HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (REGISTRATION AND STANDARDS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2011.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:01): I rise to speak in support of the bill. Before I start, I will explain to the house that I intend to test an amendment in this chamber during the committee process. I advised the minister of that earlier. As you know, the minister's second reading explanation has only been on the table for just over a week, so I apologise for the late notice of the advice to the minister. I know that he may very well need to consider that between the houses, but I would like of course to use this opportunity to flag that we will seek to add one small amendment to the bill and I will explain the details of that later.

This bill seeks to set up a new framework for the registration and regulation of education services here in South Australia and to support nationally consistent standards agreed at the COAG in 2009 and articulated in the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care, enacting national changes for the regulation of preschool, family day care, long day care and out of school hours care.

The bill as presented will repeal provisions of part 5 of the Education Act 1972 designed to regulate what was previously a much smaller non-government sector—and I might touch on that a little bit later—and sections, of course, of the Children's Services Act 1985 relating to the regulation of early childhood services affected by the national partnership agreement.

The national quality framework will become operational from 1 January 2012, and this bill is designed to provide the application in South Australia of the federal Education and Care Services National Law. In addition the bill seeks to establish a new statutory authority—the education and early childhood services registration and standards board of South Australia.

Under this arrangement, all education and care services, including schools and non-government schools, would come under one regulatory authority replacing functions currently undertaken by the Department of Education and Children's Services and also by the Non-Government Schools Registration Board of South Australia.

This change is perhaps particularly overdue. I know that when I began speaking to stakeholders about the initial consultation of this bill, one of the biggest areas of contention for the non-government sector, of course. was that the Department of Education and Children's Services was a competitor and also their regulator. What this bill will address is the fact that that will change.

Notably, under the new proposed arrangements, although states maintain their role as the primary regulator, accreditation approval will now be valid in all participating jurisdictions. So, in other words, if you are opening a second office in another state and you have done that in South Australia for example, then your accreditation approval will flow through. The should be seen as a positive for the operation of private providers and businesses in the sector.

I know that we have seen a number of these processes happening over the years through COAG, where we have seen a breakdown of barriers, and it does remind of the days when we had—and the member to Hammond might be able to help me here—eight or nine different rail gauges in Australia—

Mr Pederick: There were at least four or five.

Mr PISONI: —and there was a time when even travelling from Adelaide to Sydney meant you had to change trains at Broken Hill. We have come a long way since then, of course, and in layman's terms, you could argue—the train buffs, anyway—that this bill has a similar effect to the standard gauge rail system that we have now adopted since the 1980s.

The national law was passed by Victorian Parliament in October 2010. New South Wales passed legislation to apply the national law in November 2010, and the ACT has introduced a bill to apply this legislation, as has Queensland, with Tasmania and Western Australia planning to do so soon.

I have had some brief discussions with the office of the Minister for Education in Victoria, and they know that they do have some concerns about federal funding issues. Of course we do know the bill will increase the cost of child care, and the last thing we would like to see here in South Australia is child care being denied to more families, obviously knowing that it is a very important part of a child's education. I will touch on that little bit later.

The opposition notes the substantial consultation efforts undertaken with stakeholders and the efforts of the DECS Legislative Review Unit, and I congratulate the Department of Education and Children's Services on their process. The feedback I have had in contacting stakeholders was that they were pleased with the consultation process, and I know that, certainly, the major stakeholders such as independent schools and the Catholic school system were certainly pleased. The Association of Early Childhood Centres was also pleased that the consultation process. However, there were still some concerns and I will touch on a little bit later.

Stakeholders consulted by the opposition confirmed that they were pleased with the consultation process. Key elements of these changes relate to staff-to-child ratios, and higher staff qualifications, i.e. a minimum Certificate III by 2014, and some additional changes by 2016. There has been some commentary regarding the inevitable increase of child care costs, as I mentioned earlier, including by the Productivity Commission. This is an area that I believe will be a challenge for governments, as more parents will rely on early childhood care, particularly when both parents are working.

The possible shortages of staff in a transition period, as I understand, will be addressed through application. These are areas of concern for the opposition, and an element of the implementation of changes to early childhood education that the government will need to monitor and be held accountable for. We will certainly be keeping in contact with stakeholders as this is implemented to ensure that the process is working as designed.

