HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2020.)

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:03): I wish to add a few comments to the Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill debate. Because I come from a family of teachers, I start by paying tribute to the members of the teaching profession, who play a vital role in helping every student fulfil their potential.

Since I was first elected to this place, I have made a point of honouring teachers on World Teachers' Day around 5 October each year by delivering, as a small gesture, morning tea baked by local bakers to the staffrooms of all the schools in my electorate of Florey. I have done so for around 20 years, and I hope there will be many more occasions during the years to come when I can do the same thing again.

Like so many in professions of all types, those who choose to become teachers feel drawn to teaching. Whether it is helping students to excel, to find something to be their lifelong interest or simply to do better, teaching is not just a career; it is a calling. It is also a profession, having all the hallmarks of a profession: robust pre-entry education, on-the-job training and mentoring, a culture of professional standards and ethics, continuing professional development, an active academic literature and an ethos of reflective practice. In short, it is capable of self-regulation, as is any other profession.

Acknowledging teaching professionals should have the principal role in licensing teachers and setting teaching standards should therefore be central to any legislation regulating the teaching profession. Sadly, that principle seems to have been discarded in this bill.

In reducing the size of the Teachers Registration Board, the government has chosen to move from a board which has majority teacher and school representation—nominated by teaching unions and school systems—to one in which it will be the minister who exclusively appoints all the members. That would make the teaching profession uniquely subject to more than ministerial oversight—it could be seen as interference—in a way that no other profession is.

Lawyers have the Law Society, architects have the Architectural Practice Board, vets have the Veterinary Surgeons Board, surveyors have the Institute of Surveyors and there are 15 separate boards for health professionals, ranging from nursing and midwifery to podiatry and osteopathy. All of these have a majority of practitioner members, selected through a range of methods, including election, nomination or wide consultation.

It is true that the teaching profession has evolved, and it is true that our expectations of teachers have changed, which is all the more reason, in my view, that teachers should be a significant component on the board that regulates them. I note there will be amendments moved in the committee stage and I indicate my support for them.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:05): I rise to speak about the board related to teachers' registration. Like the member for Florey, I rise as the product of a family of teachers, which I have spoken about in this house before. I particularly pay tribute to all those teachers in my family and all those teachers in my community, who work so hard to educate the next generation and who play such an important role.

We have significant concerns with the government's proposed bill in that it would weaken the proportion of teachers who are involved in their own registration board. Teaching is a profession and it should be treated as a profession by the government. To reduce the number of teachers on the board, to reduce the proportion of teachers on the board, is a very sad message to send to all those teachers who are professionals and who do a professional job in our community.

At no other time have we seen what we have seen over the past few months, where our teachers have gone to extreme lengths to maintain amazing education levels for our young people during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have had to chop and change due to differing advice from the federal and state governments in terms of what they need to do and in terms of how they can provide the teaching and learning for students. They have adapted so well to that, including many who have clearly put themselves at risk due to their own health conditions, they have been concerned about their own health and they have put the students above all during that time.

I know there were many teachers who spent a significant amount of time adapting to online teaching—adapting their lesson plans, their schedule and their learning to online—and then have had to change back. In my community, just before Easter, I was able to drop off some thank you Easter baskets to all the teachers in my electorate to say thank you for the great work they were doing and the commitment they were showing to the students in my electorate.

To all those teachers, from our side of the house we thank you. We respect you as a profession; we hold you up high as a profession. We know that you often cop a lot of flak; we know that there is often a lot of unreasonable blame shifted to teachers. We will defend you and we will stand up for you and make sure that your profession is regarded as highly as it should be. That should be reflected in the legislation the government is proposing.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (11:08): I am very pleased to close the debate on the Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I thank all those members who have contributed to the debate and offered their support for this important bill, with or without amendment. I think it is appropriate to comment briefly on the role of teachers in our community at this time in particular, as others have done—I think the member for Florey and certainly the member for Kaurna—who talked about the important role of the teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Education is an essential service. I think one of the potential things the pandemic—which has caused so much havoc and devastation around the world that we reach for silver linings and apply them as much as we can—has provided is a broadened understanding within the community of the absolutely critical role that teachers play in the development and lives of our children. All the parents who have had the joys of undertaking home education activities in particular have a newfound understanding of the work that teachers do, and I think that has been played out.

I noticed an article in one of the national newspapers in the last week or so that talked about the loss to students in jurisdictions where schools had had significant lengths of shutdown or where only very limited numbers of students had been attending, particularly vulnerable children who had not been able to access both the educational advantages of school as well as the social and wellbeing opportunities that schools provide. South Australia and the Northern Territory were singled out for the fact that only the week of professional development—only one week—had been lost in the regular school timetable for many students, or at least the opportunity there, and that is something that will stand our students in good stead.

Other jurisdictions have had varying lengths from two to nine weeks or more, and that will cause challenges for those children. The reason above all else that that value is there for our students is because of the work our teachers do in ensuring that our students get the very best possible start in life. The role that they play is so important to the young people in South Australia and around the world, and we pay tribute to them regularly. I take the opportunity posed by this bill to do so again today.

The bill we are dealing with today will amend the act to improve the operation of the Teachers Registration Board and further support the work of the board, including by promoting high-quality teaching and introducing additional measures to promote child safety. Significant consultation was undertaken with stakeholders during the development of the bill, and I again thank all those who contributed to that consultation. In particular, I single out the Hon. Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, the chair of the Teachers Registration Board, who led that consultation work, a former minister and former member of this house.

I also single out Peter Lind, the former registrar of the TRB, who retired and travelled off to the land of the long white cloud, possibly on the last flight out of South Australia, after an extended caravanning tour around our regions just before tourism was not allowed in those regions. We have previously spoken about how we wish him well. I also thank Leonie Paulson, who replaced Dr Lind and has continued that consultation work, particularly towards the end. I thank Joanna Blake and Jamie Burt from the education department for their significant work.

We talk about consultation in many bills. This is a bill that by and large evolved out of the considered contributions of members of the existing board and people who made contributions through the consultation period on what they would like to see to improve the act and improve the way the legislation can support the board. It was a lengthy consultation process. There were many meetings and many people who made contributions. I would like to thank all those people in the community, whether they be teachers, other stakeholders, sectoral representatives, unions or members of the community, who in many ways contributed to the aspects that were considered in the ultimate development of the bill.

I think if the bill is passed then its success will have many parents indeed, many people who have contributed to its development. I have seen myself in this sense as a conduit for all that work to bring it to the parliament with the endorsement of the government, and I hope people will support the bill. I note that a number of members, those opposite and the member for Florey, have raised concerns about some matters in the bill, including particularly changes to the composition of the board. An issue has also been raised in relation to the provision for the registrar to suspend a teacher where the registrar reasonably suspects that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk to children.

The government respects and supports the contribution of teachers as members of the board. The minister, in nominating members for appointment to the board, will have to be of the opinion that they collectively have the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to enable the board to carry out all its functions effectively. The bill includes provision for at minimum a practising teacher in each of the areas of early childhood education, primary education and secondary education.

At one point in consultation on the draft bill, concerns were raised that, as a result of the way the draft bill was drafted, potentially if somebody had experience in all three of those areas then there might only be one teacher. That was never the intent, so we have clarified in the final draft that it has to be an early childhood teacher and a primary teacher and a secondary teacher. I reiterate now that we are talking about at minimum three teachers, according to the existing bill, out of 10 people on the board.

However, the bill does not prevent further teachers from being appointed to the board except to the extent that one of the board members must be a legal practitioner and one must be a parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest. The bill requires the minister to ensure that the board consists of members who have knowledge, skills and experience in areas of teacher education and matters affecting employers of practising teachers.

