HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SENIOR SECONDARY ASSESSMENT BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council’s amendments.

Amendments Nos 1 and 2:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 1 and 2 be disagreed to.

I have no doubt that every member of the house would like all young people to achieve their potential as citizens of South Australia. It is that aspiration which is at the heart of our deliberations over the bill before us. This bill enables young people to do their best, and its aim is shared by many thousands of teachers, parents, members of industry, the community and, of course, young people themselves.

We heard that view expressed during exhaustive consultations that took place during the reviews of SACE and the SSABSA legislation, and in the development of this legislation itself. We heard it during and since the subsequent forums that took place while shaping SACE for the future. Indeed, consultation and taking on board the views of the broader community has been the hallmark of all the deliberations around the new SACE and the legislative structure that will support this new senior secondary certificate.

For example, the SACE review included more than 200 meetings involving more than 1,600 individuals, some 170 written submissions and more than 600 responses to an online survey and a major conference. Since then, hundreds of principals and other school leaders across our Catholic, independent and government school sectors, together with the university sector, the further education industry and community leaders, have contributed to the Future SACE.

Today's year 9 students will be among the first to graduate with the new SACE in 2011, and the outcome of our deliberations will reflect how well we establish the sound legislative foundation that supports them and future generations.

In formulating the original bill, a discussion paper and a legislative advisory group of 40 key stakeholders—which includes each of the school sectors—enables us to shape a bill that has the broad agreement of the overwhelming majority of interested parties.

Following amendments in another place, there has been further discussion with members of that advisory group. These steps reflect our commitment to work together to ensure that we deliver an effective senior secondary system that enables young people to achieve their potential. Against this backdrop, the parliament has also passed historic legislation that will ensure that all young people are engaged in schoolwork or training until they pass the age of 17 or have achieved SACE or an equivalent qualification. These new measures will take effect from January of next year.

The new compulsory education age legislation works with the original SSABSA bill and the new SACE, and each of the components are interrelated and should work in unison. They herald a new education and training landscape. The new SACE will enable more young people to learn not only at school, but also through further education and university, throughout the community and in the workplace. We hope that, at the end of this process, more young people will be developing their skills for a longer period in order to enter the workplace.

Our reforms across the school and training spectrum are part of the changes that we aim to make in order to lift the level of qualifications that young people gain in our community. The logic is inescapable, because research tells us that if young people drop out early their employment prospects over a lifetime are diminished and, in turn, so is their quality of life and opportunity to achieve their potential.

The original bill provided a legislative driver for the Future SACE and, in turn, enabled more young South Australians to achieve their potential. Indeed, our aim is that more young people will learn across the whole education, training and workplace spectrum, with more permeable borders between these former, quite separate institutions than could have been dreamt of even a decade ago. Of course, this will require new approaches to teach, assess, monitor, track and assist young people as they progress from school to training and work. If we cannot measure effectively their achievements and monitor their progress, we cannot manage the process and support them; and that will impact on how well we evaluate the overall skills and qualifications of the South Australian community, because we will not know where they have gone, where they are working and what their intention for the future is.

We do know that, if a young person falls through the cracks and we do not effectively support them, they are at greatest risk of dropping out, not just of school but of civil society. We will not have effective accountability to the parliament through the minister responsible unless we can monitor, track and record the location of students up to the age of 17 at least.

The bill as it was before the amendments ensured that the minister responsible for the education of young South Australians is actually accountable to parliament and has the capacity to fulfil the responsibilities of the portfolio. In effect, there would be an open, transparent and effective way of ensuring that young people could achieve and be monitored as they progressed through this new education and training landscape in a way that is designed for the future, not the past.

In a competitive global economy and at a time when skills demand is so high, we cannot afford to allow structural service delivery barriers to place hurdles in the way of young people achieving their best. The amendments (in particular, those relating to the our capacity to gather and share relevant information) will indeed restrict our responsibility to effectively support the progress of young people across this new education and training landscape. If I can just briefly address those amendments and suggest which ones the government is happy to accept but which ones we remain opposed to, I will be able to explain that matter.

The first group of amendments relate to the employment arrangements of the CEO and the staff of the board. The government acknowledges that the CEO of the SACE authority should not report to DECS. The amendments as they stand, perhaps inadvertently, have put the staff in a position that is incompatible with the desires of the non-government sector, because that would have meant that the non-government sector could not see the independence of SACE.