Stakeholders have indicated to the opposition that this bill is in need of an overhaul or modernisation of the relevant acts in terms of a new board. They are, in general, satisfied with the greater autonomy from the direction and authority of the Department of Education and, in this regard, the Department of Education and Children's Services will no longer be both a provider and its own regulator but will be subject to the same independent regulatory body as the non-government sector.

That was always a major contention for the non-government sector in regard to early childhood regulations—that there was one rule for the government sector and another rule for the non-government sector. This bill goes a long way to addressing that although there are still some concerns which I will address a bit later in my remarks.

Stakeholders are satisfied that the membership of the new board is broadly reflective of the education services that it will oversee and they believe that their input during consultation has improved the bill. In other words, the stakeholders are confident that the bill has improved because of the consultation process.

However, there are some elements of the implementation and the universal access scheme that remain of concern to the childcare industry and are relevant to raise in the course of debate on this bill. I am sure that the minister's office is aware of it but just for the record I will refer to some of the concerns that were raised and perhaps even some questions that the minister might wish to address as a result of the universal access scheme to child care.

With regard to this, the childcare sector has expressed concerns. The minister has offered the commonwealth subsidy to non-government sectors with a different set of rules to those of government centres—for example, in non-government centres there is a requirement to have a second trained early childhood teacher (that involves a four-year degree) once a limit of 10 children is reached. This potentially means that if there are 11 children in a group of four year olds receiving the universal access subsidy, then there must be at least two early childhood education teachers present. This is simply not a financially viable position.

I would like to hear the minister's comments or views on this position and whether he might be able to inform the parliament as to who might be responsible for the additional cost to parents in that situation and whether there has been anything negotiated with the federal government in the way of childcare funding or, alternatively, fees or rebates for parents in covering the extra costs. The alternative is to select one child who will not be eligible to receive the funding and, of course, it is a choice of which child will it be.

As this rule does not apply to government centres, is the minister, in fact, hoping that these additional imposts will act as a disincentive for non-government service providers to take up the subsidy? They are legitimate concerns that have been raised by early childhood centres, particularly smaller centres that offer early childhood services.

Part 4, Division 2(1)—the composition of the board: if we go back to the legislation we can discuss the detail of the composition of the board. I think that is important for those who might be referring to this debate at some later stage if I discuss that composition for Hansard. The board will consist of a presiding member who will be:

...a person who has, in the opinion of the Minister, extensive knowledge and expertise in the education and care of children—

I assume that will be an appointment of the minister—

...(b) 2 must be nominated from a panel of 4 persons submitted by the Director-General—

Again, I assume that the minister will make that decision. Thirteen members will be appointed to the board. Two will be nominated from the Association of Independent Schools here in South Australia; two from Catholic education; and two from childcare bodies (the issue that was raised there, which I will cover perhaps in the committee process, is the explanation of the childcare bodies, whether that is for private, public or community—what the balance is through there); and the last person must be a legal practitioner. On the surface, it looks like a well balanced board, but we do need to clarify paragraph (e) of the composition of the board.

The childcare sector is made up of government and non-government, which are mainly privately-owned small businesses—it is my understanding that it is about half of the early childhood sector—and a lot of those are family businesses. I note that the member for Waite has experience in early childhood centres, and I am sure that he will be contributing to the debate as the bill moves through the parliament. Of course, the smaller businesses, the family-owned businesses, are all faced with different issues; for example, one issue is that payroll tax applies to the private centres, as does other government taxes, which is something that the government sector does not necessarily need to work into its costings.

We all know the importance of early childhood. If you look at where NAPLAN is taking us, since 2008 we have had four NAPLAN testing results here in South Australia, and I have to say that, as the shadow minister for education, it is very disappointing that in South Australia we have actually gone backwards in each one of those tests. We had our best result in 2008.

I happened to get out a press release from the previous minister for education on NAPLAN just to see what the government might be doing to address the poor NAPLAN results we had back then. We were then sitting, where the minister claims we are now, in the middle of the pack. Since then, we have slipped to bouncing on the bottom.