We are seeking to have a skills-based board that will enable the best possible support to go to the registrar, the organisation and the teaching profession. Of course, teachers are a critically important part of that. Having teachers represented on the board is critically important. The differences between the amendments as presented and what the government proposes are that we are saying there should be a minimum of three out of 10, the opposition has put forward a minimum of five out of 10, and there is a proposed different mechanism for how they are chosen. The bill proposes to have the minister, who is of course accountable to all teachers—as they are to all members of the South Australian public—identify whom they might suggest, having sought consultation with various bodies.

Particularly, the bill as it stands suggests that there must be an early childhood teacher, there must be a primary teacher and there must be a secondary teacher, recognising the different aspects of those parts of the profession, and the amendment talks about delegates effectively coming from two representative bodies. It is a difference of opinion, and we will play that out in the amendments and see how they go. Fundamentally, we both agree that it is critically important that teachers be on the board. Whether the bill passes as it is or with amendments, there will be teachers represented very fulsomely on the board.

The bill will provide the registrar with the power to suspend the registration of a teacher where information comes to the attention of the registrar that might lead them to reasonably suspect that a teacher poses an unacceptable risk to children. This could be as a result of the registrar being informed of matters, such as allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour of a teacher towards a child, evidence of physical or domestic violence perpetrated by a teacher or a serious failure of a teacher to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in respect of a child.

In coming to a decision to suspend the registration of a teacher, the registrar would first have to gather and assess sufficient facts about the risk a teacher posed to children as would lead the registrar to reasonably suspect that the risk to children was unacceptable. Some of the factors that could be taken into account might be the extent and veracity of evidence available, the impact of the alleged behaviour, the circumstances and type of behaviour in the context of the employment setting, the frequency of the behaviour and any previous allegations or substantiated inappropriate behaviour of the teacher.

Similar powers for suspension of registration exist in a number of other Australian jurisdictions, including Queensland and Victoria, and there is case law that would provide further guidance to the registrar in terms of what would constitute reasonable suspicion of an unacceptable risk to children. It is intended that a policy would be developed and further guidance published by the board on the operation of this provision.

The member for Wright questioned whether a teacher would have a right of appeal in respect of a suspension of the registration. I can confirm that there are avenues for review and appeal of a decision of the registrar to suspend a teacher. Clause 30 extends an existing provision in section 34A of the act for the registrar to suspend a teacher's registration where they are charged with a prescribed offence.

Section 34A provides that where a notice of suspension has been served on a teacher, the board must review the suspension within 60 days and either confirm or cancel the suspension. A suspension is intended as a temporary measure in advance of an inquiry under part 7 of the act to determine whether there is cause for further disciplinary action to be taken against the teacher. A teacher would have the opportunity to present their case to an inquiry, examine or cross-examine witnesses and make submissions to the board.

I also note that under section 49 of the act a teacher would have a right to appeal a decision of the board under part 7 of the act to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court. As I identified before, the member for Port Adelaide has filed a number of amendments to the bill, and I will briefly summarise the government's position now in relation to those to save us some time later.

The first proposed amendment seeks to modify the composition of the board so that it is similar to the current arrangements whereby various stakeholders nominate members of the board. The government will oppose this amendment for the reasons I outlined earlier. In bringing forward the bill, the government is seeking to establish a process by which members of the board are appointed on the basis of knowledge, skills and experience that the board needs to undertake its functions, rather than on the basis of their nomination by specified representative bodies.

The amendments also seek to reintroduce a provision requiring gender balance on the board. I note that the current board has 11 or 12 women (I think one may have just stepped aside) and four men, suggesting that there is not and has not been for perhaps some time, or indeed ever, that requirement for gender balance fulfilled. It is a complication, obviously, when dealing with boards where a significant number of the members are nominated by different bodies. Across government, we seek to have equal gender representation on government boards.

The practicalities are something that we would probably be happy to talk about between the houses and potentially in the context of whether the other amendment in relation to the composition of the board is supported by the Legislative Council, because that would make the practicalities different. Certainly, I would also want to talk to the chair of the board to get a full understanding of the make-up of the board at the moment. I suspect with the four men on the board at the moment each of them is specifically valued, as are indeed the 12 women on the board at the moment. I do not have any particular concerns about the amendment, but we will not be supporting it at this stage. I suspect we will have further discussions between the houses about practicalities.

The member for Port Adelaide has also filed an amendment that seeks to introduce the requirement that the board consult with specified stakeholders, such as registered teachers, relevant unions and government and non-government education sectors prior to publishing or adopting a code of conduct or professional standard under the new section 31B to be established by the bill. The government certainly supports the notion that the board should consult, and indeed consult with the bodies identified, when developing and/or adopting codes of conduct and professional standards. We understand that it is the existing board's intention, and I would imagine any future board's intention, to do just that.

We want to look further into whether the amendments proposed might be impractical for the board to apply, as it does not appear a distinction is made between the publication or adoption of a new code or standard and the publication or adoption of any minor amendment or correction to a code or standard that may occur from time to time. Nevertheless, that is a matter of practicality. The intent is not something that causes us any concern. While we will oppose the amendment in this chamber, it is something that I would like to talk further about with the shadow minister between the houses to see if we can come to some sensible agreement.

With that said, I commend the bill to the house. I thank once again all members who have contributed to the debate and all those who have contributed to the development of the legislation over the last probably two years. Before I take my seat, I add my thanks to parliamentary counsel, as always, for their outstanding work over the period.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Education, congratulations on your new arrival as well.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr BOYER: New section 6(ea) in clause 5 talks about undertaking or supporting reviews of research and data collection relating to the teaching profession. I assume that is a new role for the board to undertake and will therefore probably come at some kind of cost. How is it proposed that that will be funded?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: That is a role that in practice, as I understand it, the board already does, and one of the aspects that it was seeking to have the power to do enshrined in legislation that prompted the delivery of the bill. To clarify, potentially, we are not proposing to provide any extra work. They want legislative identification of the fact that they already do this work.

Dr CLOSE: If we move now to section 6 and the insertion of the 'other functions as may be assigned', I know there has been some disquiet about that from at least one of the unions. I completely understand why the government is seeking to have what is quite a standard addition, but it would be helpful to understand two matters: one is some examples of what they might be, and another is—and I think this gets to the heart of the concern that has been expressed—how the amount of money that teachers have to pay through their registration will be protected from onerous additional functions that the minister might grant.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question and the sensible way in which it was framed, which identifies that this is indeed something that goes into many bills of this nature. It is now a standard drafting application. Perhaps if I can use an example of how a different bill has used this function, that might also help to answer the second part of the question. When the shadow minister was the minister, I think she had responsibility for the Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016 involving the development of the Child Development Council and other bodies, and this clause was put into the establishment of the Child Development Council as a standard drafting mechanism.

That enabled me as the minister subsequently to give the Child Development Council a job last year of developing a review on suspensions and exclusions. That was available for me to do that, using that appropriate body, because of the clause that was in the legislation, and the practicality of that was that the education department then provided financial support to the Child Development Council to enable them to do that extra work.

So inasmuch as I can give any reassurance, this was instigated largely as a standard drafting thing, because it seemed to be good practice and we believe it is good practice, but I do not have any extra functions that I am planning to provide to the board. But were an example such as that with the Child Development Council to come up, I would anticipate appropriate funding to go with that extra function, especially, I imagine, if it was something that was a government priority, not a priority of the board's.

One potential possibility I could envisage is that if the board itself identified that they thought there was a necessity, as a result of advice from teachers, that they should have a certain function to support teachers, then that might be a slightly different arrangement. But it is certainly something where I am not proposing to give any extra functions that I can envisage at the moment. I hope that that clarifies the thinking that would go behind it.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, the first amendments filed by you have been superseded by the second amendments, so would you like to move the second amendments standing in your name, amendments Nos 1 and 2 to clause 7?

