twice the rate of non-skilled jobs, and that is at around 2.4 per cent growth compared to 1.2 per cent—just about double the rate. In fact, the growth in skilled employment is growing even faster in South Australia than it is in the rest of the nation, which I think is a positive for this state.

According to new data from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations released on 24 October, South Australia has shown the strongest growth in skilled vacancies in the country, with vacancies increasing by 14.3 per cent. It should be noted that this is before the full demand of the mining and defence industry sectors finally kicks in. In future, young people who have failed to complete their schooling will be in an even more perilous position than they are currently. They will find their classmates going into the mining sector or the defence sector and they will be barred entry. Burdened by poor job prospects, young people who fail to complete their schooling are at risk of falling into a downward spiral of welfare dependency and social and psychological difficulties. Representing the electorate of Napier, I am very much aware of these particular problems.

Until 1990, South Australia had school retention rates above the national average. During the 1990s, retention rates fell away substantially and reached their nadir in the year 2000, when South Australian retention rates were at 65 per cent compared to the national average of 72 per cent. I think that was basically an underlying cause of our poor economic performance during the 1990s. In the five years to 2005, our retention rates grew at twice the rate of the national average and now stand at 71 per cent compared to the national average of 75.

We still have a little way to go, and hence the legislation. At a time when a skills shortage has created so many opportunities for those with skills and education, there are still too many young people who are failing to grasp these opportunities because they have not completed their schooling. It is a tragic outcome for these individuals and it is a missed opportunity for the state as a whole, because the single biggest constraint upon our economy in coming years will be finding sufficiently skilled individuals to meet labour demands.

Retention rates in northern Adelaide are lower than in the rest of the state, and consequently the problems encountered by early school leavers are higher. In my maiden speech, I cited several studies which highlighted the fact that the Elizabeth region stood out as the metropolitan region within Australia with the lowest combined TAFE and university participation across the nation. Pre-tertiary education was clearly failing the young people of the Elizabeth area.

I have often had occasion to return to this maiden speech because, effectively, it set my personal agenda as a parliamentarian to seek improved educational outcomes in the electorate of Napier. At the time, I came to the conclusion that the problem was so bad that it was not an option to keep limping along the same path and producing the same results. Such poor outcomes indicated a systemic problem within the education system that could only be solved by systematic reform. Decisive and bold action was required.

This government and the minister have gone about ensuring systematic change. We are changing the way children are learning and the environment in which they are learning. Unfortunately, systematic change takes time, particularly if it is done well. It takes time because reform implemented in the early years of schooling will take over a decade to materialise in year 12 completion rates. Furthermore, major reform can be truly successful only when supported by the community it affects. Consequently, what appears to be a long and arduous consultation period is required.

Finally, major building works in terms of new super schools require extensive behind the scenes preparation to ensure that they provide the best possible results. However, there are early indications that our reforms will pay long-term dividends. Starting at the critically important early years, we have reduced class sizes in the years of reception to year 3. We have provided $35 million for an early years literacy program to improve children's reading, writing, spelling and communication skills in preschool to year 3.

The feedback from all my principals is that they are noticing the results not only in terms of literacy and numeracy but also in terms of class behaviour. Across the state, 20 children's centres are being established, with a focus on finding and rectifying learning problems early in a child's life. These investments have been rewarded with some of the best results in the state literacy and numeracy tests on record, as was reported in The Advertiser on 1 November. However, it is in secondary education that this government's reform agenda is the most far-reaching. We are changing what students learn, how they learn it and the environment in which they learn. Simply forcing children to remain at high school through legislation is only a small part, albeit an essential one, of the solution to a complex problem.

The new SACE, the trade schools for the future and the new super schools being built as part of the Education Works program provide the key tools to ensure that all South Australian students will benefit from their time in the schooling system. The central theme of the new SACE is that curriculum should be approached in a flexible manner. Academic and vocational pathways can sit side by side and schools should have the ability to modify curriculum to suit local needs. Those who criticise the new SACE for allegedly dumbing down the curriculum need to be mindful that not all students will progress to university and that these students need to be catered for equally to those who have ambition to undertake university studies. As a young boy who went through Whyalla Technical High School, I am very much aware of the two paths down which young people can go.

The new SACE will allow for existing academic pathways to continue but it supplements these with alternatives for students. Under the prevailing system certain schools—like many in my electorate—are labouring to provide programs that prepare students for university when few of these students will progress to university. The SACE review suggested that the result of this is that these students are simply abandoning all forms of education or training because they are being forced into forms of study for which they see no purpose or relevance. Vocational training should not be considered by the education system as a second-rate or second-tier scheme. Wages paid to skilled trades people certainly indicate that the labour demands of the current economy are not prejudiced against vocational pathways.

Vocational training in schools should be undertaken side by side with academic training. In a modern knowledge and skills-based economy there is considerable crossover between vocational and academic training. The new SACE will provide the methodology to allow this crossover to occur, and the $29.5 million investment in 10 new trade schools for the future will provide the environment in which this can occur. The trade schools will operate within existing schools and use the extensive facilities of the TAFE network. Unlike the Prime Minister's plan for an unbelievably expensive investment in bricks and mortar to replicate an infrastructure that already exists—and I see this all around the state—this government plans to bring vocational and skills training to supplement existing general education. An article in the higher education section of The Australian on 31 October states:

...leading skills formation countries such as Finland and Sweden worked to strengthen the connections between building knowledge and skills in young people rather than separate them as [Howard's] technical college plan does...the whole move [in Finland and Sweden] is to further integrate vocational and general education to allow students to move freely between the sectors.

Fluidity between traditionally defined vocational and academic sectors is necessary because modern jobs exist somewhere in a continuum between vocational and academic. As members can well imagine, an electrician wiring an air warfare destroyer requires considerable skills. These skills will not be learnt in an old-style technical college where troublesome students learn to weld two pieces of metal together.

This state Labor government's trade school model and the flexibility provided by the new SACE will allow students to remain engaged in education and move freely between vocational and academic studies. In northern Adelaide, the trade school for the future is being co-hosted by Parafield Gardens and my high school, Craigmore High School. We will be specialising in advanced manufacturing, engineering and electronics. This co-hosted trade school will function as part of the highly successful Northern Adelaide State Secondary School Alliance (NASSSA). NASSSA works as a cluster of schools, whereby each school has an academy. These academies provide each school within the alliance with a specific specialisation, and the new super school at Playford North will adopt the health and health sciences specialism.