However, back in August 2008, there was an announcement of intervention plans and literacy and numeracy workshops that were to be held later that year to help key teachers with interpretation of the results (of course, we all know that you cannot manage what you do not measure, so it is important that we interpret the results), and new performance analysis reporting officers. But there is very little there to deal with the issue of numeracy and literacy in schools and targeting those students who are having difficulties.

We know what is happening in other states, such as New South Wales. The minister was quite right when he said on radio the other day that New South Wales has a very centralised system, but it does break down its NAPLAN results region by region, school by school, and it tailors and targets the programs it puts in place. We do not see any of that here in South Australia. As a matter of fact, unfortunately, I believe the minister has taken advice from his own department that blames the students.

Last year, we heard the minister saying that we have a lower score here in South Australia simply because we have a higher proportion of lower socioeconomic students. We saw that again this year as an excuse for the even worse results we received in the NAPLAN scores this year, where we saw South Australia slip in 14 categories—we fell behind in 14 out of the 20 categories. We had a worse result this year than we had last year. I have some statistical data that I seek leave to insert into Hansard. It compares the NAPLAN results in South Australia in 2010 with 2011 and the 14 negative figures are displayed in the graph.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you are seeking leave. Can you establish for me that those tables are entirely statistical and nothing else?

Mr PISONI: Yes, these tables are entirely statistical.

Leave granted.

SA SA SA Aust Aust V SA
2010 2011 2010 V 2011 2011 diff%
Year 3 Reading 401.6 402.8 0.30% 416.2 0.97 3%
Year 3 Writing 410.8 399.3 -2.80% 415.5 0.96 4%
Year 3 Spelling 387.9 392.4 1.16% 406.3 0.97 3%
Year 3 Grammar 398.9 404.1 1.30% 421.6 0.96 4%
Year 3 Numeracy 379.9 379.6 -0.08% 398.4 0.95 5%
Year 5 Reading 476.4 478.5 0.44% 488.4 0.98 2%
Year 5 Writing 479.5 469.4 -2.11% 482.5 0.97 3%
Year 5 Spelling 479.2 474.4 -1.00% 484.3 0.98 2%
Year 5 Grammar 486.9 486.2 -0.14% 499.7 0.97 3%
Year 5 Numeracy 472.7 471.4 -0.28% 488 0.97 3%
Year 7 Reading 543.1 534 -1.68% 540 0.99 1%
Year 7 Writing 537 529 -1.49% 529.3 1.00 0%
Year 7 Spelling 539.3 533.6 -1.06% 537.8 0.99 1%
Year 7 Grammar 532.3 529.3 -0.56% 533 0.99 1%
Year 7 Numeracy 538.2 535.3 -0.54% 544.9 0.98 2%
Year 9 Reading 567.2 573.2 1.06% 579.6 0.99 1%
Year 9 Writing 566.3 562.1 -0.74% 567.7 0.99 1%
Year 9 Spelling 572.4 575.2 0.49% 581.5 0.99 1%
Year 9 Grammar 573.8 567.7 -1.06% 572.8 0.99 1%
Year 9 Numeracy 573.2 572.3 -0.16% 583.7 0.98 2%


Mr PISONI: The statistical table goes on to explain that where we are really suffering as a state is in our early years. In year 3 reading we are 3 per cent below the national average; in year 3 writing we are 4 per cent below the national average; in spelling we are 3 per cent below the national average; in numeracy we are 4 per cent below the national average; and in reading, despite all the hype of the Premier's Reading Challenge, we are 5 per cent behind the national average. These are fairly shocking figures, and I will talk about some improvements that other states have made in the NAPLAN testing shortly.

These are shocking figures and, of course, they relate to early childhood development. We know that it is important to invest in the early years. The unfortunate problem that governments have in spending money on the early years is that you do not necessarily see the results within the electoral cycle, and I think the challenge for all political parties is to acknowledge that we need to break that cycle to improve numeracy and literacy, which of course is the key to anywhere you want to go as a child, student and adult. The first thing you need to be able to do is read and write. If you are struggling in year 3 to read and write, that is going to reflect in years 4, 5 and 6 unless it is addressed.

One of the reasons I support the new Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill is I believe that no longer can we sit back and say that early childhood centres are simply about minding children. There is an opportunity to invest in the children's future from the very early stages.