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Close–2]—

Page 5, lines 4 to 19 [clause 7, inserted section 9(1) and (2)]—Delete inserted subsections (1) and (2) and substitute:

(1) The Teachers Registration Board consists of not less than 10 and not more than 14 members appointed by the Governor of whom—

(a) at least 5 must be practising teachers, of whom—

(i) at least 4 must be nominated by the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(ii) at least 1 must be nominated by the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(b) at least 1 must be a person nominated jointly by the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated and Catholic Education SA; and

(c) at least 1 must be a person employed in the field of teacher education nominated jointly by the universities in the State; and

(d) at least 1 must be a person nominated by the Chief Executive of the Department; and

(e) the remaining members are members nominated by the Minister, of whom—

(i) at least 1 must be a legal practitioner; and

(ii) 1 must be a parent of a school student appointed to represent the community interest.

(2) At least half of the members appointed under subsection (1) must be registered teachers.

The reason it is very important that we get this composition right is that we are talking about a board that governs the professional standards of a profession that is very, very important to South Australians: teachers. We have always known that to be the case. We have known it more acutely in this recent period of the pandemic, and potentially may come to see it again in a future resurgence of the virus.

We came to understand our dependence on the integrity and the professionalism of teachers and yet at the same time as we have all recognised that—and I do not think there have been any or many speeches about this bill that have not acknowledged the importance of teachers—the government is proposing to strip teachers essentially out of their own professional standards board. The proposition is that there would be potentially only three of up to 14 members being teachers. I cannot imagine why that would be. It seems to me that if we respect this profession, if we believe that it is a profession worthy of governing its standards, then one ought to have quite a few teachers as part of the board that is undertaking that activity.

The proposition that stands before the chamber is that half of whichever number—and the opposition is not troubling the desire of the government and, in fact, I think probably of the current board to have a reduction in overall numbers—must be registered teachers. Further, we are saying that at least five of them, which means you could potentially have a membership of 10, be practising teachers and that those practising teachers who are in the schools, who are dealing with the issues and the challenges and the opportunities that the board must turn its mind to, be selected by their relevant union.

I explained why I thought that was a good idea in my second reading speech so I will not belabour it. However, quite apart from this side of parliament's belief that organising labour is a good idea, that it advances the rights of humans in our society for people with less power to be able to organise collectively—apart from our view about that which is I think only partially shared and perhaps not at all shared on the other side—the logistical importance of having the unions involved is twofold: one is for a government to lock out the unions that have good membership in this profession, to not enable them to have the engagement that they have had for many years, risks having them be opponents to propositions that the board is considering, so it makes practical sense to keep them involved and engaged.

The other side is the way in which a teacher who is put on this board without having gone through the process of being nominated by a union is isolated and diminished in their power to be able to communicate with their fellows, to know that they have a way to gain support, information and succour when dealing with the very weighty matters that the Teachers Registration Board considers.

Our objections are twofold, and the amendment deals with both. At least half the people deciding on the professional standards of teachers ought to be teachers. There also ought to be a recognition that unions exist, that they have played an incredibly constructive role in teaching over the decades in South Australia, and that their engagement, to my knowledge, has never caused a problem on the Teachers Registration Board. There has not been a proposition that they ever have; therefore, having their engagement is, in fact, productive for the government of the day and productive for the management of the board. With that, I ask the chamber to consider supporting amendment No. 1.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for her comments. I spoke at great length in the second reading response, so I will only briefly identify that I think the idea that teachers should be represented on their board is important. The bill prescribes a minimum of three out of 10, with the potential for it to go up to 14, but with no block on there being more than that. The expectation in the bill as it stands is that the three levels of teaching be represented.

The bill also expects that, rather than shutting out an organisation or people who are members of an organisation, it actually includes up to estimates of 40 or 50 per cent of the workforce who are not members of the organisation rather than two organisations having this privileged position in the legislation. That said, there is a difference of opinion between the sides of the house as to how teachers should be best represented through this body. We welcome the engagement with the AEU and the IEU in making suggestions to the board under the existing proposition. The opposition seeks to make them the people who will choose those members of the board. We respectfully disagree.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise to raise a question on the amendment as it has been introduced. I can understand the argument in terms of the first two elements as it was put by the deputy leader, that is, concern about the absolute number of teachers and the point about practising teachers. I can understand that and we have difference of view about it. The third element of that as it is introduced is, I think as it is described, that they be selected by their relevant union. I just note in this context that one of the two unions proposed to be one of the nominating bodies for this purpose I think characterises the board as 'our board' and advocates in those terms. It says, 'Our board. Hands off our board.'

There is then a characterisation about the problem with a teacher finding themselves on the board if they are not coming with the endorsement of one of those unions. I think the deputy leader described them as potentially diminished, lacking succour and lacking support. I might put it back to the deputy leader that when we are dealing, as the discussion paper in April 2019 referred, with a body that is quasi-judicial in nature, how about the importance of independence, fearlessness, the capacity for the exercising of those quasi-judicial functions and therefore the importance of merits as opposed to adherence to a relevant industrial body? I just put that as a matter of principle and ask the deputy leader perhaps to respond.

Dr CLOSE: First of all, although I do not purport to speak on behalf of the union and do not in any way take ownership of materials, I am fairly certain that when they talk about 'our board' they are talking about 'us as teachers'. It is the teachers' board; it is the Teachers Registration Board and it is the question of whether teachers are involved in the Teachers Registration Board to sufficient percentage or proportion.

The question of merit is an interesting one because of course merit must be overriding but, given that there has been a practice of unions nominating members for decades, there would perhaps be a counter question of: is there any evidence that merit has not played a role in the selection? I would assume that if a government were concerned about being forced to take anyone they felt were not appropriately meritorious to be serving on the board from one of the unions, more than one nominee can be proposed for each position that will be filled and a choice can be exercised by the minister of the day and then the Governor of course making the appointment on the basis of choosing between.

The collective effort by teachers to ensure that their profession is well regarded and well remunerated is recognised by governments when they enter enterprise bargaining agreements. They recognise that although they do not have 100 per cent coverage they represent what teachers are concerned about and what they want to see. There is no logical reason for that not also to be true for the maintenance of their standards, particularly for the practising teachers.

I do not say that they should be selecting all the members. I do not say that they should even be selecting the registered teachers who might be above and beyond the practising teachers. For those who are actually practising and experiencing what it is to be in a school today, they have a collectivist organisation which they can join and which they do join in very significant numbers in comparison to a lot of industries. That ought to be recognised and seen as something that is useful rather than problematic.

I am not sure how much time you want to spend because I gather that the government have a view about the role of unions. I would ask the government that, if they cannot bring themselves to support the unions, they do earnestly consider the element of my amendment—perhaps by moving their own amendment if they vote this down—to allow half of the membership of the board to be registered teachers. It is a slap in the face for teachers if the government were to say, 'Maybe, at most, 30 per cent are required to be teachers on this new board that governs you.'

Mr TEAGUE: I have perhaps a follow-up question. I think perhaps it is an opportunity to say that those who contributed to the debate on the last occasion and again briefly this morning are jumping over themselves to identify with, to recognise and to celebrate the important role of teachers. The difficulty, and the one I have characterised in my second reading remarks as, I think, somewhat embarrassing for those opposite, is the connection between a debate on the one hand about the extent of representation of teachers and that inevitably leading to some connection to one or more industrial bodies, as is set out in the amendment.

I ask the deputy leader to perhaps provide any consideration of what I think is the subject of pages 11 and 12 of the discussion paper in April last year comparing boards in other states. I think they have a situation in Western Australia where there is no nominator function at all, ranging through to the situation in South Australia and Victoria presently where there are, I think, seven. The bulk of states has one nominated union role as part of what composes the board.