The original bill addresses those stakeholder concerns by removing the CE of DECS as the employing authority for the CEO of SSABSA and its staff. In consultation on the bill, all stakeholders acknowledged this and the fact that the staffing arrangements proposed in the original bill were consistent with the appointment of CEs and staff across the Public Service. While addressing stakeholders' concern, the bill also ensured that no public sector employee fall within the scope of the commonwealth's WorkChoices legislation. However, the Legislative Council's amendments proposed alternative employment arrangements for the CEO and staff which would take the CE of SSABSA and staff within the scope of WorkChoices and, most damagingly, which would allow them to be accountable to the CE of DECS.

Whilst the new federal government plans to overturn WorkChoices that, of course, will not occur until later in the year and, at a time when we are introducing a new SACE, it does seem important that staff in the organisation have certainty over their employment conditions. Therefore, the government's position will be to oppose amendments Nos. 1, 2, 5, 12 and 13, because not only are they opposed by the majority of stakeholders, but also the independent and Catholic sectors would not want the CE of DECS to be in charge of the SACE organisation, and I think it would be welcome if the opposition could support that.

In terms of the composition of the board, the intent of the original bill was always to engage each of the school sectors. However, as I have said before, members should be mindful that the future will see an increasingly strong connection between the school, training, university, industry and community sectors. Gone are the days when SACE just related to something that occurred within our schooling sector. As I said earlier, with increasing permeability and with young people spending only some of their time in school in the senior secondary years and increasingly being involved, quite appropriately, in school-based apprenticeships, in TAFE courses and in other RTO programs, and some of them, in fact, being involved in university education, the focus of our original proposal is on who will be best able to contribute to the oversight of the SACE, not from which sector they originated.

Of course, the government would prefer its own original amendment that would see members of the board with knowledge and expertise of each of the government sectors, as that reflects the recommendations of the SACE review. However, we are willing to negotiate on this and, with a view to moving ahead and ensuring that we have an effective board as soon as possible, the government's position is that we would accept the Legislative Council amendments Nos 3 and 4 relating to the composition of the board.

The area that is perhaps most difficult and contentious for people to recognise is the matter of data management. In discussing data management, it is worth again reiterating the fact that children of senior secondary age are now no longer expected only to occupy positions within schools. There has been a change in the management of that process since the passage of the compulsory education age legislation, that is, 16 year olds have to be in approved learning programs. Not only do they have to be in those programs, we need to monitor, track and support them. Some of the perhaps unexpected implications of the amendments from the Legislative Council preclude that proper monitoring process and would make it difficult for information to go between sectors. In fact, the key function assigned to SSABSA in the government's bill provides for SSABSA to have a role in facilitating that collection and monitoring of data but, most importantly, in keeping track of young people so that they can be assessed for SACE at the end of their SACE-related studies.

The problem with the amendments is twofold, and I think that, at the time they were passed, they were perhaps unexpected implications. They restrict the way in which information can be transferred from the board to the minister, in that the board is precluded from providing data related to individual students disengaged from education; only aggregated data related to 16 year olds can be collected or provided. The problem with that, of course, is that, if you want to stop young people falling through the cracks, you have to be able to identify them.

The board also, because of these amendments, would only be able to provide information to entities within the school education sectors. That prevents the transfer of information from the board to other sectors delivering approved programs, such as TAFE or private registered training organisations. The significance of that is that perhaps those in another place are not aware of the fact that these days in senior secondary we do not expect children caught between the ages of 16 and 17 to be confined to school. The landscape has changed: their activities have them between schools, TAFEs, RTOs and even universities. Not being able to track them undermines the very purpose of the compulsory school age legislation.

I can assure members that, if they are concerned, there are safeguards. The government has made new regulations under the Freedom of Information Act to prevent third-party access to information held by the minister and the education department about 16 year olds and other information that can be used to construct leave tables. This issue is very important not just to the government sector but it is seen to be critically important to the Catholic school sector and the independent sector. They would be very distressed if this protection were not in place and they are grateful that it exists.

In fact, it is worth recognising that the interagency advisory group, which comprises the heads of both the independent and Catholic school sectors, was pleased that the appropriate regulations were in place and it supports the intent of this bill on this matter. The government's position, then, is that we oppose amendment Nos 7 and 9 but accept the minor change proposed in amendment No. 6 because 7 and 9 allow us to carry on sharing information in the way that it was intended under the compulsory age legislation.