I know I am very fortunate in living in Unley. I know that if I go to Unley High School it is a school of very high demographics and very high financial means. We have 9 per cent of students at Unley High School, for example, on School Card, and that is reflected right through the electorate. We are one of the wealthiest high schools—the wealthiest school, from what I understand—in South Australia based on simply the recipients of school cards.

Of course, our primary schools are category 7, which means that they have the lowest funding per student; and that funding of course is based on the fact that there is a lot of family, community and parental support for the schools and, consequently, schools do not need to buy in as many services in order to educate their children.

We also know through the work that many researchers have done that a connection with the family and a student's parents is a very important role in education. If education is not supported at home, then it makes the job of teachers in schools much more difficult. It does not matter what a teacher does at school if the parents are not engaged in that child's education. It is like taking two steps forward and one step back. It is very important that we engage children in education and that is why I see an opportunity for an improvement in the standards of early childhood centres and where I see an opportunity for self management of schools here in South Australia.

We know that we have a very regulated, very centralised system here in South Australia. We know the union likes it that way because it means that it is easy for it to manage. It is easier for the minister to manage and it is easier for the department to manage. It is just the way things have always been done, but I believe that it is time that we re-evaluated that process. I do not think it is feasible in this day and age that, year after year, we keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

When I was in business, particularly when I was making a prototype piece of furniture, if it did not work the first time I did not go ahead and use the same process, the same materials, the same design the second time and expect a different result. I think that is where we are at in education here in South Australia. That is the point that we are at in South Australia. We have seen the centralised model. We have seen the fact that one size fits all does not work.

A school in my electorate, in the member for Bragg's electorate or in the member for Norwood's electorate would receive, according to the My School website, and according to the school resource entitlement statement, just over $7,000 per student into the school bank account. We know a lot of that is already committed for teachers' wages, but basically that is the amount of money. Despite the government's claim that more than $13,000 is allocated to each child's education, the school will only receive about $7,000.

We know that the My School website will tell them that that figure is more like $10,000 or $11,000, so somewhere in the vicinity of 33 to 35 per cent of the money allocated to that school is not controlled by the principal. It is being spent on behalf of that school community, but decisions are made in Flinders Street. Whether that school is in regional South Australia, whether that school is in the CBD, or whether that school is in the suburbs of Adelaide, the decisions about how that money is being spent are made not by the school community, not by the school principal, but by bureaucrats in Flinders Street.

I think we need to ask ourselves whether that system is working here in South Australia. If we go back to the NAPLAN tests, we can see that something is crook in Crystal Brook when it comes to NAPLAN scores here in South Australia. I will leave that here for insertion into Hansard, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those who feel compelled to read my contributions to the South Australian parliament.

Mr Pederick: Which will be many.

Mr PISONI: Which will be many, the member for Hammond says. Thank you very much. I am very pleased to have one fan here in the chamber. I am sure that, if the minister himself does not read my Hansard, one of his many ministerial advisers will read the Hansard.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: We like to hear it live.

Mr PISONI: The member for Stuart said he likes to hear it live, so I am very pleased to be able to contribute. As I said earlier, I think that it is almost unbelievable that the first or second set of NAPLAN results have come back under minister Weatherill, who just a few weeks ago said that he was going to make education a central plank of his premiership. We heard that from the lame duck premier, Premier Mike Rann, who is leaving on 20 October. We heard that when he was in opposition. He said he was going to be the education premier.

This is old Labor Party: they are the bleeding hearts of education if you listen to their rhetoric, but not if you look at their results, if you look at what has happened here in South Australia with this government running the education system. I am actually lucky to be here because I went through the education system when it was run by the Labor Party in the 1970s, and I can just read and write. I can just read and write. It was an experimental time, back in the 1970s, with the open plan—

Mr Pederick: I am not sure if it worked.

Mr PISONI: It didn't work, the member for Hammond said. Open plan was the big—

Mr Pederick: Open space.

Mr PISONI: The open space schools, no walls. Also at that stage there was a shift from a teaching 'profession' to a teaching 'job'. That is what is sad about what has happened to teaching over the years: it was a very respected profession but, unfortunately—due to the fact that it has evolved into an industrial system rather than an education system—we have seen that affect professionalism. There are still many very professional teachers out there. My two children at public school are commentators on the teaching profession, as students and as consumers of teaching.