On the one hand, we have a debate about the number of teachers on the board and, on the other, there seems to be an undue emphasis in connecting that debate and that argument to the nominating role of unions. It seems to want to push South Australia into an outlier role relevant to the rest of the country. I wonder if there has been any reflection on the experience interstate in putting this amendment forward.

Dr CLOSE: I am tempted to be a little glib in the way that a teacher might ask, 'If Johnny jumped over a cliff, would you jump too?' The reflection in South Australia is that there has been no problem with the way in which the board has managed itself that has been brought to my attention, or I think to anybody else's attention, that pertains to either the proportion of teachers or the nominating role of unions.

The only concern that I have heard—and I heard it in my time as education minister and discussed with the board the fact that they would undertake this refreshing of the legislation—was that it was a bit big, and the question of all of those delegates being appointed, although that is a matter of choice and discretion by governments. I have not said, no, we must stay with the large size, and that has not necessarily pleased the unions in the sense of the number of members that they are now able to promote, but I have honoured the desire of the board to have a more agile, smaller board and recognise that it can be a hinderance to have a large board, without losing the merit of the proportion of teachers and the involvement of the union.

I appreciate the member would like to separate those two. They are two separate issues, but I also note that the government has opposed both elements of that. They chose to reduce to three out of 10 to 14 at a minimum in line with previous amendments to the Education Act that were ultimately not successful in removing the involvement of unions—not to reduce, but to remove.

Our position is that there has been no evidence that there is a difficulty. If there is a concern about the individuals involved, then the minister is absolutely entitled to ask for a number of nominees, not just the number required to fill. We ought to respect the professionalism of the board and of teachers and allow them to continue to do the good work that they have done for a number of years.

Ms WORTLEY: I have a query. In relation to the number, you have—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Is this a query to the mover of the amendment?

Ms WORTLEY: I am sorry, no.

The CHAIR: We are debating the amendment in the name of the deputy leader. If there are no further contributions or questions on that, I will put the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Ms WORTLEY: In relation to the amendment that was just moved and in relation to what the government is proposing in the bill with the three teachers who are on the board, there is a cohort of teachers that I feel has been missed in this by the government but the opposition's amendment would allow, and that is the contract and TRT teachers. You have the three, the secondary, primary and so on, but those teachers specifically have different requirements and different issues with the registration. Has your consultation included this consideration?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I can explore with the chair of the board, who personally conducted the vast majority of the consultation processes, whether indeed there were propositions put forward at various times in the consultation as to whether TRTs were included. I think she is watching the debate live as we speak, so she may well like to send me an SMS if she wants to. If she does, I will faithfully report it, but otherwise we will take that aspect on notice and come back.

I would identify that the government has sought to ensure—and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would be looking at potentially having more than three in practice—that the minimum of three is identified as an early childhood teacher, a primary teacher and a secondary teacher, being the three key areas of teaching practice delineation that capture by and large the experience of what happens in our schools.

In addition, a legal practitioner, which is absolutely essential in the work of the board, particularly in carrying out its quasi-judicial functions, and I think everyone I have ever spoken to who has been a minister for education and who has engaged with the Teachers Registration Board has seen the value in a parent representative. I think there are other skills and capacities that are required to faithfully carry out the board's work. The absence of a TRT being a nominated person on the board is not one that I recall having had significant correspondence about, but I will invite the chair of the board to provide me with any information about considerations that took place during the consultation period.

Ms WORTLEY: Can I just clarify that that was contract teachers as well? We have so many of our teachers coming out of universities today who initially go onto contract. They are on contract for one, two, three, four years, and their registration requirements, of course, are affected by this.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will take it on notice in relation to the whole aspect. However, I would note that, by my understanding and reading, they would not be prevented from being included in this group that is already identified.

Mr BOYER: In relation to clause 7 and new section 9, can the minister perhaps tell us what skills he envisages the ministerially appointed members of the board will bring to that board that it does not currently have but presumably, in his opinion, needs?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I do not necessarily cast any aspersions on the existing board members or the skills and experiences they have. It has been consistent feedback from people who have been engaged on the board that I think we are talking about 16 members and 15 deputies or thereabouts, which is an extraordinarily large body in any aspect. I think that the desire to reduce that, to having people appointed on the basis of the skill set they bring, along with some element of the particular working experience they have, rather than the nominating bodies choosing them and hoping that they have that skill set between them, is the difference that is implied here.

I think that the work of the board is multifaceted in that there are aspects of it of a quasi-judicial nature and aspects in relation to the organisation, and the make-up can therefore be a combination of people. People do not necessarily have just one skill set, and so therefore you have to look at that. Certainly, having representatives of the teaching profession was identified as something we thought was tremendously important, and that is why they are locked in to provide a significant component of the board. The legal practitioner was seen as absolutely necessary, and a parent was seen as absolutely necessary, although of course we note that many of those other members of the board might also be parents themselves.

I think value was seen in having somebody whose perspective they bring to the board was specifically that of a parent. The other members of the board would be seen to have between them the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to carry out those functions so that when somebody leaves you can identify what skill set they take with them and then replace that gap necessarily rather than relying on nominating bodies to choose people and hoping that they will therefore bring together the skill sets, experiences and knowledge required.

Mr BOYER: Minister, surely if you are seeking to enshrine in legislation a power for yourself as minister or for future ministers to actually appoint, I think, between five and nine people onto the board, you must be able to give some examples of what skill sets you think those five to nine people might actually be able to bring, or that the board actually needs.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think that is an entirely rhetorical question, frankly. The skill sets that are required on the board would require a range of matters, some of which would be relevant to a whole range of boards. We are talking about having an understanding of board operations and some of them would be specific to the Teachers Registration Board, which is why we are talking about a minimum of three—although, as I say, in practice I would expect more than three—people who are practising teachers.

Mr BOYER: Thank you, minister, for that answer. On the same clause, my reading of other like boards that have positions appointed by the minister is that there is almost always an independent assessment of skills and the development of what is almost a skills matrix in terms of gaps and what gaps need to be filled. Has that work been done in preparation for this bill?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I think this one of those matters where we might consider trying that in regulations depending on how the legislation ends up. It would be a bit difficult to do it if, for example, the opposition's amendment had been successful and you end up with all but one of the board members effectively being chosen by nominating bodies. The skills matrix then becomes a bit redundant, and you just hope in that aspect that it gets done correctly. Whether it is in the regulations or as a matter of policy, certainly that work would be done prior to the appointment of the board.

Dr CLOSE: Just to follow up on that question, even should the legislation change with the will of the upper house and perhaps a favourable deadlock committee, there would still only be 10 nominated, defined, and a gap of four; under this current legislation it is five to nine. What was the process used by the minister in his own mind to determine that that much latitude was required for ministerial discretion and who would go on as opposed to ensuring that there was a higher minimum of teachers and recognition that the universities have a significant role now to be enshrined in legislation and that the three sectors have an interest in the way that the TRB operates?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The reason I check is that I was seeking advice about what went out in the initial public consultation as to what went out in the draft bill that was subsequently provided and then what went into the final bill. There were three areas where I had input, and I cannot remember whether it was prior to the board, mainly through its chair, commencing the initial public consultation or whether it was when we released the draft bill after that consultation took place or whether it was when we did the final bill.

Certainly in my mind—and it was something that was brought to our attention strongly by a range of people—was the idea to start with a reduction in the size of the board, which we have discussed. I have long held the view, the Liberal Party has argued for the view, and other stakeholders and other teachers who are not members of the particular unions have also argued, that those representatives on the board who might be teachers should not just be chosen by the teaching unions.