The fourth and last of the areas under which the items have been grouped relates to amendment Nos 8, 10 and 11 in relation to a perceived ministerial power over the board. It is worth considering each amendment and the intent of the original clause. The Legislative Council's amendment No. 8 would remove the clause in the government's bill that would enable the minister, particularly if requested by the board or the schooling sectors, to assign an additional function to the board without the necessity of returning to parliament to amend the act.

This is not, as has been suggested, a bid for power by a minister; it is, in fact, a standard clause provided in a number of South Australian acts. It was inserted during the drafting of the bill to support the effective operation of the board. The government remains of the view that the original clause should remain but, in the interests of streamlining the passage of the bill, the Legislative Council's amendment No. 8 will be accepted by the government. However, amendment No. 10 removes the ability of the minister to seek information from the board that relates not to the board but to a minister's responsibility as minister for education. It has been argued by the opposition that the original clause in the government's bill is about ministerial power over the board. This is clearly not the case, as understood and agreed to by stakeholders, including AISSA.

Amendment No.11 removes the minister's limited power to direct the board in the interests of supporting the accountability and performance of the board, for which the minister is ultimately answerable to parliament. The proposed process was transparent as it required the minister to table any directions in parliament or to report these in the annual report. Use of the power could include, for instance, directing the board to investigate the matter which the minister has received representations about, or directing the board not to make public information that could be used to construct league tables.

The proposed power of direction is intended as a safeguard to board performance and accountability. It is a limited power in that the minister is not able quite rightly to direct the board in relation to the content or accreditation of subjects or interfere with student assessments or the recording of results. The government's proposal is supported by all stakeholders who were consulted, excepting AISSA. It is important to note that the limited power is consistent with the provisions of other comparable legislation, including the Training and Skills Development Act and the Teachers Registration and Standards Act. So, it is a very standard clause.

I draw members' attention to the fact that it was the former Liberal government that developed the Training and Skills Development Act and both these acts were passed with the support of the Liberal opposition. The government's position, therefore, will be to oppose amendments Nos 10 and 11 and accept No. 8. The education community members who have been closely involved in the shaping of this legislation all want to see the swift passage of the bill so we can get on with the task of establishing a new SACE board. In turn, we can provide the support that young South Australians need to achieve their potential through a new SACE and a new education and training environment. I have been gladdened by the level of bipartisan approach to this commitment because we all share the goal of wanting our young people to do their best and to attain their potential.

Mr PISONI: I thank the minister. The opposition's position on the SSABSA bill is that we are happy to concede on amendments Nos 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and we are pleased that minister has accepted amendments Nos 3, 4, 6 and 8 for various reasons. Before I go on to those, I will use this opportunity to thank the member for Davenport for his work on this bill when he was the shadow minister, and thank the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place, whose vast experience and knowledge as education minister and shadow education minister for a total of about 12 years greatly assisted in the analysis and debate relating to this legislation. I also take this opportunity to thank the minister and her staff for organising the various briefings and being available to discuss the amendments we are debating today.

Education is a fluid area. I am sure none of us in this parliament today would have dreamt when we were in high school that the university courses or, alternatively, the jobs in the workforce today would one day be available. I am sure there are a number of jobs out there that will be offered to my kids, aged 12 and 14, that have not even been invented yet. It is important we review the way the SSABSA Board is made up and the way it operates. It is also important that any review be accountable to the parliament.

The bill is obviously the prelude and basis for further education bills, as indicated by the minister, and it has been scrutinised and amended taking into account its vital importance to the broader education community in South Australia and the views of the stakeholders to be involved in the new SACE. The opposition amendments that have been agreed by the government seek to maintain the current standing of the board as an independent authority and to limit unnecessary or increased ministerial and, therefore, government control, and potential interference and politicisation of the SACE process.

I think it is fair to say that, from time to time, we all hear in the education debate the threat of political interference. I would not like to see creationism, for example, taught as a science in our schools. So, whether they be independent schools or whether they be government schools, I feel that one way to achieve that is to ensure that we do have a well represented board and a board that is independent of political interference. South Australia does have a history of very stable governments and, of course, the difference between the right and the left in Australia is very minimal. About 10 per cent of the population swings in the middle and 90 per cent of our views are probably bipartisan in many areas, but there are always times in our history—not so much in Australia but certainly in other parts of the world—when we have seen a radical element take control of the political agenda.