I have been on the governing councils of public schools ever since my children started school. I am in my 12th year of membership of the governing council—as a parent, in no official capacity—because I took this role up when I was a mere business owner. It is an experience that all parents should have. It gives you a good understanding of how hard teachers work and how frustrating it can be for school leaders when dealing with the bureaucracy, but you do see an enormous sense of dedication of teachers here in South Australia and I do not think that is recognised. It takes more than an $800,000-odd advertising campaign to lift the spirits and the professionalism of the teaching profession.

There are many competing factors that school leaders need to deal with. There have been situations that, as a governing council member, I have had to deal with. You get very frustrated, as a governing council member, when you join that governing council because you are looking at the greater good of the school and you discover that the person sitting next to you has only joined because they want to push the best outcome for their child or their children, so that is always a competing issue that principals and governing council members need to deal with. It is a rarity but you do see it occasionally. Usually those people do not last very long.

The worst offenders are those who do not participate in the school community at all and who are very critical of decisions that the school community makes, despite the fact that they have been given the ability to participate and have a say. That is something that evolves over time.

In studies that have come out of Utah in the United States, where they moved to the super-school experiment in the seventies and eighties—not only the amalgamation of school districts in Utah but also the amalgamation of schools, so small community schools being closed and large schools being developed—the outcome of this particular study was that there was a boom in the non-government sector in Utah because parents were pulling their kids out of these large, bureaucratically-run schools and moving them to smaller independent schools where they felt, as parents, that they were being heard.

That is also happening in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. There has been a boom in the non-government sector ever since the affordability of choice in education was addressed by the former Howard government. The barrier that was there for many families, in the way of school fees, has been minimised by the SES distribution of funding for non-government schools (where those schools in areas of most need have the highest amount of funding from the federal government) which has brought fees down to very manageable levels.

Something the government has failed to address in dealing with the competition it has faced, in the northern suburbs in particular, is that it has lost a lot of aspirational families out of the government school system. They have decided that they are sick of not being heard, they are sick of a system that is too big for them. They want to be part of a school community and the local government school has not offered that to them, so they have moved because it has been made affordable for them in the non-government sector. As much as I am a strong supporter of choice in education, we need a balance of both the private and public sector.

It is important that we have innovation in the education sector, and what has happened with the very central system we have been running in South Australia for the last 10-odd years is that innovation has been stifled. We in South Australia used to be leaders in education. I know that South Australia used to lead in social reform, in education and in the arts, but now not only are we not leading but we are being dragged behind in a lot of those areas. That is a sad indictment of the last 9½ years of the Labor government we have had here in South Australia.

Getting back to the bill, as I digressed a little and I thank the minister for his patience, and to get back to the implications of not getting it right in those early years—and we have seen what has happened with STEM subjects in year 12 here in South Australia—that in turn has reflected in one industry, in engineering for example, where, in every other state, we have actually seen more engineers graduate every year over the last five years but in South Australia we have seen fewer engineers graduate in the last five years. That is despite the fact that we have been promised a mining boom, for which one would think engineers would be needed, and a defence boom, where electrical and mechanical engineers would be required, along with civil engineers also. But we are not training them here to the same level we have seen in other states.

If we go back to why that is, a few weeks ago the Premier who is retiring in a couple of weeks actually launched the updated Strategic Plan. Before he updated the Strategic Plan the goal from the 2004 Strategic Plan was an increase in the number of students getting a pass mark in maths, chemistry or physics in year 12. The benchmark there was 39 per cent and they wanted to increase it by 15 per cent to 45 per cent by 2010. In the year 2000, 44 per cent of students were getting a pass mark in the subjects of maths, chemistry and physics in year 12, and when they set the benchmark in 2003 it was down to 39 per cent. In 2010 we are now suppose to be hitting 45 per cent, but that figure has reduced to 37 per cent.

What we saw in the announcement from the Premier who is soon to retire is that the target for a 15 per cent increase, based on the 2003 benchmark, is now 2020 and not 2010, so we have shifted the goalposts. Again we are doing the same things the same way time and again. That is more evidence that this government has ignored the promises made from the Premier soon to be retired and the vision and promises we heard from the premier who is soon to be that education will be up-front and centre.