In the fullness of time students will be able to travel between the different schools in order to pursue the specialisation of their choice. Students will pursue a conventional education at their home school and take courses offered by the academies as their extended learning initiative under the new SACE. I take my hat off to the minister and the group that developed the new SACE, particularly for the new extended learning initiative—I think it is absolutely brilliant. The NASSSA model of collaborative specialisation avoids the pitfalls of establishing a single specialist school or trade school within a particular location in so far as it avoids a two-tier state schooling system. If a single specialist school was set up in a particular area it could draw the children of more aspiring families into one particular school at the expense of other schools.

The NASSSA model is also particularly attractive because it is not a mandated structure but one driven by the schools themselves. Specialisation has proved extremely successful in the United Kingdom as I discovered on a three week study tour I undertook in July 2006. I had a fairly good idea before I embarked on that tour that they were experiencing tremendous success. The statistics and the commitment of the Blair Labour government indicated it. I visited specialist technology, engineering and business and enterprise high schools across the UK to investigate possible education models that could be applied here in South Australia. One highlight was visiting a new, state-of-the-art educational facility being built as a PPP at Hadley near Telford at the bottom of the Midlands and the beginning point of the British industrial revolution.

This super school involved the closing of three existing schools, as is the case with our model. From having some of the worst educational facilities in the UK, this disadvantaged area will end up with probably one of the best. I was pointed in the direction of the school at Hadley because it was the showpiece of the British educational system. It was a couple of months away from final construction completion when I went through it. I could not be happier that the team that managed the process at Hadley is now in Adelaide overseeing the Education Works program that will see six new super schools across Adelaide. As a point of interest, the moniker 'super schools' came not from the government but from media commentators. If they are talking about the educational offerings as opposed to just sheer size, the media have it just about right in using the descriptor 'super'?

The first two of these new schools will be built in the Smithfield Plains/Davoren Park/Playford North area, and so they should. These suburbs are in the heartland of disadvantage that exists in northern Adelaide. Along with my colleague the member for Light, I have taken a very keen interest in these schools. I can report that the only complaint coming from the community is that the schools cannot come quickly enough. The minister and I attended a meeting of the school council at Davoren Park Primary School, and the message that came through from the mums there was, basically: can you give us a rock solid assurance that our children will get in and will not be denied places in this super school because of children coming from outside the suburb wanting to avail themselves of the great educational opportunities that this new school will provide?

The price of providing an effective education is high, but the cost of failing is higher. Educational attainment is a strong predicator of later life outcomes in terms of employability, welfare dependency, general health and life expectancy. For people with lower levels of educational attainment, adverse social outcomes not only impact on the quality of their lives but also have a broader community implication in terms of the economic costs of extended periods of welfare dependency, high rates of health care use and gross under-utilisation of human capital in terms of exacerbating the skills shortage.

By investing so heavily in education, particularly in areas of social disadvantage, this government has attempted to neutralise the regrettable inequality of opportunity that children suffer simply as a result of where and to whom they were born. Lifting the compulsory school-leaving age will ensure that all students stay at school. The government's broad reform agenda in education will ensure that all students are given a leg up in life by our education system.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:41): I, too, rise to support this bill, which raises the age for leaving school to 17. I left school at the age of 16. I was fortunate that my parents understood the importance of continued training through the means of an apprenticeship. The only criterion from my parents was that I could leave school before I had completed year 12 but that I had to do an apprenticeship. I am really thankful that my parents had that understanding, and that they understood the value of an apprenticeship and the tools that that apprenticeship would give me in later life.

The unfortunate reality in our modern society is that many parents today cannot recognise the benefits of those skills not only for themselves but also for their children. Those parents grew up in a welfare family, they have no mentor and they have no understanding of a work ethic. Consequently, they do not have the tools to be the guiding light for their children. This intervention, if you like, will keep children at school to this age. Let us be realistic: this measure will not affect many people at all in my electorate of Unley but it will affect the majority of people in the struggling outer suburbs (where I grew up) of Salisbury and Smithfield, which the member for Napier represents but which is not where he lives—at Springfield!

The challenge for the government is to ensure that children who need this guidance are not left to wilt at school and that they are left without mentors. An opportunity has been given to children as a result of this requirement to stay at school; and, hopefully, it will be a benefit to them beyond that age of 17. In other words, I would not like to see a situation where kids are at school just biding their time. I would like to see resources go to these schools so that these children can use that extra time at school (because technically they do not have a choice to be there without being in breach of the law) to improve themselves and to make them aware of the opportunities.

A previous speaker, the member for Fisher, made some very good points about trades, which are a great start for anyone in life. In my time in business I trained 20 apprentices in a 22-year period. One of the most satisfying things for me I think was seeing these young boys—they were predominantly young boys but we did have a female apprentice at one stage—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: One of the most rewarding things about the apprenticeship system, particularly in a small business when you are very close to the training of these apprentices, is that these young lads, who do not have a lot of confidence when they join you and often have not even finished growing when they start at the age of 16 or 17 years of age, work alongside tradesmen and learn not only skills of the trade but also life skills in the workplace. Many of my apprentices went on to management positions elsewhere or started their own businesses. A lot of them left the trade altogether to go and get further academic skills, but that was an opportunity that was not available to them while they were at school.

So, building on the training that you receive at that young age, whether that be preparing you for university, TAFE or, alternatively, a trade, should be encouraged, because it is at that time when the greatest opportunity is given to us to study and improve ourselves. Realistically, most kids do not have a lot of responsibility outside of managing their weekends, and to use that time productively to improve their skills and make a valuable contribution to life as adults I think should be very much encouraged.

I would like to see, particularly in the trade schools and the areas that are teaching trades, an emphasis on enterprise and the option of going out on your own, whether that be as a contractor or starting as a carpenter, as the candidate for Makin, Bob Day, did. He started as a carpenter and built up a multimillion dollar business employing hundreds of people and now is very well connected within his community. But, again, the start was given to Mr Day through the apprenticeship system. He, obviously, was in a position where he could see an opportunity to use the skills he learnt and go out and be entrepreneurial and a businessman. Not everyone can see that, and I think that is where some mentoring would come in very handy for many of our younger people.

Previous speakers have been right in saying that the workplace of the future is the skilled workplace. I recently visited a couple of businesses—one was quite a small business and one a large business, but the larger business was a customer of the smaller business, which was an electrical engineering company. Its job primarily was to identify robots that could be used to replace unskilled labour and then to program those robots and match them with cameras and work with mechanical engineers to produce a conveyor belt system.

So we saw these very highly skilled tradespeople and tertiary educated people working together producing a product that was going to replace 20 unskilled jobs. But the good news of this story is that, because those efficiencies were able to be kept in that business, that business that employs 80 people here in South Australia now does not have to move to China. So, that was a great success story.