I am not suggesting for one moment that that would happen in South Australia—and God forbid if it did—but I think that we need to foresee any possible threats, and that is our job as decision makers in this parliament. Amendments to the bill also reflect the Liberal opposition view on reasonable representation on the new board of the independent and Catholic sectors, which contribute greatly in terms of enrolment volume and the quality of education in this state. In my position as shadow education minister, I would very much like to see an end to the 'them and us' attitude that we see between the public sector and the private sector.

I very proudly send my kids to government schools both at a primary level and at a high school level, and I am very pleased to boast that for both semesters last year my daughter came home with straight As in Year 8. So, she is obviously achieving well with the tools that are given to her in the government school sector, but at the same time it is important that we recognise that parents have different values, parents require choice and we should ensure that a choice is available and not used for political purposes. It disappoints me that our opponents on the Labor Party side of politics—and one particular name comes to mind; Mark Latham—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Of course, the Labor Party and the AEU have had a history of politicising choices that parents make regarding the education of their children. For example, there are 96 independent schools, 93 Catholic primary schools and 30 Catholic secondary schools—so, a big chunk. It is around 32 per cent, I believe, of the education sector, and it would be a very expensive burden if overnight all those students suddenly ended up in the public sector. I certainly would not like to be the education minister who had to deal with that situation at the beginning of term 1 next year, for example, or the year after; it just would not be possible.

In my electorate, 50 per cent of students are in independent schools, and in the minister's electorate I think it is closer to 60 per cent who are in independent schools; so, they are a significant part of the education system. Of course, the Minister for Education and Children's Services is responsible for more than public schools, so it is important that we have a mix now of a broad range of expertise on the board of SACE and that we do have representation from both the independent and the Catholic sectors.

So I think that is a win for common sense and a strengthening of the bond between the public and private sectors in education. In my electorate, for example, a lot of work is exchanged between the public and private sectors, and a couple of times a year I invite the principals of all the schools to attend dinner with me, at which we discuss ideas about education and the electorate. One thing is common to all the principals, and that is that they are dedicated to the work they do. It is not money that drives them but, rather, the results they get for their students. I think they must have a natural, caring personality, and I am sure they get plenty of satisfaction from helping develop these children into young adults. I congratulate them on that and thank them very much for the work they do. The Liberal Party, of course, is a solid supporter of our public schools, as I mentioned earlier. I put my money where my mouth is and am very pleased with the results I get. Parents, of course, are entitled to make their own choices.

The amendments introduced by the opposition and agreed to by the Legislative Council were made after considerable consultation with stakeholders by the member for Davenport (Hon. Iain Evans), the Hon. Rob Lucas and myself, and we are very pleased that the minister has agreed to support those amendments, Nos 3, 4, 6 and 8. It should be remembered that we are not here fixing something that is broken: we are simply acknowledging the fact that education is a fluid process and it is important that we have an ability to change.

One of the biggest contrasts that I have experienced in moving from 22 years in small business into the government sector, if you like, as I suppose I could loosely use that term as a member of the opposition, is that ships are much smaller to turn in the private sector than in the public sector. Some could argue that this measure is possibly overdue, but I am very pleased to be here supporting these changes, and trust that they will be of benefit to our students. I believe that my daughter in year 9 will be one of the first students to participate in SACE under the new program.

It is important to point out that some changes made by the original bill are retained while at the same time necessary concessions have been made to take into account the concerns of education stakeholders, in particular the independent schools, expressed through the opposition's amendments to the bill. Again, I thank the minister, and that concludes my remarks.

Mr VENNING: I support the shadow minister and, indeed, thank the minister for her speech today. We are particularly happy that she has agreed to proceed on amendments 3, 4 and 6—and now 8, because that did not come to us earlier—which in effect gives the Association of Independent Schools its most sought-for outcomes of representation for its sector on the new board (amendments Nos 3 and 4), and the tighter controls on the availability and use of the information relates to the issue of league tables of schools (amendment No. 6). As the member for Unley has said, we will concede Nos 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 for another day, but at least we are on the record and anyone wanting to peruse this legislation can see what we are trying to do.

I was pleased that the minister mentioned amendment No. 8, which has been raised with me and which seeks to remove the minister's ability to assign other functions to the board without change to the legislation or regulation. That is very much opposed by AISSA.