In relation to the non-government schooling sectors, the university education courses, I would anticipate that it is likely that we would be wanting to very much have their suggestions and feedback on who is appropriate. I think the shadow minister has also included the head of the education department as one of her suggested entities. At the moment, the three schooling sectors all have their nominee as well.

They are not necessarily teachers who are nominated by those sectors, by the way. Some of them are bureaucrats or officers within the association. Some of them may or may not have been teachers, but I would not want anyone to be left thinking that they are necessarily part of the cohort on the board that are currently teachers, and the person from the universities may or may not be as well.

The member asks what was going through my mind, effectively. My mind was that the purpose of the consultation last year was to get feedback from a range of sources about how the TRB could best do its work and how the legislation could best support the TRB. It was pretty clear, and I think the member has acknowledged, that a reduction in the size of the board was seen as a beneficial outcome and, therefore, having a reduction in the number of people who are specifically appointed to the board benefits the composition of the board in a number of ways, not least of which is that—and I think you have identified it—at the moment there is room for one or two ministerial nominees and this would expand it to four or five.

With a reduction in the size of the board, having the capacity to get the skill sets that are seen as necessary, the skills matrix that the member for Wright talked about, adequately represented by those non-designated people, some flexibility I certainly saw as desirable; I am happy to endorse it. How much of that comes from me as the minister, how much of that came out of the community consultation—I cannot tell the member right now the specific make-up of how many people argued that the Association of Independent Schools, Catholic Education or the universities should still be able to nominate somebody, but I am happy to seek some broad feedback between the houses.

Dr CLOSE: I have one more question on this clause from my perspective, and I think the member for Torrens has one. Should this get through, even with the amendment, given that there is room for additional members who are not in prescribed positions, what process will the minister use to identify who will fill the positions that are not designated already, and what process will the minister use for, say, identifying the lawyer or the parent? Is there likely to be a process of request for nominations, a general call for people to engage, or will it be the minister making decisions based on the minister's experience and network?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. There are some aspects that are legislated, but I think I can include those in the broader answer that would go above and beyond what is even in the bill, that I would be seeking nominations broadly. I would be suggesting advertising, although certainly the nature of advertising is potentially changing a bit these days, but certainly we will be creating a process whereby there was an opportunity for not just designated bodies to nominate people but others if they wished.

I can tell you that, in relation to the first new board under the new act, if you like, I would be looking to engage pretty closely with the current chair and the registrar in ensuring that a skills matrix was appropriately met by those who are putting their names forward and potentially being given consideration. I will check whether there is anything else I need to identify in the legislation. I do not think there is—I think my broad answer probably captures it.

Ms WORTLEY: Minister, in relation to the positions you would be nominating, what are the skills gaps that you would be seeking to fill?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I do not know whether the member for Torrens was here earlier, but I direct her to the answer I gave to the member for Wright a bit earlier.

Ms WORTLEY: I was here, and I did hear the answer that you gave, but I do not feel that that answered the question. So you seriously cannot tell us now that there are skills gaps, or you are telling us that there are skills gaps but you cannot tell us what the skills gaps are that you are wanting to fill?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: No, that is not what I said then. To be clear, we are talking about reducing a board with 16-odd members and 15-odd deputies to a board of 10 to 14 because I think it has been very clear from the range of people that it is a large board, it is an unwieldy size, and it is desirable to reduce the size of the board to improve the efficiency of its operation and its discussions.

At the moment, there is range of bodies that nominate almost every member of that large board, and by fortune, by design or by the fact that some very good people have been helping, I do not necessarily identify any urgent skills gaps on that large board. We are talking about reducing the size of the board very substantially, and therefore I think it is absolutely reasonable to propose that we want to ensure that you do not have any skills gaps in the operations of a successful board.

Frankly, with every board, every operation, any endeavour, you always want to be trying to do better as well, so I will be very eager to engage with the chair of the board, as I have done for the last two and however long years, ensuring that we can support the board in its functions. If there is a desire identified within the board to have extra expertise in any particular area, then I will be open to that discussion as well.

The point is that we want to have a board that is capable of meeting its quasi-judicial functions, meeting its functions in representing the organisation, supporting the registrar in her work and ensuring that our teaching profession is well recognised. I think some of those are identified in the limited number of prescribed people who have been identified, and the remainder of those functions would be proposed to be met from the remaining members to be appointed.

Mr SZAKACS: Minister, I have a couple of questions with respect to this clause that arise from your answers to the Deputy Leader's questions. My first is your most recent answer about satisfying yourself around the skills gaps of the board. What process has the board taken to date—not prospectively, but to date—to assess the skills of the board and then to undertake a gap analysis of those skills?

Of course, a board the size that it currently is does bring a huge diversification of skills. Would you inform the committee when that independent skills assessment took place, who undertook that skills assessment and to what current process the board reports to you as minister with respect to the gap analysis?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The board reports to me as the minister in all respects, practically, through the registrar and the chair, whom I meet with as needs as well as regularly. In relation to gap analysis and appointments, I think the board is mostly comprised, at the moment, of the same people who were appointed under the previous administration, because I think on a number of occasions I have extended the tenure of existing people.

I do not think there has been any wholesale change. There may have been some specific changes. I think a couple of the representatives of departments, and possibly schooling sectors, may have changed over the last couple of years, but there has not been any large-scale change, certainly not sought by me, and so therefore in that context I do not necessarily think that that work may or may not have been done.

In terms of what was identified during the consultation period, as I have identified previously, this body of work was largely conducted by Jane Lomax-Smith, as the chair, and her team, supported by the officers in the Department for Education and the parliamentary counsel, inasmuch as the drafting of the legislation was concerned, but this is something that has mostly been driven out of the board and its chair in terms of that public consultation.

If there is further information about that that I can gather between the houses, I am happy to provide it to the member and those opposite, but I think we are largely talking about what would be necessary going forward prospectively. At the end of the day, if the opposition is successful in the upper house and convinces this house to change its view on the amendment that was previously debated then the work that you are suggesting would take on an entirely different light than it would otherwise.

We would be talking in that circumstance about a case where, as now, the vast majority—almost all of the board members—would be prescribed as delegates of those bodies rather than starting with the suggestions of those bodies.

Mr SZAKACS: It is not uncommon for many representative boards to comprise appointments from different bodies, as you have said. My question specifically, though, was, notwithstanding who those current members were and when they were appointed, has that board conducted an independent skills assessment? If that independent skills assessment has taken place, who undertook it? Thirdly, under what mechanism does a gap analysis and skills matrix assessment report to you as the relevant minister?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: If I was not clear enough before, I will be extremely clear: I will ask the chair.

Mr SZAKACS: My final question on this is that, with the proposed amendments to the existing board by the government—

An honourable member: The bill.

Mr SZAKACS: The bill. I am picking up on the member for Heysen. Why say something in one sentence when you can say it over a few?

Members interjecting:

Mr SZAKACS: I think the member for Heysen might have referred to some of the pro organised Labor stance and positions on this side of the house as ridiculous—or embarrassing, I am sorry.

Mr Teague interjecting:

Mr SZAKACS: I did, but no less embarrassing than saying a short sentence in a couple of paragraphs.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Like this one.

Mr SZAKACS: Like this one. With the new responsibility for appointments, what is your view particularly around those appointments and tenure that you will make as a minister with regard to best practice from various bodies such as the Australian Institute of Company Directors or other statutory bodies, to which the government appoints?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Just to clarify the question: you are asking for how long my appointments should be on the board?

Mr SZAKACS: That is correct, the length of total tenure. I will clarify it for the minister: not three-year terms. How many three-year terms does the minister feel is appropriate in respect of total tenure on the board?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I direct the member's attention to clause 8(1), which identifies that 'a member cannot hold office for consecutive terms that exceed nine years in total'. I think that is a reflection of the current arrangements, from memory. It may not be. That is new. I have seen that elsewhere; it might not be in this bill.