I have seen that happening in irrigation and in other areas. We tend to see quite a bit of this, particularly in businesses that produce plastics and electronic products and, of course, we are seeing it more so in the motor industry. So, it is important, I think, that we understand that, just because you may start your life as a tradesman does not mean that is where you will be for the next 20, 25 or 30 years. In my time in business and in my time as a member of parliament I have come across many people who started their life as tradesmen and are now running large businesses or businesses of their own, or are TAFE lecturers or in a different area altogether. However, the bottom line is that it was that initial start in life—the training they received as young people—that got them to where they are today. On that basis, I am very happy to support this bill.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:50): I am very happy to support the bill. I congratulate the minister and those in her department for bringing it forward, particularly those in her department who are going to make it work. As has been indicated by the member for Unley, the impact of this bill is not universal. The ABS prepared an analysis for me in relation to the number of young people not attending school or training. At the time of the 2006 Census, in the Adelaide Statistical Division, 1,147 16 year olds were not attending school or training, which is 8 per cent of the 16 year olds in the ASD. In Reynell, unfortunately, 66 young people (nearly 8 per cent of the whole total of the ASD) live in Reynell, or 14 per cent of all 16 year olds, are not attending school or training. I know (as do, I am sure, members present) how much that will affect their future and their opportunities.

This is reflected as young people get older. In Reynell, 30 per cent of 17 year olds are not attending school or training, compared to an ASD of 17 per cent. At 18, the figure is 54 per cent for Reynell and 39 per cent for the ASD, and in the 19 to 24 age group, 74 per cent of young people in Reynell are not attending school or training, compared to only 56 per cent for the Adelaide Statistical Division. That shows a significant difference in the opportunities that these young people have.

The first reaction when I talk to people about that is to ask whether these young people are in jobs, and whether they are in good jobs. The Census does not really tell us that sort of figure very easily, but it does tell me that, in Reynell, three-quarters of the 15 to 19 year olds are earning less than $250 a week. When we move to the 20 to 24 age group, we see that two-thirds are earning less than $600. So, it does not appear that they are leaving school to engage in well paid, meaningful work, with a significant future. It is reflected all the way up the line.

The City of Onkaparinga has in the past produced an excellent community atlas, which I hope it will continue to produce under the current administration. This shows that, at the 2001 Census, 4.5 per cent of people in Morphett Vale (which is about two-thirds of my electorate) held a university qualification. This compares with an average across the Adelaide Statistical Division of 12.2 per cent. So, only about one-third of people in my area, compared with the ASD, have the benefit of a university qualification.

We are doing well in terms of TAFE qualifications. In Morphett Vale, 19 per cent of the population have a TAFE qualification, compared to 15.7 per cent of the ASD. However, what worries me is that, when I look at some of the figures for participation in TAFE training now, compared to the ASD, I see that we are not keeping up that record. We are in real danger of falling behind in the qualifications that we have.

There are many reasons for this. One, of course, is the rapid plummet in school retention rates that occurred during the mid 1990s, when we fell from about 92 per cent year 12 retention rate in 1992 (which is why I can remember the figure) to down to about 56 per cent by 2000. That had a severe impact on the future of young people in my area, and it is something that is very difficult for them to make up. But when we look at TAFE participation, comparing Reynell with the Adelaide Statistical Division, the number of kids attending full-time is less than across the Adelaide Statistical Division and, in terms of part-time, it is slightly higher. So, young people in Reynell at the moment are not being well equipped to take their part in the skilled jobs of the future and the types of jobs and future that the member for Napier has outlined so eloquently.

This move of demonstrating to the community how much we value education by requiring that every young person is in school, training or secure employment when they are 16 sends an important message not only to the children and the schools but also to the whole community about the importance of education in the future.

My concern about the lack of participation in various forms of education by young people in my area has been reflected in the fact that this year I have a parliamentary intern looking at the measures that we should be taking in the community as well as in schools to encourage young people to stay at school, to go on to TAFE and university, and examining what measures we might need to take to influence their parents to support them in that decision. When we have a community such as the member for Napier outlined and my community where there are few people in the older generations with university qualifications, it is very hard for them to understand what it might mean for their young people to go to university.

While most people opposite, particularly the member for Fisher, have talked about the importance of trades versus university, for me it is the importance of both. Particularly, we need to look at young people in the south being able to aspire to the full range of occupations that is needed to make a modern community function. At the moment, the south is experiencing a severe shortage of general practitioners and, indeed, it has experienced the shortage for quite some time. We have about one-fifth of the ratio of general practitioners that is available in the eastern suburbs and, in fact, the ratio of general practitioners in the south is often lower than it is in country South Australia.

When this occurs in the country, many measures are put in place to support young people from the country to go away to train to be doctors and come back to those country areas. I am looking to see such measures put in place in the south and the outer suburbs generally, so that young people from the outer suburbs, where there are severe shortages of doctors and other professionals, can be supported to train and then come back to serve their community in the same way, rightly, as happens in the case of young country kids.

I am pleased to see that the Minister for Health has announced recently that 10 scholarships of such a nature will be available each year for the next five years (I think it is); so, that is a start. I have written to the principals of high schools in my area and the St John's Ambulance cadets to point out that these opportunities are available because, unless it is clear to people as to where they can go, it is very hard for them to engage meaningfully in further education.

Just how uneven distribution of access to education is in our state, and the need to implement this new measure seriously and to build on it, is illustrated by a brief comparison of my electorate of Reynell with that of Bragg. If I had known that the member for Unley was going to speak so eloquently, acknowledging that it was not going to impact many of his students, I would have looked at that electorate. However, I looked at Bragg some time ago.

I point out that 34 per cent of the population of Reynell and 66 per cent of the population of Bragg have completed year 12. This shows a gross inequality in our area. In Reynell, I do not believe that masses of people who complete year 12 will get up and move out. Whilst some do, I do not think that that is an overwhelming trend. It is a matter that concerns the environment: it is how people approach schooling and further education, and our need to support measures particularly within our public schools, that will enable our youth to have access to the full range of occupations and professions available to others in our community and also, importantly, to increased life and cultural understandings obtained through further education, whether it be through TAFE or university.

This is one of the important things about the current structure of trade support being implemented by the state government and supported by the federal opposition, where young people are encouraged to develop their trade and technical skills in an environment of skill development in arts and crafts and overall cultural experiences, as well as sporting activities. One of the big problems with the federal government's Australian Technical Colleges is that they cost too much. The second problem is that they happen too late: they are only available at year 11. We need to expose young people to the skills that they might have when they are in years 8, 9 and 10, not wait until years 11 and 12.

Another problem is that the constrained environment does not enable young people to continue their development in terms of general education encompassing sport, drama, arts and other activities available in our larger schools. I think that is one of the reasons that the uptake of places in these technical schools has not been anything like what was anticipated and, certainly, in the southern college, unfortunately, there have been quite a number of withdrawals in its first year of enrolments; that is a very sad situation.