What we have seen from our NAPLAN results, from our maths and science results, at the beginning of the school process in year 3 and at the end of the school process in year 12, is that we have gone backwards. These are statistics that cannot be twisted or spun in any way. These are the raw, hard figures as to what is happening in those very important areas here in South Australia, and that has been happening under this Labor government.

In South Australia we also have a poor participation rate for NAPLAN. Why is that? Why do we have continually the worst participation rate in mainland in South Australia, with 17 out of 20 categories, when it comes to NAPLAN? We have fewer students. Even though there are exempt students, do not confuse exempt students with those who participate, because the participation rate is made up of those who are eligible to sit the tests. There are many processes in place to deal with children with disabilities, who can still sit the tests. Adaptions of tests are available for them, but here in South Australia it is almost as though we do not have a commitment from this government or from this minister to NAPLAN testing.

For two years the minister has spun that we are in the middle of the pack with regards to NAPLAN testing, but now we are bouncing on the bottom with the Northern Territory and Queensland. Other states, of course, have not been as complacent. I touched upon that a bit earlier. They have assessed the results and used targeted and tailored responses to the issues or problems that they have highlighted through analysing their NAPLAN testing. The sort of things that the minister promised four years ago, they have put into play, and we have not seen it here in South Australia.

It is worth comparing results in South Australia with those of Queensland because they have much in common: both states have primary years finishing in year 7. That is something else that we will need to address in South Australia as we move to the national curriculum. It appears at this stage that South Australia will be the only state to have year 7; in other words, non-specialist teachers in primary school.

We all know that when students move to high school they move from lesson to lesson. They go to see the maths teacher, they go to see the English teacher, and they go to see the art teacher. In primary school it is generally the same teacher who is with you all day, certainly in the government school system. That is what my kids experienced. However, this minister has ruled out even exploring the option of moving in line with other states. I think it will be difficult for us when we move to a national curriculum not to have the same education system that the other states have.

Maths, science, physics, English, music and art will be taught by specialist teachers in year 7 in every other state in Australia, but in South Australia there will still be primary school teachers giving a general overview of those subjects. Certainly, the Maths Teachers Association is very concerned about that process.

When NAPLAN testing started (it began in Queensland) it was performing even worse in South Australia. The major difference has been the seriousness with which Queensland addressed its poor results and began concrete action to support teachers and schools to improve outcomes for students. In a very short time the results were visible.

Likewise, in Western Australia the Liberal government has moved to a system of greater local school management in public schools in what they call independent public schools, which has given them greater ability to manage targeted solutions. Principals and school communities are in a position to resolve problems identified in the performance of students in their schools and not simply wear the responsibility for the results.

Of course, that is what happens in South Australia. Principals say, 'Well, you are responsible for these results but, by the way, you're going to manage the school by having a single hand tied behind your back.' A classic example there is the new EDA requirements that this government just let roll through because it was during the lead-up to an election. A principal, on a minor decision such as a classroom change, now has to consult the personal advisory committee, which, of course, is made up of the principal, a union rep and the occupational health and safety rep.

They all sit around deciding whether there should be a classroom change for that teacher based on whatever reason, whether that could be a change in class size, whether it be to help accommodate a student with difficulties, or whether it be the fact that it is the only classroom that has an electronic whiteboard and the teacher is very good at using those products. Those sorts of decisions, instead of being made by the principal in an efficient manner, are now made by the policy advisory committee, which used to be a purely advisory committee. Now, through the EDA, those decisions need to be agreed upon.

In Western Australia, with its system of giving principals the ability to manage their schools, there was a targeted program where we saw that state move forward in 14 out of 20 categories in the NAPLAN scores, whereas here in South Australia we went backwards in exactly the same number of NAPLAN scores. I again refer the house to the purely statistical table that I tabled earlier for insertion into the Hansard.

Given these results here in South Australia, where we have a worse result this year than last in the NAPLAN testing, I suspect that the minister must be saying, 'I really regret the fact that I have cut $8.1 million from numeracy and literacy in our schools simply to help save the budget.' If you look at the funding savings that were made through the Sustainable Budget Commission's recommendations in education, $100 million of those savings came out of schools, and numeracy and literacy was one of them.