In practice, the minister takes recommendations to cabinet to recommend to the Governor and they cannot be for more than nine years, as is the process identified. In my practice, I would imagine at least having consultation with the registrar and the chair of the board. I will take feedback from anyone else who wants to provide it to me, as I am sure any future minister would, in terms of what recommendations I make to those people on a board of this nature or any other.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Close–2]—

Page 5, after line 34 [clause 7, inserted section 9]—Insert:

(5a) The Minister must ensure, as far as practicable, that the persons appointed under subsection (1) consist of equal numbers of women and men.

This amendment restores from the current act into this bill the qualified requirement to ensure, as far as practicable, that there is gender balance on the committee. The minister and I had a brief discussion about this, and I think we will continue to have the discussion. Unusually, the challenge in this case is not to ensure that at least 50 per cent of members are women; in fact, the concern is more the other way: that there are not very many men on this board and in the teaching profession—not in substantial number and not in gender equity.

Therefore, the reason I sought to restore it is that I think it ought to be on the mind of a minister, in making decisions between good candidates, that it is desirable to ensure there are roughly proportionate numbers of men and women—not because that is not representative of the general teaching profession, but because it is so important that we pay attention to the way in which male teachers are important to students, both male and female. So, it seemed to me that there was merit in making sure that that was a consideration that went through the minister's mind.

As I indicated earlier in contemplating our amendment that has been defeated, in having the unions nominate people or, indeed, with the current construction of the bill that there must be a practising teacher in these various levels of teaching—and perhaps a future amendment that might occur in the Legislative Council referring to contract teachers and TRTs—that ought to be at least a factor that plays in the mind of the minister in making a decision about who to recommend to the Governor.

It is so important that we recognise the role of male teachers in the teaching profession and indeed, not unrelated I suspect, the question of the success of boys in school. I think this is a matter we are all aware of, and how that has an impact on the quality of the education experienced by different cohorts of students, including the male cohort, ought to be something that is considered as part of the professional standards of the teaching profession.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the amendment, and I thank her for her encapsulation. I do not necessarily disagree with anything that she has put forward, in particular in relation to the discussion that she and I had. It is an interesting one, though, because when we are discussing boards one of the things that is often on my mind is to ensure that we have significant opportunities for young women to have female role models to look up to in terms of governance and such things. That is not a problem for boys as a general rule, being able to look up to men on governance boards.

It is important, of course, that male role models for young people exist in our schools. We always have a desire—I think everyone has a desire—to encourage more young men into the teaching profession, but we also want to make sure that the capacity for this board to serve its functions and that the women, who have traditionally dominated this board and who were doing great work, are not removed from that arbitrarily. As the member says, a clause of this nature exists in the existing legislation—I suspect it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, as people usually say about these things. I do not know if that clause has ever been observed in its current construction.

I think that it is not something that the government is proposing to support at the moment, but it is a discussion I would like to continue having with the shadow minister, as to whether she can convince the government between the houses, or indeed whether we can come up with some other construction that meets some of the intent of what she is seeking to achieve, without putting practical barriers in the way of ensuring that the TRB is its best possible self.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Dr CLOSE: This is the clause that refers to the capacity to second members onto committees of the board. As I understand it, at present the committees must be composed only of board members, although that is a much larger group—not only because the membership is larger but because of all the delegates—than it will be, regardless of the success of the changes that I proposed earlier. My question is about how that secondment is managed. I have a series of questions, but I will start with the question of whether the person who is seconded is seconded more or less in their capacity of a particular profession.

I appreciate that there is a legal person already on the board, but should there be a desire to bring in a different legal practitioner, how would that person be remunerated? Would there be professional fees paid, would there be a standard fee or would it be regarded as something that ought to be done pro bono?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am advised that they would be remunerated in line with the Premier and Cabinet circular, which might identify a different answer depending on the circumstance. I do not have the detail of that here with me, but I can seek it between the houses if the member would like.

Dr CLOSE: There is then also the question of accountability. A concern has been raised with me by people who are unhappy and anxious about people who are not part of the board—who are not responsible for the management of the Teachers Registration Board, who do not have that level of accountability through to you and to the chair—when that is detached, yet they are sitting on a subcommittee. How will that accountability be managed either by you as minister or by the way in which the board operates?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I will flag how I understand it to be. I note that the regulations will certainly seek to clarify this. I will just put the caveat that, because I am seeking to be abundantly helpful rather than just putting off anything, if I make any mistake in what I am about to describe, then I will make sure I get back to the member prior to this being debated in the Legislative Council.

I would have anticipated that the chair of the committee, in any case, would be a member of the board. Certainly, there will be members of the board on the committees. If there were any concern about accountability or the nature of it, then the responsibility would be on the members of the board who are on the committee, particularly the chair of the committee, to follow that up with the chair of the board. If there are further matters that have been missed in that brief prospective summary, then I will provide further information to the member. Some of that may be dealt with further in the regulations, too, which we can obviously revisit.

Dr CLOSE: I have one more question on that clause. The question is about selection for a person who is not on the board but is asked to sit on a committee through secondment. Will it be the minister who does the selection, will it be the chair or could it be either? What process will be gone through to determine whether that person is appropriate and fit and proper to sit on a subcommittee of the registration board?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: In short, it will be the board that determines the selection process for seconding members onto any particular committee, and then there may be a role for the committee itself to determine its own procedures. It is certainly not something that I had anticipated the minister having any role in. It would be a matter for the board to determine, in my view and understanding, and I think that is what we anticipate the regulations making clear if it is not already.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr BOYER: Minister, clause 14(1)(b) states that in regard to a delegation one of the members must be a legal practitioner, but my reading is that it is not necessarily the legal practitioner who is already a member of the board. Does that mean that the board will have the power to outsource for legal advice?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Can I just ask that the question be repeated because I want to make sure I answer what you are asking.

Mr BOYER: In relation to clause 14(1)(b), my understanding is that in relation to delegations one of the members must be a legal practitioner, but in brackets it states 'whether or not a member of the board'. It does not have to be the legal practitioner who is a member of the board; it could be someone else, potentially in this case someone the board outsources to come and do that work.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Yes, the member's understanding is correct to a point. At the moment, there is a legal practitioner on the board and they have a deputy. Obviously, any of the disciplinary functions the board undertakes is a reasonable workload for the legal practitioner or their deputy and then any other matters that the legal practitioner or their deputy is required to do can be a significant workload; they become a very important member of the board.

The new board is proposed to continue to have a legal member as one of the nominees. It has been suggested that to ensure that the workload is capable of being managed if it gets to a certain level that, if the workload of the legal practitioner—who would in the usual manner of course have their own legal practice as well and potentially have other matters, trials or other cases they are dealing with—was difficult to be managed, and this has been brought to my attention certainly by the chair, you want to make sure you have the capacity to bring in an alternative lawyer if the workload suggests that, in meeting the needs of the board, that would be beneficial.

I think that captures everything that is behind that flexibility. It is not intended that that would diminish the role of the legal practitioner of the board in any way. It is just to give them the opportunity to not be the sole person who is responsible for all those duties if the volume of those duties gets high at any time.

Mr BOYER: I thank the minister for his answer. In the event that a delegation of the board cannot use the existing services of the legal practitioner who is on the board because they might be too busy in their own practice, as you say, who is responsible for any fees there might be if that work is outsourced to the private sector?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: To be clear, this is not about the board seeking legal advice because the board gets legal advice from the Crown. This is about the delegation of powers to a committee, of which the board may have a number. In terms of fees for committee payments, I suspect that would be the same as the answer I gave the member for Port Adelaide earlier about committee payments. If there is anything in addition to that that is specific to the legal practitioner, I will come back to the member when I come back to the member for Port Adelaide in relation to the committee payments.