So, the combined measures of increasing the school retention age, developing a SACE which enables young people to explore their own skills as well as develop a better understanding of the world and how it works, combined with increased resources being provided through the state government—and, hopefully, when the federal opposition becomes the government, through them—will enable a broad range of young people to develop their skills to their full potential and become really active participants in our community.

At the moment, we are experiencing higher unemployment in Reynell than applies in the Adelaide Statistical Division; we have about 6½ per cent compared with 5 per cent across-the-board. Our workforce participation is only just under 60 per cent compared with 63.1 per cent overall. The lack of education in the community, in Reynell in particular—and often in the South but also reflected, as the member for Napier has said, in the north—is having a great impact on many individuals and on the community as a whole. The measure that we are considering today is one small step in overcoming those difficulties and, as I have said, I commend the minister, the department and the government for its initiative with this legislation.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:04): As a parent of an 18 year old and a 16 year old, I think it is important that I say at least a few words. My son left school when he was 17¼, at the end of year 11. He decided that he wanted to go into a trade area, and I was quite proud of that fact. An opportunity was not available straight away, so he was within the TAFE system for six months before he was lucky enough to gain an apprenticeship as an electrician about two months ago. My great frustration is that it is in the city instead of the region in which we live (on Yorke Peninsula), but I am very grateful to the people who have given him this chance. He works for a small family-run firm, and they are very good to him, which is fantastic.

I wish to support the increase in the age to 17. I think it is important that we in this place do everything we can to ensure more security for young people who leave school so that they are ready to do so and in a position either to continue their learning opportunities or join the workforce. I think that the learning or earning focus is an important one. Essentially, it is the challenge for young people to become useful members of our society, but I think it is the responsibility of society to provide that opportunity for them. Too many people make far too many derogatory comments in relation to our young kids. They see the example of those who are relatively unruly and who create a lot of problems for sections of our community, and they class all younger people in the same way.

However, in the brief time I was the shadow minister for youth I had the fantastic opportunity to see some young people who will one day lead this nation. There are some great young people out there, and they are getting a lot of support. They probably have some mentoring from within their family circle, but no doubt they receive enormous support from within the school system, too, which is very key. I admit to being a 1962 child. I left school in 1978, when I was only 16½. I left at the end of year 11, and I think I was ready for that. In my case, it was more that my mother told me I had to because she was not prepared to put me through year 12, even though, in hindsight, I would have liked that opportunity. However, for me it was the threat of, 'Either get out there and find a job or be sent to Israel to work in a kibbutz.'

For those who do not know what a kibbutz is, as a 16 year old I considered it to be a bit of a slave labour camp, where you were up before dawn and finished at dusk. I thought that there had to be more to life than that, so I decided to leave school at the end of year 11 (as it was then called) and was lucky enough to get a position within a few weeks. So, it worked out for me, but I had friends who left school at the minimum age of 15, as it was then. My absolute best friend at that stage left when he was 15 and one day to take on an apprenticeship as a carpenter. Sadly, he had a terrible car accident only three years later and has been in a wheelchair ever since. However, it was the right time for him to leave school, too, so it does really depend on what the right time is for our young people.

I want to focus a little on unemployment because it is very high in South Australia, especially in the youth area. The overall unemployment of 4.9 per cent is a good statistic, and it is hard to criticise it but, for youth (those between 15 and 19 years), in the time I have been in this place and monitoring statistics, it has been in the 25 per cent bracket. Last month it reduced to 17 per cent, but again this month it is back up to 25 per cent. We need to make certain that government policies, with the support of the opposition and all political parties, ensure that that percentage comes down and stays down. We need to get it more in the realm of the Western Australian situation, where I think youth unemployment is about 7 per cent. Our great challenge is to create the economic opportunity within South Australia to ensure that that occurs.

Education is clearly the key. Everyone who has spoken today has reflected upon the fact that it is important for our young children, who are going through that difficult time of their life, when they are 14, 15 or 16, and who are considering their future options, to try to ensure that they make the correct subject choices. Having done that a couple of times in the last few years, it is hard to get the mix right, but we have to ensure that the educational system is there not only to provide advice to the child but also to ensure that the parents are involved in the decision. It has to be a collective decision and one that certainly focuses on the child's strengths and where their opportunities might lie in the best interests of the future of the child.

To me, there is no doubt that children who leave the education system must have a mix of future interests. In the past there was more of a focus upon university opportunities for young people, but I am very pleased to see that society's attitude is changing and that there is now a recognition of the need for technical training. My son is an apprentice electrician, and it is fantastic for him. My daughter, who will definitely complete year 12 at the age of 18¼ in two and a bit years' time, will probably not go to university. That is a decision she has made, and again I am pleased because I know that she will get out there, continue her training opportunities and really push the fact that she wants a good job. It was probably 10 years ago when I heard that people being born at that time would not have five different jobs in their lifetime but five different careers—and no-one can have a career without continually improving their skills. So, let us hope this works.

Finally, I want to focus on South Australia's future needs as they relate to employment. All of us who look at the figures know that 765,000 South Australians out of a population of 1.85 million, I think it is, are in employment. The Select Committee on Balancing Work and Life Responsibilities, of which I was a member, heard evidence from Professor John Spoehr that, within the next eight years, South Australia's challenge will be that another 340,000 employees will be required either to replace those baby boomers who are retiring or required because of the economic growth within the state.

I asked Professor Spoehr to clarify that point because I thought it was amazing that such a large number of people would be required, and I reflected on the fact that participation rates are a key factor for the state. The member for Reynell made the same point, and she said that in her electorate the participation rates is lower than the state average. The state average is 63.1 per cent, and the national average is a bit higher than that, at about 66 per cent. We need to ensure that everything we do encourages a higher participation rate.

There is probably only a core nucleus of young people out there for whom this legislation will be particularly applicable, that is, those who are seemingly falling through the cracks who are continuing with their education or who are in the workplace, or who are being trained in some way. I think any move the government makes to arrest that situation and ensure that these young people who are falling through the cracks start to contribute and become great members of society and make a difference to our state is a good one. With those few words, I indicate that I am very happy to support the government's bill.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:12): I will be brief, but I do want to say a few words about this bill. Before becoming a member of parliament, I worked in the TAFE system and, prior to that, I worked for the commonwealth employment service for many years. In those days, one of the traps for young people was that they would leave school at 15, when they were old enough, and look for a job, and they found that employment was not always as easy to get as they thought at the time. Up until recent times, young people were able to access unemployment benefits at 15, and they would stay on that for some time. Initially, they would be keen to get a job, and they would go for job interviews. However, they would miss out on getting a job and, after they had been told about half a dozen times that they were not suitable, a syndrome would set in that would gradually get worse.