The explanation in the budget papers tells us, 'Look, don't worry about it; a federal program has replaced that now,' but in the following budget, in May this year, the feds cut that because they overspent on all sorts of other things and mismanaged the economy. They are now turning to the school system to take funding out to manage their budgets.

So it is the same old Labor, whether it is the Rann government or the Weatherill government, or whether it is the Rudd government or the Gillard government; when they fail in managing their budgets they take the easy option. Instead of looking at the way they are managing their departments they go straight to schools or service areas and cut those.

One of the first examples of that I can remember was when Don Dunstan had the great idea of nationalising the bus services here in South Australia. I remember that Frank Potter, a family friend out at Salisbury where I grew up, ran the Salisbury and Elizabeth bus service. He built it up from a one-bus company, where he would drive the bus during the day and maintain it at night. He had a very effective and very well-run bus service, but that was compulsorily acquired from him in the seventies; purchased by the state government.

We then saw an implosion of wages for bus drivers, simply because of the industrial might of publicly-employed bus drivers. We saw bus drivers' salaries going through the roof; in some instances they were being paid more than school teachers and others, simply because of the industrial might there. The then Bannon government's answer to deal with that was, 'We'll have to cut savings in the transport budget; we can't afford the same bus routes that were running via the private sector just 10 years ago.' So they cut services.

We had higher cost and less efficiency, less service; and that is exactly what we are seeing in the way this government is dealing with its poor management of the budget at the moment, with easy targets. It says it is making tough decisions, but I do not think that taking $100 million out of our schools, rather than looking at your own department, is a tough decision. As a matter of fact, I think that is a lazy decision. South Australians could be forgiven for having the impression that their minister and Labor in this state are not entirely supportive of the NAPLAN tests, and fail to recognise them as an important diagnostic tool not only of student achievement but also of the system here in South Australia.

We spoke earlier about how one of the roles of the bill we are discussing today is to replace a regulatory system that was set up when we had a much smaller non-government sector. I have discussed in my remarks since then that we have seen a drift from the public system to the private system, particularly over the last eight or nine years, and I would like to talk about that drift, which is really more of a stampede than a drift if you look at the DECS' figures.

I spent sometime inserting—as purely statistical data—a table that shows the drift from the government sector to the non-government sector since 2002 to 2010. What is interesting is that, if we look at total enrolments in the government sector in 2002 (when the education Premier came to office), we had 170,463 students in South Australia in the government system. In that time, we have reduced that figure by over 9,000 students, which has resulted in the closure of 31 schools under this government.

That might surprise some members in this chamber that the government has actually closed 31 schools when it ran an election campaign in 2002 opposing school closure. However, 31 schools have closed and 21 more schools have closed through the school amalgamation process—another tough decision that this government made to manage the budget. That is a reduction of 5.3 per cent in students from the public system here in South Australia when we have seen a growth in population in that time. But where have they gone?

If we look at the total number of students in the same year (2002), in the non-government sector we had 79,031 students. The last Department of Education and Children's Services report in 2010 reported a figure of 92,132. That is more than 13,000 additional students in the public sector—a 16.6 per cent increase. Let us just have another look at those figures. If you compare those figures, there are 9,000 fewer students in the government system and 13,000 additional students in the non-government system.

I do not know how Labor education ministers can continue to look at those figures, keep doing the same thing in the way they run their education departments and then hope for a different result. It is staggering to see the difference. I will concede that we have seen a drift in other states but not to the same extent that we are seeing here in South Australia. In South Australia we have seen an enormous drift in non-government school enrolments. I will seek leave, if I may, to insert into Hansard that purely statistical table.

Leave granted.