Mr BOYER: Sorry, we might be at cross-purposes here, or I may not have phrased my initial question particularly clearly. I understand that this is in relation to delegations and committees. From your first answer, my understanding was that if that delegation or committee required some sort of legal advice that it could not get from the legal practitioner who sits on the board by virtue of that legal practitioner being too busy, they could potentially go to the private sector or someone else and say, 'We need you to come on and provide some legal advice on this matter.' I would imagine there would be fees in that case. How are those fees paid?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is not about getting legal advice from an alternative person. They get legal advice from the Crown. This is about the legal practitioner participating in a committee of the board. If a legal practitioner is participating in a committee of the board on the basis that the board has agreed that the legal practitioner on the board does not have time or does not have time for a short period of time to provide that function to that committee then they can second somebody who has the relevant expertise to serve on that committee. There are a range of functions that they could be involved in.

The CHAIR: Last one, member for Wright.

Mr BOYER: My question is: who pays for that seconded work?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: As I identified before, they are being paid as a member of the committee and that is the question I have taken on notice. If there is any aspect of the payment that is different for the legal practitioner than the remuneration for any other member of the committee, then I will make sure that is included in the answer.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Dr CLOSE: This relates to the accreditation of initial teacher education programs and I understand it is one of the reforms in this piece of legislation. I support that it officially be part of the act and one of the jobs that the Teachers Registration Board undertakes. Before asking more specific questions, I invite the minister to explain the process by which the Teachers Registration Board has undertaken and will undertake this role, in particular contemplating the way in which feedback is received on the adequacy of the current teacher training programs in South Australia.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is a national scheme and the board in South Australia has been undertaking this work for South Australia for some time. I recall the former registrar pointing out that out of an abundance of caution he thought it would be good if it was clarified in their act that they had the power to do the work they are doing.

Dr CLOSE: My specific question is: I appreciate that there is a national scheme, but on the other hand the board has a responsibility to undertake the work here. Does the board invite contributions from the broader profession about their view about the merits of the existing teacher training programs at the universities and whether they ought to be changed, altered or better in order to keep the profession at the height of professionalism that is expected of it in a changing environment?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question; I appreciate it. Obviously, as it is a national scheme, I think there would not be too many national schemes where immediate responsiveness to a piece of feedback is hugely pacey. I think once things are set in pace in a national scheme they tend to have their own processes in play. I think in a practical sense, certainly my experience is and whether he had the power to do so or not, I do not think Peter Lind would mind me advising the house that he was capable of giving me advice based on the feedback he had received in the application of any of the TRB's functions. I would anticipate there would certainly be scope for a minister who represents this state on a national body, where national schemes might be agreed to, to take advice from the TRB.

In 19A(3)(b) I know that the application of the section must comply with any other requirements set out in the regulations. Fundamentally, the national scheme is the starting point, but I will be happy to take some advice as to whether there are necessarily other aspects that should be taken into account in addition to the national scheme. At this stage, I am not sure whether there have been any proposed. If there are, then I will provide that information to the member between the houses. But, as I understand it, it is in terms of the application of the existing arrangements that we are putting that effectively puts into legislation what happens now.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Ms WORTLEY: Minister, I just have a couple of questions in relation to the annual fee that is proposed to be inserted in section 26A. It is saying that the teacher registration fee would be paid annually. It is currently paid every three years. Would you be able to elaborate on that, please?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I am sure that the education department staff will give me further advice if my initial answer is not correct, but my understanding is that at the moment you pay your registration three years in advance in one sum. It is being proposed that that become a fee that can be paid annually, so in effect rather than paying the whole period in advance you can pay at the beginning of each year, which I would imagine would be something that many people would desire. I suspect there may be a benefit in paying it all up-front in that you would not have the application of CPI to the fee, but given that teachers' salaries tend to be in excess of CPI, I imagine if I were in this situation I would choose the annual payment myself.

I think the administration fee—just for putting in the application—is proposed to be paid up-front as well, and the annual fee then becomes chargeable when somebody is actually accredited to go on the register. The difference from the current arrangement there is that at the moment you have to pay the whole thing at the time of applying. As I say, that is my understanding of it. I am sure, if I have made any mistakes, I will be advised of that very soon.

Ms WORTLEY: A number of other professions that pay annual fees have seen fee increases. Has there been discussion about a fee increase in relation to teacher registration? Also, is there the option to pay it for the full five years it would be now, under this act?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The TRB itself recommends the fees to government, and then we have to identify whether or not we accept whatever increase they propose. Usually we would be talking about CPI. We would anticipate the regulations giving the option of paying the full five years in advance, but as I identified I think that some people might want to do that; some people might prefer to pay one year at a time.

Ms WORTLEY: Just finally in relation to that, is consideration again given to contract teachers and TRT teachers in relation to payment of fees, or is that, again, something that will come under the board?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The principle is that you have to pay the fee to be on the register. If, rather than just the one year at a time, somebody wanted to further propose to the board that they consider a payment schedule in some way, then I imagine that would be something that the board might consider, but I don't think it has been something that has been raised with me.

Ms WORTLEY: I was referring specifically to the amount that is being paid—so for a full-time teacher or a permanent teacher as opposed to someone on TRT.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: There is no differentiation now, and I do not believe that any is proposed.

Mr BOYER: Has any work been done to compare the fee proposed here with interstate fees for the like boards?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I expect the board takes a range of things into account when they are looking at what increases they put on their fees. I do not recall them coming to ask for any significant fee increases. I think this is probably something they look at on an annual basis. They look at what their existing fee was and then what would be the appropriate increase to that amount. So I am not aware of them having done a comparative analysis with other jurisdictions. It may well be that that would be something that a board might consider doing when they are considering the fee increase that they ask for, but it also may well be that other jurisdictions' boards have slightly different bodies of work that they do as well, so it might not be an apples with apples comparison, but that is a matter for the board.

Mr BOYER: Minister, I am sorry if I missed this in your earlier answer, but for those teachers who choose to pay the full five-year fee will there be any discount on that amount, or will it just be the one-year fee multiplied by five?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is a matter for regulations as to how that would work, but what I would anticipate as the benefit is that if you were going to do five years it would be five years at the current rate without the application of whatever the CPI increase is. However, you might determine that because the usual pay rise is greater than CPI it might be in your favour to wait and pay one year at a time. That is a matter for whoever is paying the fee, and the regulations would make explicit how it would work, but that is certainly what I would anticipate.

I will add something to that as well. The chairman of the board has made it clear that there would be a proposal to consult on the regulations, too, to ensure how it operates in practice. If this bill passes in the next, say, month or two, then we would be looking at having several months further to consult on how the regulations would work, including in relation to this aspect.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a mechanism for teachers either as a group through, say, a union or individually to appeal against what they might regard as an excessive increase in the amount of the fee each year? I am asking this particularly because of the anxiety I have heard, as I mentioned earlier, about the inclusion of the 'or any other function as determined by the minister'. Then there is the question of professionals being brought onto subcommittees who are not already part of the board, so it is a question of how much they are paid and whether that puts pressure on the budget.

Then the question becomes: should a future minister decide to undertake a very big exercise of work and say, 'You can pay for that through the next fee increase,' and the fee goes up a significant amount, is there any mechanism for a complaint or an arbitration over that to be made, or is it entirely within the purview of the government of the day to make that decision about how much that will be?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question. I reiterate the assurance I gave her, and those people who are watching the debate or reading it in Hansard, that I do not envisage that there would be any proposition of significant bodies of new work being given to the board by the minister without appropriate payment going with it. If the board itself determined that there was work to be done for the benefit of teachers and so forth, then they would need to give consideration to that as well. In terms of the costs, the cost base we are talking about for the functions of the board, I honestly cannot imagine one where the application of a new function would dramatically impact on the fees being charged there.