I would watch young people who had lots of drive and ambition when they first left school gradually lose that and go downhill and, after about six months, they would get into a syndrome where it was very difficult to get them moving again. They had been told so many times that they were not suitable for a particular job they had applied for, and they would then find it very difficult to motivate themselves to keep applying for jobs. If someone is hit in the head 20 times, they do not go back for the 21st time.

We saw this happen to young people, and this concerned me greatly at the time. So, I am very pleased that this legislation has been introduced, because it will ensure that these young people are in some sort of training, whether at school or elsewhere, and it keeps them motivated during that time. While I was working for the CES and TAFE, I worked with people in transition, particularly young people. These people had been unemployed for some time, and they were trying to enter the workforce. Initially, it was very difficult to get them motivated and to get them to come along for training.

Centrelink or social security would make them undertake training, although they were very reluctant and nervous about doing it because they thought everyone else would be smarter than they were. They had been sitting at home watching television for six, 12 or 18 months up to three years, and they were very reluctant to undertake the training courses.

The first two weeks of any course was getting them out of bed in the morning to attend TAFE and getting them motivated. We would give them something they could do so that they would have small achievements. and they would then go on to bigger and better things, and eventually we would get them to the point where we could get them to apply for and get employment because they had the confidence they needed. Of course, against them was their long-term unemployment; employers would look at that and wonder why they were unemployed.

I was very aware of that syndrome and fought against it for many years in my previous positions, and I think this legislation will alleviate some of those problems—because that has continued on; it did not disappear when I went into politics. This syndrome can and does occur, and it is very difficult for people, which is why I support this legislation in particular. Initially I was a little horrified at the thought of people staying in school for so long; however, now that I have thought it through and looked at the alternatives for young people I believe it is an excellent choice for them and will continue to keep people in the workforce and maintain their motivation. I fully support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:16): I rise to speak briefly on this bill. I commend the bill, and believe that these days you cannot have too much education. Opportunities are arising in this state—not just through universities, but hands-on opportunities such as trades—with the mining boom currently under way. Certainly, the Liberal Party promotes freedom of choice in education, and in this state we do have the freedom to attend either state or private schools. There is a lot of debate on what happens to communities if too many people attend other schools, but at least we can have that debate and decide where we want our children to go or where we think is the best place in terms of their career opportunities.

However, we also have to look after opportunities in the regional areas. Recently I went out to the East Murray Area School's 40th anniversary celebrations, and this school is a real oasis in the Mallee, encompassing a sporting ground as well. It is more than just a school; it is a community centre, and you can certainly see the people's pride in the school and community centre. It is just outstanding. The educational programs—whether it is growing vines or olives, or the workshop work they are doing where they have their own business and are selling products—are absolutely outstanding.

The importance of education is absolutely paramount. When I was at school I did up to year 10 at my local school at Coomandook and then I went to Urrbrae Agricultural High School here in Adelaide. My intention was to complete matriculation and then either come home or perhaps go on to something else, but for a lot of different reasons (I did not really mix and I did not like living in Adelaide) I ended up back at the farm. It may have been interesting to see where I would have gone had I finished matriculation; I may have made some other choices. Be that as it may, one way or another having a career in agriculture, the mining industry and the shearing industry has not done me too much harm, and I am now making a contribution in this place.

Earlier I talked about the future of the state, and there are many opportunities, not just in the urban areas but also regionally. Engineering firms are picking up contracts with the mining boom all around the state, and certainly work is being offered to people who are having hard times in regional areas. This is picking up some of the younger people who have, perhaps, just finished school; there is not enough income to keep them at home on their farms, so they might manage to pick up a job at the Australian Zircon mine at Mindarie near East Murray or at the Strathalbyn Terramin mine, which is also opening up in my electorate. So, there are certainly plenty of opportunities there.

As things boom along there are plenty of manufacturing opportunities in the region, especially around Murray Bridge and the Monarto region. There is the Complete Pipe Systems at Murray Bridge manufacturing plastic piping systems. There is a whole lot of transport infrastructure opening up around the Monarto region, and other opportunities with Australian Portable Camps having moved up there from Aldinga recently. They are certainly having a great boom directly related to the mining industry and other industries that need portable buildings. We cannot push enough good education or good training. It is common knowledge now that if you get the plumber out it will cost you more than if you go to see the doctor. So, depending on what you are good at, get good at it and you might be the one driving the Ferrari.

When I was attending Coomandook, at a school assembly at the end of the year, one of my school principals said to all the assembled children, 'If you thought this was a long time, wait until you get out in the workplace. You need to be prepared and ready to make the best contribution you can make in your life.' With those few words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:21): I wish to make some comments in relation to the Education (Compulsory Education Age) Amendment Bill. This bill contains a very simple proposal. It proposes to increase the compulsory—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Davenport, can I just inquire, are you the lead speaker?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes. It will not take long, Deputy Speaker. This bill simply raises the compulsory education age from 16 to 17, and there is a slight change in the definition in that you now have to be enrolled in compulsory learning programs rather than schooling. So, that is essentially the nub of the bill. It is a simple bill and, as the opposition has indicated, the Liberal Party will support the bill.

There are some comments I will make in relation to the bill. I have asked the minister's office to forward to me the truancy rates for various ages. I guess I will get them eventually, hopefully before my time in this place is finished. The minister might want to forward me the truancy rates eventually so that I can at least see what I might have said on the basis of those rates, but for some unknown reason the figures asked for two, three or four weeks ago, whenever we met in my electorate office, have not come, but that is life. Welcome to the minister's office.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in your contribution you mentioned a figure of 1,147 students you thought it might affect; the minister's speech mentions 2,000 students that it is going to embrace; and the briefing number that was given to me was 1,200 students. So, somewhere between 1,147 and 2,000 people are supposedly going to be impacted by this bill. All the bill says is that if you are of the age of 16 then you need to be involved in an approved learning program. You do not have to pass it, you simply have to be involved in it.

Essentially, that means rolling up and getting your name ticked off: a bit like going to vote, you do not actually have to vote, you just need to roll up and get your name ticked off. The way I read this bill that is essentially the process that is envisaged: that the 1,147 to 2,000 students that it might impact on do not actually have to pass, they just have to be involved. Basically they just have to roll up.

I know that the members opposite hold great hope for the impact of this bill. I have to say that it is my experience in life that it is a person's energy, determination and attitude that actually will determine their station in life. Education plays one part in that. The point I make to the house is this: currently the education age is 16, and there is a whole range of kids who are truant at whatever age.