In my electorate I think the system works very well. I have both public and private schools in my electorate and I have the best of both. I brag quite openly about that. I have the best public school in the state. Nuriootpa High School was the best public high school in the state and it is getting there again. Hopefully, we are clearing a few hurdles and turning a few corners. The current principal, Mr Frank Spiel (who was posted there especially), is doing a good job. He was in the saddle very quickly and he is moving ahead, and I have had a couple of discussions with him.

Also, the electorate is blessed with one of the best private schools in the state—Faith Lutheran School. Some 65 per cent of students in the Schubert electorate go to private schools; and that is probably the highest proportion in the state. The Lutherans are particularly strong in secondary schools and, indeed. small primary schools all over the place. I have had a very good liaison with the current principal of Faith Lutheran School, Mr Gavan Cramer, who is in his second year there and doing an extremely good job. Also, I pay tribute to his predecessor, Mr Brian Eckermann, who has given me a lot of advice over many years on matters such as this bill.

When members of parliament have these sorts of people in their patch who give reliable, good advice they can look good. I am not an expert on everything in this job, but people such as Mr Spiel at the Nuriootpa High School and Mr Cramer at Faith Lutheran School can provide me with important information. This morning I consulted again with them both, in particular Mr Cramer. All along they have both said that they want an AISSA representative automatically appointed to the SSABSA board. If not, they may not get a person on the board and, therefore, fail to have representation. This has already been the outcome in relation to our amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and, again, I thank the minister for that.

They needed clarification of the minister's powers. It is all right to direct higher order aspects of management and setting SACE requirements to the minister, but not the operational aspects; for example, the assessments. There needs to be a balance between the power of the minister and the operation of the board as an independent body to protect that independence. Currently, the extent of the minister's power is not clear. This morning I contacted a representative from AISSA who said that the minister should not have the ability or power to assign new functions to the board. Well, the minister has addressed that with amendment No. 8. I think we have done very well and I am pleased about that. This is parliament working well, and I think we have reached a good outcome. I support the amendments and the bill.

Mr PENGILLY: I am happy to support my colleagues today. I am pleased the minister has chosen to adopt the amendments and put them in place. I think it is important that we work for the common good in this place from time to time, and this is a step in the right direction. Bearing in mind the remarks of the members for Schubert and Unley, I, too, have 10 public schools and two private schools in my electorate. I have the privilege of having three campuses of one school across the water—which presents some difficulties.

School is such a different place from what it was when I went to school many years ago. Unfortunately, the happiest day of my life was the day I left school. I could not leave school quickly enough. I got belted black and blue for five years at boarding school and school was not a happy experience for me. It pleases me greatly now when I go to schools to see how happy the children are. That is not to say that there are not a few political issues to consider, with both internal politics and government politics involving with the staff (as the minister well knows), but in the scheme of things it is heading in the right direction. There are issues at schools which need addressing all the time.

One of the things about which I have a particular gripe is the languages that are taught in schools. Indonesian is taught in some schools in my area, but I think that students would be far better off learning French, German and Italian, because we have such a multitude of international visitors. Quite honestly, I believe that Italian, French and German are of much more use than Indonesian, because we do not have Indonesian visitors. It is just a fact of life. I think that is a mistake, and it is something that needs to be picked up on. I see the minister nodding, and I am glad that she is taking note of what I am saying.

I am pleased that this legislation has reached this point, and that the amendments have been picked up on. I was most impressed by the way in which the member for Unley put his point of view this morning. He will make an outstanding minister for education in a couple of years, I hope.

Mr PEDERICK: I wish to make a few brief comments about the new SACE. Some members of the tertiary education fraternity have been a little worried about the possibly of dumbing down with respect to some issues. However, as long as the protocols and reviews are in place to make sure that we achieve the results—

The CHAIR: I ask the member to confine his remarks to addressing matters relating to the board, rather than the new SACE in general.

Mr PEDERICK: There are concerns about the external school assessment, which at the minute varies from 30 to 50 per cent of these scores and which, in the future, with SACE stage 2, will be 30 per cent external assessed and 70 per cent school assessed. We will have to follow those procedures with interest and see that they work appropriately.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 3 and 4:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 3 and 4 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 5:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 5 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 6:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 6 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 7:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 7 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 8:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 8 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 9 to 13:

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 9 to 13 be disagreed to.

Motion carried.

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