At any rate, the fees are a disallowable instrument. There are 22 members in the Legislative Council and 47 members in here, each of whom is available to anyone who wants to express their concerns about fees at any time and who can move a motion of disallowance in either chamber. That is a method of appeal. I cannot imagine any world in which the Teachers Registration Board itself would not also be interested in the feedback of the teachers it serves.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 and 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Dr CLOSE: What sparked my interest with this amendment was the spectre of Teach For Australia, which is raised from time to time as an organisation that offers people to teach in schools who are not qualified teachers. I wondered if that was in the minister's mind—to have a program rather than the one-off that can occur already, but to have a program of having people who are not qualified teachers being allowed to teach in South Australian schools.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Not in the construction of the bill. I can identify that there are currently some discussions going on with the union. They were notified and month ago, I think, that there is a program, Teach For Australia, that is proposed to be in South Australia next year and that there is a very limited application of that. It has been approved by the existing board already under the existing arrangements.

As the member has asked about Teach For Australia, as I spoke to the union about, it must have been three weeks ago I guess, the purpose is that there are in remote and some regional schools extraordinary difficulties in getting subject specialist teachers in certain subjects to move to those locations. These are often schools with high levels of disadvantaged young people who are exactly the sort of people we want to be giving the opportunity to have access to subject specialist areas, subjects like physics and chemistry and some of these challenging subjects.

Teach For Australia offers the system of a group of young people who have been identified as leaders and subject matter specialists who have embarked on a master's degree, who have undertaken a certain cohort of that work in their master's degree and where we would posit that the benefits to the students of these Teach For Australia associates being placed in the school as they complete their teaching master's with that subject matter expertise is something that will be more beneficial than continuing to have arrangements which, in the cases of the handful of schools identified—and we are talking about a small cohort of I think four or five schools, and I am happy to chat to the shadow minister about the circumstances further if she would like—have been unable to attract teachers with these specialisations.

Often, no teacher has applied for the job when advertised, for example, and so that is therefore something we have welcomed. In its current composition, the Teacher Registration Board has obviously seen the merits of that proposition as well, as they have given the department the green light to go ahead with it.

Mr BOYER: On the same clause, what can the minister tell us about the fit and proper person test? Is there any more detail you can provide us around what that test looks like and who the arbiter of that will be?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is the same test that applies to all teachers at the moment and that they extended to people who have special authority to teach. There is a range of reasons why people might seek special authorities to teach. The Teach For Australia example is one, and some others that I am aware of have involved a language specialisation. For example, if somebody is seeking to teach a language in a school where the school wants to offer that language and they cannot find a teacher to do that, then they can find someone with a special authority to teach. I think it is entirely reasonable that such a person meet the same fit and proper person test that will be required of any other teacher. I think we can get the prescribed detail of what that existing test looks like, if you would like, and to assist I will take on notice that level of detail.

Mr BOYER: Does that fit and proper person test, as you explained it, comprise anything over and above the working with children check that is currently in place?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: One thing that probably would be useful is that the board is, as I understand it, the arbiter of that test and it is a separate test. The working with children check identifies certain specific things. To be clear, nobody without a working with children check would even get to the starting gate on the 'fit and proper person', but there may be other aspects that are also included. These will become abundantly apparent when I get the detail that I offered to take on notice in the previous question.

Clause passed.

Clauses 24 and 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Dr CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Close–2]—

Page 12, after line 25 [clause 26, inserted section 31B]—Insert:

(2a) Before publishing or adopting a code of conduct or professional standard under this section, the Teachers Registration Board—

(a) must call for submissions from—

(i) registered teachers; and

(ii) the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(iii) the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(iv) the Chief Executive of the Department; and

(v) Catholic Education SA; and

(vi) the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated; and

(b) must have regard to any submissions made by a person or body referred to in paragraph (a) during the period specified by the Teachers Registration Board (being a period not less than 1 month); and

(c) must consult with—

(i) the Australian Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(ii) the Independent Education Union (S.A. Branch); and

(iii) the Chief Executive of the Department; and

(iv) Catholic Education SA; and

(v) the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia Incorporated,

and may consult with any other person or body the Teachers Registration Board thinks fit.

My purpose in recommending this amendment to the committee is that I understand and support the government's desire to permit the Teachers Registration Board to establish a code of conduct. That is not currently a function that is undertaken, and I understand why it is seen to be a desirable capability.

I also understand the concerns raised by numerous teachers who feel that they are already very closely governed on what their behaviour ought to be, not only through the process of registration but through the management of schools and through their own professional journey in going up through the ranks. There are numerous opportunities to guide how a teacher ought to conduct themselves so there is a degree of anxiety or concern about another layer being imposed.

It seems to me that, rather than opposing that capability (although that has been asked of me), it would perhaps be more profitable to make sure that the process that the board goes through is explicit and captured by legislation that requires the board to hear from all the major players, including teachers, so that they are able to give their input and feel that they are being heard in that process.

If I am ultimately unsuccessful with my earlier amendments about the unions being involved in nominating some of the membership, I think this amendment is particularly important because the unions are a fact of the teaching profession. If they are not to be included in the nomination of the worthy people to sit on the board and there is no requirement for them to be consulted when the code of conduct is being established, then they risk being shut out altogether.

While I am certain that the minister would say, accurately, that he would expect that there would be an extensive consultation process undertaken, I tend not to be comforted by that when there is the opportunity to enshrine that in legislation. Future ministers could be certain that this would also ensure that their board will go through that process because they are required to under the act. With those words, I recommend to the chamber that this amendment be considered favourably.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for putting the amendment. As I identified in the second reading response, I do not have any principle objection to the proposal; I potentially have some concerns in relation to its practical application. While the government does not intend to support the amendment at this stage, I think that I would like to continue talking with the shadow minister between the houses about whether we might come to support the amendment with certain understandings, or potentially come up with a compromise that can meet what the shadow minister is trying to do.

Certainly, in a practical sense, what the shadow minister has proposed is something that I would expect the board to do. I would like to come back to how that is best expressed in the legislation rather than delaying this process. I would rather oppose this amendment now, on the understanding that we will continue to talk about this between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Dr CLOSE: I would invite the minister to say what he would expect to see in a code of conduct and professional standards, what the scope of such a document would be and perhaps also reflect on the extent to which it is regarded as punitive if you do not reach it, or aspirational in that this is what we would like to see.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I thank the member for the question and I would just respond briefly by saying that this is something that the board itself has sought. Rather than the minister seeking to impose a code of conduct on the teaching profession, the Teachers Registration Board as the representative body in some ways, and as the body that encapsulates the profession of teachers, I would actually see as being the genesis of identifying the very things the member has asked about. I am sure that the member herself would prefer that that encapsulation of what those things should be start with the teachers and with the Teachers Registration Board, too, so that is the mechanism that I will be undertaking.

In terms of whether it is punitive or aspirational, we have undertaken some work in this house in the last couple of years to deal with some of what you would call the punitive measures. We have ensured that teachers who are charged with certain offences are immediately removed from the register. Some people described that as punitive, but I think we all came to the agreement that it was plain common sense. I think you are certainly capable of having an aspirational document and things like the fit and proper person test and other things that would strike somebody out but, again, I would be seeking advice from the board itself as to whether you want to make some delineation between aspirational and punitive.

Dr CLOSE: I accept that this is a recommendation that has come from the—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: I can actually advise further. I should have checked this first but there are also elements where it can be an element of unprofessional conduct if someone clearly has not complied with the code of conduct. It sets out high-level principles that apply to conduct, so it informs all registered teachers of the expected standards at a professional and personal level. In keeping with professional community expectations, it can form part of that unprofessional conduct.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.

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