I asked for those figures because I was trying to get a handle on what the truancy figures might be, but whatever the figure is there are those students who even though they are compelled to go to school do not go to school. We call them truants. All the 15 year old kids who are at school are doing the right thing. Those kids who are doing the right thing will continue to do the right thing, generally, and they will go on and continue their education. We are essentially talking about the 1,147 or 2,000 students (depending on whose figures you want to believe—the minister's or the member for Reynell's) who, essentially, do not want to continue their education at age 16 or 17.

This is the point that I think the member for Fisher made (or it might have been the member for Mitchell): ultimately resources are needed to deal with the kid that we now force to go to school who does not want to go to school, and those resources that will have to be supplied to the schools and the teachers in the classroom to deal with that problem. Previously, when they raised the age to 16 years (which was first promised by Malcolm Buckby when he was education minister) the government injected some $28 million at that point. I know of no figure, at this point, for this change in relation to an increase in budget.

Essentially, what we are going to have is a piece of legislation that says to those kids of 16 or 17 who are not really interested in going to secondary school, 'You now have to go to secondary school for that extra year.' Then I am asking the question, I guess on behalf of the teachers and parents of the kids who do want to be at school: what extra money and resources will be put into the classroom to actually deal with this issue? Essentially, what this bill does is say: you used to be able to leave school at 16 regardless of your skill level; you can now leave school at 17 regardless of your skill level.

The member for Reynell mentioned issues about this somehow improving access to education. I dispute that. I do not think it changes the access regime to education. Every 16 year old and 17 year old now has access to education, if they so choose. I do not think it changes the access arrangements one bit. All this bill does is give the police and authorised officers the power to go out and round up these 1,147 to 2,000 kids on whom the legislation will impact and use the powers under the act to try to get them to attend school. The bill does nothing other than bring into the regime of the authorised officers another range of people who can be rounded up. I do not think it changes the access regime at all.

The member for Reynell talks about 'meaningful work', but the bill simply talks about being employed. One of the options is being employed. You do not have to be involved in whatever the member for Reynell means by 'meaningful work'. I am of the view that any work is meaningful work because it gives you a leg-up; it gets you into the employment market and you can make your way from there. I think the member for Unley makes a valid point when he says that education is a lifelong exercise. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people out there who left school early but then came back when they were 22 or 23, having matured and seen a bit of life, to seek some direction and undertake various training courses, whether that be in trades or whether it be accountancy or whatever is their field of interest.

The other issue I raise is that essentially what this bill is saying is that, because parents and guardians cannot get 16 year olds or 17 year olds to go to school, we are going to have legislation to compel them. Again, I come back to the point that, while the Liberal Party supports this particular piece of legislation, one has to ask oneself: what resources will be given to the school community? If parents or guardians cannot make the kids go to school, or do not want them to go to school, and the kids themselves do not want to go to school, then what in the bill, or in the budget, will make it happen? I asked for the truancy levels three or four weeks ago, so that I could feed them into the debate but, regrettably, that information is not to be provided to me.

The other issue is the approved learning program. I notice that after a year or so of this announcement, the minister has dropped an amendment on the table this morning without notice, warning or consultation. The amendment has been tabled. I am interested to see what the amendment does. One of the approved learning programs is volunteer work and, when we get to the committee stage, I will be interested to see how volunteer work fits in this particular program.

With those few words the Liberal Party supports the bill, and we look forward to a quick passage through the committee stage.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:31): The startling omission in this debate is some explanation from the government as to why we do not have a new education bill to fundamentally review the whole Education Act 1972. When we debated increasing the age of children at school in 2002—the review—and then in 2003 raising it to 16, which the opposition supported (the former minister, the member for Taylor introduced it), we asked the question then: why has the government not introduced a complete review of the Education Act? Several speakers today have talked about systemic review and reform by this government, and yet, five years into this government, we have not seen a new education act.

We have had it in almost every other facet and portfolio area of responsibility. Ministers come into this house and explain to us how important it is, after decades, that new legislation be introduced. This legislation dates back to 1972, it has not been reviewed, and, in fact, the previous government in the lead-up to the 2002 election undertook two years of consultation. The then minister referred the matter to a select committee—I think that the member for MacKillop was a member of that committee; he may have been the chair—and there was very significant work done to prepare a new education act.

When we came to debate increasing the school-leaving age in 2003, the government had not been in power very long, and the excuse given to me at the time was, 'We need to have a look at it; we want to get on with the age for compulsory attendance at school. We need to have a little bit more time.' Five years down the track, we still do not have a new education act before us for consideration. Instead we have the cherry-pick, piecemeal approach of this government continuing in the important area of education, which I find, shamefully, an omission. Local schools in my electorate of Bragg, for all three sectors—public, Catholic and independent—have a high level of achievement in children being retained a school. That has been mentioned, I note, by one of the speakers today. That is something that we are proud of in my area—the high level of commitment to education.

The problem that we have in the eastern suburban area of South Australia is that our schools are so popular that they are frequently zoned. People from overseas line up for the public, independent and Catholic education sectors to enrol as students. An enormous number of people even move in to the area so that their children can go to those schools. Just today I read a letter from a family who lives in the area of the Marryatville High School, and they have been told, 'I'm sorry, there's no room for your child; you'll have to go across to Glenunga,' which is in the member for Unley's electorate. We have, in fact, the reverse problem. We do not have enough schools, we do not have enough capacity in the schools that we do have to accommodate the high level of demand. They are the sorts of issues that the government should be addressing.

I will not oppose this bill. I think that there is merit in the argument that, if children do attain higher education, they do have greater opportunity in life, in particular, to obtain sustained employment. That is very important; we support that principle. But, as I said in previous debates, unless the government is prepared to make a commitment to resources to ensure that the curriculum, as has been canvassed by other speakers, is commensurate with the attention span and interests of the students who will be compelled to stay at school, then it is of no merit.

There is not much point in having a nearly 17-year old boy in a classroom who is two foot taller than one of the teachers and who causes a disturbance unless they are actively engaged in their education. This bill introduces a new level of participation, rather than simply requiring attendance. The definition of 'participation' has been significantly expanded to mean not just attendance at a secondary school. That is logical and appropriate in the circumstances of modern education.

However, I am at a loss as to how the employment of a person can exclude them, and I would like the minister to answer this at some stage. This has been talked about. The bill does not explain the nature of employment for a person under the age of 17 who will be able to avoid the participation obligation under this legislation or how an employer avoids being prosecuted (which I now note in this legislation has a penalty of $5,000) if they employ a child of compulsory school age, which, in this legislation, is defined as up to the age of 17 years. We do need some clarity about the nature of employment that will be excluded and how it will ensure that there is some indemnity to an employer who may be offering employment to a person during school hours.