Government School Enrolments
  1st Term     Mid-year    
  R-7 8-12 Total R-7 8-12 Total
1996 114,146.3 62,255.1 176,401 120,689.6 59,466.0 180,156
1997 112,185.3 63,646.8 175,832 118,854.3 60,478.1 179,332
1998 111,224.9 64,601.2 175,826 117,727.8 61,275.0 179,003
1999 110,322.5 65,968.0 176,291 116,675.7 62,534.6 179,210
2000 109,077.9 65,420.1 174,498 115,415.8 62,061.6 177,477
2001 108,018.9 64,932.9 172,952 114,286.9 61,934.7 176,222
2002 106,141.4 64,321.7 170,463 112,128.0 61,215.9 173,344
2003 104,053.8 63,601.2 167,655 110,229.5 60,778.2 171,008
2004 102,654.7 62,876.0 165,531 108,802.0 60,276.6 169,079
2005 101,385.9 62,490.4 163,876 107,590.8 60,057.7 167,649
2006 100,695.0 62,223.0 162,918.0 106,832.0 59,990.0 166,822.0
2007 100,335.0 62,588.0 162,923.0 106,396.0 60,500.0 166,896.0
2008 99,208.0 62,647.0 161,855.0 105,091.0 60,214.0 165,305.0
2009 98,071.0 62,963.0 161,034.0 104,116.0 61,447.0 165,563.0
2010 97,376.0 64,032.0 161,408.0 103,520.0 62,335.0 165,855.0
             
From 2002
Difference 8,765.4 289.7 9,055.1 8,608.0 1,119.1 7,488.9
Difference -8.3% -0.5% -5.3% -7.7% 1.8% -4.3%


Non-Government School Enrolments
       
  R-7 8-12 Total
1996 40,656.8 28,230.4 68,887.2
1997 41,889.6 29,723.5 71,613.1
1998 42,686.2 30,637.2 73,323.4
1999 43,023.8 31,074.8 74,098.6
2000 43,996.3 31,386.3 75,382.6
2001 45,172.4 31,706.8 76,879.2
2002 46,427.5 32,603.7 79,031.2
2003 47,762.3 33,481.8 81,244.1
2004 48,712.3 34,255.6 82,967.9
2005 49,740.0 35,261.6 85,001.6
2006 50,077.0 36,320.0 86,397.0
2007 50,762.0 37,136.0 87,898.0
2008 51,221.0 38,186.0 89,407.0
2009 52,077.0 39,148.0 91,225.0
2010 52,658.0 39,474.0 92,132.0
       
From 2002
Difference 6,230.5 6,870.3 13,100.8
Difference 13.4% 21.1% 16.6%


Mr PISONI: When the original non-government school board was set up, educating children outside the public system was more of an exception than the rule, being more the preference of those choosing a faith-based education option (for example, the Catholic school sector) and, of course, usually people of greater financial means—although I have to say that the Catholic sector has a history of having schools right across the state both in regional South Australia and, of course, in most suburbs here in Adelaide.

I have to say that that does bring me to a slight segue. Last night I enjoyed the Catholic Schools Music Festival at the Festival Centre. I was invited as a guest of Paul Sharkey, the Director of Catholic Education, and I have to say that it was a lovely experience to see the ability both in voice and in instrumental musical ability. I am a very strong supporter of music in the school system and I was very pleased to see it on display last night through the Catholic education system.

That prompts me to inform the house that the previous week, I also enjoyed the Festival Of Music, the government primary school's music concert which runs over four or five nights at the Festival Centre, where I was a guest of the president, Peter Scragg, and he is also a principal of a primary school, I think, in the member for Fisher's electorate. I was invited to attend and certainly enjoyed the performances of our primary school students.

There were special appearances from Marryatville High School and Brighton high school, and it was great to see those students showing the younger students what they could achieve if they stuck with their passion of music. Jeff Kong, the music director at Brighton high school, who will never retire, was there—and every time I see him he looks younger than the last time. He loves the job and he is a great asset. I am sure that the Deputy Speaker is aware of Jeff's work at Brighton high school, and the magnificent contribution he makes to music in the government school system.

If we look at where we are now—and I have tabled the figures for Hansard—we have approximately 34 per cent of students being educated in South Australia in the non-government sector. If we move up to years 11 and 12, we are closer to about 44 per cent of students who have moved into the non-government sector. I have experienced that as a parent where a number of my children's friends at their government school have moved on after year 10, in particular, into the non-government sector. Whether that be a church-based school, the university entry school run by the University of Adelaide, Eynesbury College or a similar school, we have seen a shift out of the government system into the non-government system.

If I were the minister, I would be asking: what is the motivation? Why are people who have been devoted to the government system all their lives (or parents for all of their child's schooling life) decided that what we are offering in years 11 and 12 in the government system is not good enough and moving into the non-government system? I would want to ask those parents what the motivation is. I would want to see what I could do as an education minister to improve those outcomes. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debated adjourned.


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


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