The other aspect is that, whilst there is an increase in the penalty for parents who do not send their children to school or ensure that they attend and participate, there is also an increase in the powers of the inspectors or the authorised officers to be able to take children into care. As a member of the opposition, I introduced a private member's bill to consider the participation in education as an important component. That has already been rejected in the lifetime of this government. I notice that it has now adopted a number of those aspects and is running with them. I am pleased that it has taken up that initiative.

In relation to parents being able to escape prosecution, what is the point of expanding the powers of an authorised officer (which they have had historically and which have been repeated in new section 80) so that an authorised officer may at any time attend at residential premises—presumably of anyone—and request any person on the premises to provide the officer with the full names of all children of compulsory school age and the children of compulsory education age resident in the dwelling house and the respective ages of those children and the schools at which, or the approved learning program in which, if any, the children are enrolled in accordance with this part?

What is the point of expanding the powers of these people if they are not following through and ensuring that children are at school or participating in an improved learning program which, everyone agrees, is beneficial. We need to know how many authorised officers are currently employed and how many additional authorised officers (full, part-time or perhaps full-time equivalents) the government will employ. The best figures I have been given in the lifetime of this government is that, every day in South Australia, 10,000 children of school age do not attend school.

Some of them have legitimate reasons for not being at school such as they are sick, or they have a note to say that they did not get out of bed early enough, missed the bus, a special relative is visiting, they have a special occasion which they need to attend, going on a holiday, or visiting Aunt Mary, but there are also thousands who do not have a lawful excuse for not attending school.

What is the government doing about that? The previous minister said, 'We have difficulty enforcing this in the courts. We bring the parents to court for failing to ensure their children are at school.' At that stage it was a $100 or $200 fine, but I note that it has been increased to a $500 fine. What is the point in having this legislation if there is no action and it is not followed through? There can be an army of authorised officers, but it is utterly useless unless it is followed through.

Frequently, people ask me, particularly on a Friday (which is the big truancy day), 'How can children be in Rundle Mall in school uniform after lunchtime and still no-one does anything about it?' Why are these children not approached and asked why they are not at school? The act provides that an authorised officer, who can be a teacher or principal, or other people appointed by the minister, can ask why they are not at school and return them to their home or place of school. If it is established that a child has not given a lawful excuse and there is no legitimate explanation, why have the parents not been approached? If they have not given a legitimate explanation—such as 'I forgot to write a note,' or it is a special occasion—why are they not being taken to court?

The previous minister, in particular, was concerned, as is the government, about the lack of capacity to enforce the legislation against parents in the courts. Why are we not dealing with a bill to secure enforcement of the legislation rather than pretending that this is a way of enforcement which will never get used? I ask the question in the sense that 16 year olds will now be forced to stay at school. If they do not want to be there, they will disrupt others in the classroom or turn up in the morning and then leave at lunchtime. We have heard previously about these situations. They will cause further heartache for the school if there is no enforcement procedure to ensure it happens.

I say well done in relation to the participation factor. I am pleased to see that it has come about. The government might not have accepted my bill, but at least it is in this bill. Secondly, there is little point in having a process to encourage what we all see as benefits for children unless we have a process to ensure that those who are not complying with the obligations are dealt with—and some parents need support to do that. There is little point in our ranking up the compulsory attendance and participation age unless we do something about it. I ask the minister for some answers about this and to tell the house whether in the five years of this government there have been any prosecutions—and, if so, how many—of parents who have failed to ensure their children are at school.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Adelaide—Minister for Education and Children's Services, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:43): I am delighted to close the debate. I thank members from both sides of the chamber for their support for what is an important step in our reform agenda for secondary education, as well as the whole education process, in South Australia. I am particularly indebted to the insightful explanations of the principles underlying the Rann reform agenda given by the member for Napier. His input and diligence in driving reform, both in his own electorate and across the state, should be commended. He quite rightly points out that in an environment of high employment opportunity we need to increase the level of employability of school leavers to ensure that they get high-level certificates, diplomas and degrees. He quite rightly says that business as usual will not serve any reform agenda and we need to make changes.

I thank the members for Reynell and Giles for their comments about their own constituency, but I also thank the members for Hammond and Unley, and others opposite, who have made some significant observations and asked specific questions which I am happy to answer. Before doing that, I want to clarify a level of confusion amongst members opposite. We are not introducing a bill to increase the school leaving age. We are introducing a new concept. The proposition is quite simple—you imagine that you need more education so you keep children at school longer—but the reality is not as simple as that solution might imply.

In fact we are not proposing to increase the school leaving age to 17 years. We are happy to have the compulsory education age at 16 years, which is our reform, whereby children of the age of 15 years must be in school, but we recognise that children up to the age of 17, that is 16-year olds, should be gainfully employed, and the reason for that is blindingly obvious. We will have no increase in jobs in future for unskilled young people. We will not have jobs for early school leavers, and the massive job growth in South Australia and the rest of the developed world is in certificate 3, diplomas and university degrees and, unless we get our young people job ready, we will be facing the need to recruit overseas, to steal staff from interstate and to leave our children with no opportunities. This reform has to occur because the worst brain drain is young people not reaching their potential.

The class of young people we have introduced in this act is a compulsory education group, and of course there will be exemptions, as there are for 15-year olds now, but 'compulsory education' means that they must be enrolled in a school and, having been enrolled, they must then take part in training, in an apprenticeship or in a process whereby they are upskilling.

One of the points the member for Unley made that I thought was rather telling was his observation that, even if you take up one of those important jobs in the trades, the chances of your staying in that employment for the rest of your life are slim. You may well go back to university, take on a diploma or run a business, and in order to do that it is important that young people reach levels of certification in school through their SACE so that they can be flexible and change directions in their lives. That is why what is a simple proposition has been worked through extraordinary collaboration to allow young people flexibility and options in their lives.

I am very pleased with the bill as presented to parliament now because we have been through a massive consultation process and independent reviews. We have brought stakeholders together and have tried on all fronts to accommodate the concerns of those people who will have to work with this bill when implemented.

The issues that have been raised specifically need to be answered. Of those 1,200 or so children whom we expect to stay in education during their sixteenth year, there will be some who, like the member for Goyder, might just have listened to their parents and, with a little more encouragement, stayed at school. They will become routine year 10 and 11 students; they will stay on at school into their next year of study and, to all intents and purposes, behave like the children in the electorate of the member for Bragg who stay at school because it is expected of them. Some of these children might be encouraged to stay at school until the middle of year 12, when they turn 17 years, and because they have got so far they will be on the path to achieving a SACE completion. The others will be registered and may well be in a VET course or employment, and the exemptions young people can achieve are related to what they are doing.

Of course, this is a labour intensive process because we will have to monitor those young people, find out where they are and track them. To address the question asked by the member for Bragg, we will not be introducing a fine for those young people in the compulsory education category, because we believe they are young adults; but we will be saying that they should be in work, in school or in training, unless they have finished year 12 (which some young people have done), unless they have gone to university (which some may have done), or unless they are in employment (which some may wish to be in).

The tracking will be the most significant change in that the school will have to register the fact that they have disappeared if they leave school; an employee will have to register the fact that they are no longer working in that employment; and an RTO will have to register the fact that they are no longer attending. That will set in train not a punitive process but a process whereby they will be approached and counselled.

It is quite clear that giving young people the same that they have been given before will not achieve higher retention levels or higher engagement levels, and that is why this is only one part of a comprehensive strategy that involves, of course, early intervention in early childhood, better literacy and numeracy skills, smaller class sizes and behaviour management processes in schools—a range of processes. It is early intervention so that we get to young people in the early years of difficulty (when they might be in years 8, 9 or 10) and keep them on the rails.

Some of the reforms are not apparent within this bill. For instance, last year we started year 9 testing for literacy and numeracy (the last chance to pick up underperforming skills at schools), and introduced intervention to make them able to continue in their education. People talk about money. The schools in which children decide to become routine (chemistry, physics, maths 1, geography or history), run-of-the-mill children (just like all those children in the member for Bragg's electorate) will receive the per capita funding that any school receives for any enrolled child—simple! Their money is there—not a problem.

On top of that, of course, there is the $84 million School to Work Strategy which involves a massive reform agenda and which is being worked through on our SSABSA system and in our SACE reforms. It also includes funding for our 10 trade schools which will incorporate every secondary school in the state and which will have a real focus on counselling, career advice and job brokering for those young people who do school-based apprenticeships. However, where our school-based apprenticeships will, perhaps, differ from some other models of trade schools or technical colleges is that our young people will be within the context of a routine school.

That is especially important for those people about whom the member for Unley talked who might do a trade now but who, in the future, may well wish to go back to do a specific course, go to university or take up another career. They need to have the flexibility and the employability skills of year 12 completion. The member for Davenport said, 'Oh, they only have to attend; they don't have to do anything.' This is the sort of nihilistic approach—'Oh, it's terrible. They're dropping out from school. They're no-hopers; they're off the rails. What can we do? They might not be in the member for Bragg's electorate, but there's nothing we can do. They don't have the moral calibre to stay at school.' What was his line? 'They don't have the energy therefore, perhaps, we should just abandon them. These people are not good enough. They don't have the energy.'

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The reality is—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Stop lying, Jane.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member did say 'energy' and he has called me a liar.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the minister asking that the honourable member apologise and withdraw?

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I am, madam.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member for Davenport to withdraw the word 'lie'.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy for you to look at the Hansard and see whether I have used the word 'energy' in the context in which the minister just told the house. I used the word 'energy' in terms of people's energy and attitude, which takes them to their station in life.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is not a matter for debate. The word 'lie' was used. I heard that. That is unparliamentary, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw. If he wishes to make a personal explanation at a later time the honourable member may do so. I now ask him to withdraw the word 'lie'.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I withdraw the word 'lie', and I hope that the minister does not tell any more untruths.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I accept the member for Davenport's apology, mealy-mouthed though it was. The issue is that we have a shortage of people with skills in this state, and every young person—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: —deserves an opportunity to achieve their potential. The biggest opportunity for us as a government is to get people into those opportunities and those jobs that are burgeoning in the air warfare destroyer industry, the defence industry and the mining sector to make our young people who are currently leaving school job ready. The greatest investments we can have are our $84 million School to Work Strategy, the investment that goes into our new SACE and the flexibility and the opportunities through our trade schools.

The issue that is worth addressing from the comments earlier is that those young people who are walking with their feet would not want to stay at school, anyway—they are going, they do not want to be in classrooms, they are disruptive—but that misunderstands the whole context of our compulsory education class of young people (those who are aged 16 years). We are not offering the same opportunities as before, that is, physics and chemistry on a Monday to Friday basis in a secondary school with an academic basis.

We are offering them opportunities for flexibility. We are offering the chance to do school-based apprenticeships; we are offering the opportunity to go into a registered training organisation to take part in a TAFE course; and we are offering them part-time employment. But, as that process goes through, of course they will have to be monitored and followed so they do not drop through the cracks. But offering more of the same is not an option, and that was never our plan. Our plan in lifting the school leaving age was to have it coordinated with our SACE reforms, trade schools and investment in early intervention to ensure those young people, perhaps 1,200 of them who are currently not successful, have opportunities into the future.

In terms of what work would be regarded as meaningful, clearly this is a debatable and difficult issue. One might well argue (and I think it is a reasonable argument) that any employment that has decent conditions and a properly regulated environment is a good job but, clearly, a child who decides to leave school at 15 years but works two or three hours a week is not in meaningful employment and for the purposes of the bill we will be talking about 25 hours.

There has been criticism of the sorts of approved learning programs we should have, with the shock/horror that they might be volunteering. Those members who are present might like to look at the current SACE requirements whereby the SSABSA act and the SSABSA organisation allows volunteering to be part of the SACE requirements, and this is quite reasonable. One of the arguments that was put forward in the SACE review was that young people are engaged in a range of activities which might include firefighting (the CFS is a very responsible activity) or surf lifesaving, not a kind of club that you participate in without any kind of accreditation, but organisations that run accreditation and examination processes that any involved person has to go through. There are ways to have those individual programs accredited for SACE and it is quite appropriate that that should occur so that young people can get credit for their skills. If we want young people to be employable, we need to recognise those employability skills when they demonstrate them.

The other area that I think is significant that I should respond to is the question of the confusion over the fines that are discussed in the act. There have always been fines for non-attendance at school and that has not changed, but what has changed is that in the course of meetings with our stakeholder groups the parent bodies suggested that the $100 fine is inadequate and it should be increased to $500, but I should make it clear that does not reflect or impact on the compulsory education students.

The other issue that has been raised is that of the number of truants, as they were called. We allocate figures based on attendance and non-attendance, and children who have unexplained absences are in the level of 3 per cent at the moment within our schools, and I understand that data was sent to the member for Davenport's office so I am not sure how that was lost. In addition, this material has been in the media and the subject of press releases, so we need to find out how that information was not apparent to the member.

The issue remains that we have no choice but to lift the skills in South Australia, and I think that all of those opposite understand that. I know that the Prime Minister has been quoted earlier this year as making some extraordinary statements. He clearly does not believe that children should stay at school beyond year 10 and actually has urged young people to consider leaving school in year 10 before going on to blame parents who encourage their children to pursue university studies. In view of the time, I lay the information from the Prime Minister on the table and am happy to wrap up my comments. I will answer any questions during the debate.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:02 to 14:00]

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT