HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EDUCATION (COMPULSORY EDUCATION AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1314.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:07): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the bill. The shadow minister for education (Hon. Iain Evans) in another place outlined the Liberal Party's position on the legislation and I do not intend to traverse all the ground he and other members canvassed in their contributions there. Suffice to say they supported the principle of the legislation, although obviously a number of them raised questions about some aspects of it. Certainly there is a bit of work to be done in committee on the bill in understanding exactly what is meant by some of the provisions of the legislation. I intend to raise some of the issues that I believe need to be resolved before the legislation passes the council so that we can all be clear on the exact implications of this bill.

It is my intention to raise some general questions. We are not prepared to move into committee on this bill this morning but are looking to get the government's reply to some of the questions raised and documents requested in another place, which I understand, as of yesterday, have still not been provided by the Minister for Education and Children's Services to the shadow minister.

The first point I make is that it is again a fair indication of the spin of the Rann government—the Premier and the minister—in terms of the selling process they went through earlier this year on this legislation and even prior to that when they announced it. The press release that went out from the Premier was headed 'New school leaving age for South Australia'.

That story was given exclusively to the Adelaide Advertiser, and the headline on that particular day was all about the government's increasing the school leaving age to 17. Given the nature of these things, when the government gives an exclusive to it, The Advertiser has made an editorial decision that it will not seek comment from either the opposition or other interested parties. It was, therefore, not possible to explain to The Advertiser that the heading of the Premier's press release was deceptive; well, it is actually untrue, because being increased to 17 is not actually a new school leaving age at all—and we will explore this during the committee stage of the debate.

The school leaving will stay at 16. This is going to be a compulsory education stage of a person's life, and that is up until the age of 17. It is not really education because it is schooling; it can be education and/or training but it can also be full-time work. So, in essence, a 16 year old—or an under 17 year old, between the ages of 16 and 17 for that one year—is able, under this legislation if it passes, to continue in full-time work, or a combination, as I understand it, of part-time work and school and/or training, as they can at the moment.

Clearly, the emphasis will be different. I accept that there will be higher expectations, on the one hand, in relation to school and training, and you will need to get an exemption in relation to work. That is why I think we will need to explore in some detail the exemption process that is going to be provided. As I have indicated before, as a former minister for education for four years and a shadow minister for seven years, I am at least a little familiar with the processes of the juggernaut that is known as the education department. The processes necessarily involve a degree of delegation and interpretation at the local level in terms of who is going to be exempt and on what grounds exemptions will be provided.

As is common with this government and Premier, and also with this minister, we had, for political purposes, a deceptive press release and, of course, a deceptive original news story. The coverage on the first day was very much about an increase in the school leaving age, which on my experience I suspect the majority of people out in the electorate people would give a head nod to. The government will get a head nod; that is, keep them at school for as long as possible—16 it was a few years ago and now it is going to be 17. The Premier and the government knew that they would get a head nod for that particular set of circumstances.

On the other hand, the minister and the department knew that it would be a recipe for significant problems for schools, principals, students and for all involved if another cohort of young people—a significant number of whom do not want to be in schooling—were going to be required to stay in secondary school until the age of 17. At the time when the school leaving age was increased to 16, a number of people involved in secondary schooling expressed concerns about young 15 to 16 year olds who did not want to be in secondary schooling and who were being compelled to stay in secondary schooling and the impact they would have on the teaching and learning of all the other students in their upper secondary classes. The reality for those involved in schools is that you only need one difficult young person intent on not furthering their own education who can impact and create significant problems on the other 15, 20 or 25 (whatever the particular number) students in that particular class.

That was a concern at the time, and it is still a concern if one speaks to some secondary school principals. Nevertheless, that decision was taken and implemented. To then do it again for another cohort of young people up to the age of 17 would have meant even more concerns being expressed by secondary school principals, secondary school teachers and others involved in secondary schooling. So, what we are talking about here is not a compulsory school leaving age; sensibly, what we are talking about is, in essence, a compulsion to be doing something other than being unemployed for that particular year, that is, their being schooled, trained, or working for a living.

This is not a bold new idea. Going back to my period in the shadow ministry in the 1980s, I forget the name of the learned federal report, but it was all the rage at the time. One of the national recommendations that went to the ministerial councils was that, in essence, there be compulsory schooling, training or work after the age of 19, I think it was. It was a bold and revolutionary suggestion at the time but, for a variety of reasons at the time, parts of it were implemented but certainly not the overall recommendation in relation to the age of 19 (it may have been 18). However, it was certainly a recommendation that, in essence, young people up to the age of 19 should not be unemployed; they should be doing something.

In essence, that is the principle behind this bill, although more modest—it is looking at up to the age of 17. So, the essential principle behind the bill, as opposed to the political spin, is something that is supported by the Liberal Party and, certainly, something that I personally strongly support as well. However, as I have outlined, I do not support the spin the government has put on it, which is made most evident by the initial press release under the heading of 'New school leaving age for South Australia', issued by the Premier. The first paragraph of the press release states:

Plans to lift the school leaving age from 16 to 17 in 2009...were outlined by Premier Mike Rann today as part of wide-ranging measures.

Let me guess how this occurred. The education department officers would have specifically provided briefing notes in terms of the proposal, which would not have included, I am sure, the words 'school leaving age'. I imagine they would have competently outlined exactly what it was. However, the glossmeisters, the spin masters and mistresses, within the Premier's office and within the minister's office, would have said, 'This isn't sexy enough. What we need to be talking about is the school leaving age,' and the education department officers, through the minister, would have said, 'Well, it's not actually an increase in the school leaving age to 17; it's actually that you have to be working, training or in school until the age of 17.'

However, the spin masters and mistresses within the government would have said, 'Yes, but that doesn't sound as good in a press release or on the front page of The Advertiser. But that doesn't matter because it's close enough and it will give us a headline in The Advertiser. It's a much better headline on the press release if we say that it's just going to be an increase in the school leaving age until the age of 17.'

So, that is how the selling program for this policy proposal commenced. I will not go through any more of the interviews given by the Premier and the minister over the next couple of days on this issue; suffice to say, the Premier kept talking about the school leaving age. The minister on occasions talked about the school leaving age but on other occasions obviously remembered her briefing from education department officers and did talk about school, work or training. However, when you look at all of the transcripts over the ensuing couple of days after this announcement, it ranged from the press release which just says that the school leaving age will be increased right through, on occasions, when the minister remembered to say 'schooling, training and work'. To be fair, the Premier occasionally lapsed into 'schooling and training' but only rarely mentioned the option of staying on at work or being employed during that particular year.

As I have said, I intend to raise some questions during the second reading, and these will need to be explored in more detail in the committee stage. However, in part, clearly, this is tied up with the parallel debate we are having in the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia debate. I am still waiting for the government and the minister to provide a reply to questions I raised in that debate. In particular, I am interested in looking at the figures I have requested on the issue of retention and completion rates of the SACE, as they impact on our consideration of this legislation as well, because part of this debate relates to the issue of retention and completion rates of the SACE. I asked specific questions in the SSABSA debate last week, and I have indicated for the past couple of days, through the whips, that we are not prepared to go into the committee stage until we receive answers from the government on some of those issues because not only will they impact that debate but they will also necessarily impact this debate.

I raise the same issues here in relation to this bill and, given that we have only one further day to sit, the opposition is obviously more than prepared to sit in the week we have all been advised is the optional week in December to ensure that we have sufficient time to process all the legislation. However, it is quite clear that the government, for its own reasons, does not want to sit during that week.

If that is the case, we only have until tomorrow to resolve some of these issues. Certainly, I would urge the minister in charge of it in this chamber to ensure that the Minister for Education and Children's Services and her officers can provide the information to me—and to other members who might ask questions today—by early tomorrow at the very latest so that, hopefully, we can—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: What is wrong with your receiving it in the summing up in the committee stage like we normally do? What is the problem with that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Whenever that is to be. If you are ready to sum up by early tomorrow or late tonight, that is fine. If you can do that, that is fine. I give early notice of that. If I can give the minister in charge of the bill in this house an example, I point out that in the lower house, when this bill was debated on 14 November (seven days ago), the shadow minister asked the minister for a copy of the advice the minister received about an issue he raised in relation to Centrelink. The minister originally said:

My advice is that Centrelink has advised us they will not be affected.

The Hon. Mr Evans asked:

Will the minister table that advice for the purpose of the house? You can send it to me in between houses.

The minister replied:

We are happy to table that.

That was seven days ago. I spoke to the shadow minister yesterday, and he said that he still has not received it. I give that as an example to the minister and point out, before she takes any offence, that we are happy to do our best endeavours to process properly the legislation. The minister has given an undertaking on an important issue in relation to the parliament's consideration of it. She indicated that she would table it or provide it between the houses, yet we have still seen no sign of it.

Clearly, the opposition wants to look at that to consider whether or not we accept what the minister has said and what Centrelink is saying about that particular issue. I will not go into that at this stage; we can obviously pursue that issue in the committee stage of the debate, at which stage, clearly, the issue of which particular training programs will be acceptable will arise. The phrase which I think is used is 'approved learning program'. Obviously, we are not looking for a complete list, because I am sure that is not available and decisions will be taken on a case by case basis—and I accept that.

Certainly, the process for the minister's consideration of what will be an acceptable or approved learning program is something which is of interest to me and the Liberal Party; that is, how will the minister and the department assess what is an approved learning program that will be acceptable in terms of someone's training? That is not just an issue of the number of hours that will be required but an issue of whether any Mickey Mouse type of program (if I can use a pejorative expression) will be approved, and whether it will be approved at the local level, the regional or district level of the department, or at the departmental level or the minister's level. What will be the process in terms of approving it? What factors will the minister, the department or the school take into account in terms of assessing what will be an approved learning program acceptable for the purposes of this legislation?

The most complicated issue from my viewpoint relates to the decision of how exemptions will be given for young people who are engaged in work. There are some obvious questions. In the lower house, there seemed to be an indication of 25 hours a week possibly being the cut-off point. Anyone who has recently been involved or engaged with young people who are working and/or studying and training at the same time will be aware of the considerable variety of options and combinations that exist for some young people.

I saw some figures a few years ago which were extraordinary: I cannot remember them now but, nevertheless, an extraordinarily high percentage of our year 11 and 12 students in schools in South Australia are already engaged, to some degree, in part-time work. For most of them, it is unrelated to their schooling certification. It is a means of paying for their recreational pursuits, their car, or whatever else it might be. They are in part-time work; they are in block work in holiday periods; or they might work on weekends. All those options are already being utilised by many young people.

What will be possible under this legislation is that, clearly, in my view, a significant number of young people will seek exemption from the notion of compulsory schooling and training, particularly at a time with a federal government that has generated the long-term economic growth that we have seen in recent years, which has meant that, at the national level, the unemployment rate is 4 per cent—and I think in South Australia we have the second highest unemployment rate in the nation at 5 per cent. Certainly the present commonwealth government believes that, if the current economic parameters are maintained (which obviously they believe will happen if they are re-elected) we will see unemployment at the 3 per cent mark in the near future.

In that environment we are likely to see, in my view, a significant number of young people continuing to choose the work option as opposed to staying in school or, indeed, going to university or to a training course; and, as I said, in my view there is nothing wrong with that. As I said earlier, a young person who does not want to be at school can cause more grief and damage to everyone else at the school and in the class than is worth anyone's while.

As I highlighted during the Senior Secondary Assessment Board debate, increasingly we are providing options to young people who at the age of 16 or 17 know it all, hate it all or adopt an approach to life which says, 'Now is not the time that I will do a school course or a TAFE course' or whatever it is. They go out and work for two, three or five years (or in some cases 10 years) and return to education or training when they are older, wiser and more mature—or they have got something out of their system, however you want to describe it. They are ready personally to adopt the disciplines of study or training for a particular qualification.

We are immeasurably, in my view, better off now than we were 20 years ago to cater for those sorts of options. As I said, I had experience as a shadow minister and minister until the late 1990s, but my experience in recent times has been more in relation to young people—friends of my own children—who are now at the age of 21 through to 27 and who in recent years have been through the senior secondary system and the issue of education and training.

Through their group of friends and acquaintances there is any number of young people who were absolute pills (to use a word) at secondary school but who are excelling at the moment at other education and training options. They chose to go back two, three or five years later at a time when it suited them. These days you can get into university without having completed year 12. It was not that long ago that if you came to this realisation in your early 20s you had to go back and complete your year 12 to then go to university.

These days, through foundation and other programs, you are able to be accepted straight into a university program, and many young people are adopting that option. I am not arguing against the year 12 certificate. Certainly I do not accept the notion that you must have the year 12 certificate. Young people to the degree possible should have a year 12 certificate or an alternative learning program (as this bill outlines), whether it be a university or training program, diploma or whatever it might happen to be, to assist them to maximise their employment opportunities in the future.

I accept the contention of the minister and the government that you can maximise your chances of future success (you do not guarantee it) if you can complete some form of education and training. Again, any number of people have been very successful in business careers and elsewhere who do not have a school certificate, a training certificate from TAFE or even anything from university, and we need to be aware of all those options. The question really relates to what the process will be for the minister's department, district of the department or school to make the decision in relation to this exemption process.

I seek at the second reading stage—because it might shorten the committee stage—a detailed explanation of exactly how this will be done, that is, is there to be a constant set of principles for all schools to apply? Will the decisions be taken by the principal at the local level? Can that be appealed against to the district director, or whatever they are now called, within the Education Department? Does it have to go to the department itself or to the minister in relation to the exemptions? What estimate has the department placed before the minister as to how many exemptions it believes will be provided in relation to this employment exemption?

I understand that the department is estimating that some 1,200 or so young people might be impacted by this legislation. If that number is correct, and in the current climate, how many of those does the department believe are likely to seek an exemption? I seek clarification in relation to the combination of young people studying or training part time and working or studying part time. How will the difficult decisions be made if a young person, for example, is going at a modest rate through a training diploma at TAFE or at school doing one subject?

Perhaps they are doing a semester at TAFE, which might be only a quarter or a fifth of a full workload but they are working half time in employment. Will they be able to obtain an exemption under this or will they be liable to a penalty? If a young person decides, 'I will work only 15 hours a week but, as a combination of that, perhaps I will stay at home so that my costs and expenses are not high; and I want to do only one subject a semester at TAFE', will the minister or the department allow that young person to proceed at that rate because that suits them?

If the government comes back and says that that is unacceptable, I will have a problem with what the minister and the government are recommending. I think these processes ought to be flexible. I suspect they probably will be if it is left to the school level and the principal level. I think that at the school level principals will not want a number of young people at years 11 and 12 who do not want to be there (and who are quite content to make it clear they do not want to be there), and they are being prevented by the government, the department or the school from a combination of part-time work and some modest program of training or study.

What happens if, at the start of the school year, a young person is employed and then that young person loses their job or hates the job and drops out but who is looking around for a period of time to get another job?

Now, technically, on my reading of the bill, that young person will be in breach of the legislation. Again, anyone with experience with young people in work would know that it is not all nice, neat blocks, working in a job from 9 to 5 or 9 to 4 five days a week: they move from job to job. They get a job at a café for four weeks and it does not work out; they hate the boss, or whatever it is. They are then unemployed for a few days or two, three or four weeks and they get another job in another café, McDonald's or some other option for a period of time.

Through any 12-month period it is possible for them to move between any number of jobs, for choice or a variety of other reasons as well. How will this exemption process apply to those young people? Are they going to be subject to penalty if they cannot get a job for three months, yet they started at the beginning of the year with that? What happens to the young person who starts the year in training or at school and absolutely hates it and then decides to drop out and take some part-time work, but it does not meet the magical level of 25 hours a week, if that is the level the department will require?

They get a job for 20 hours a week. They say to the employer, 'Look; I've got to get 25 hours, otherwise I'm in breach of the legislation.' The employer says, 'I'm sorry; I can only give you 20 hours a week.' The young person loves it and is quite happy with 20 hours a week. If that is below the cut-off level, are we saying in this legislation that it is unacceptable and that the young person will be in breach of the law and will have to give up that job or will be required to be in full-time schooling or training in an approved learning program?

In this area we have to get out of the mind set that our young people are in full-time employment or schooling and training. It is more likely to be a combination of part-time or short term jobs or seasonal work and a variety of other options like that, where a particular business needs to take on somebody extra for a three month period. A recent experience I am familiar with shows that it is not just fast food outlets and cafés but also people working in administration. A couple of people in white collar work are sick or take leave (or whatever it is) from a small business, and the employer urgently goes to recruitment agencies to take on someone for short term work for a month as a receptionist or doing clerical and administration work.

These are not the traditional short term and part-time jobs you see young people employed in but, increasingly, if you talk to people who work with recruitment agencies, you hear that more and more young people are taking on those sorts of short term jobs as well. They are having to wear a collar and tie and go to work. They are not at McDonald's, but they have got work for six weeks or whatever it is whilst there is a peak period or a problem at that company for a period of time, and then that is it. They have finished their contract and they then wait around for the recruitment agency to get them another job. It might be a day, a week or a month or so.

This legislation will have to cater for all these circumstances and, in my view, we in this place should not be giving a tick to it unless we are aware of what the minister and the government intend to do in response to this. We do not want to be in a position, come 2009, where all of a sudden young people come to us and say, 'This is ridiculous; I've got a job for 20 hours a week. It's in an area that I'm excited about; I want to get into marketing. They've given me a job as a marketing assistant in an ad agency for 20 hours a week (or whatever it is) and if I work hard I can see myself potentially making a career in this area, but the legislation says that unless I'm in full-time work of 25 hours a week or more I've got to go back to school or training.'

I ask members that, if they have children or grandchildren of this age, they think through how they will be responding in 2009 if that is the set of processes and protocols that the minister, the government and schools set through this legislation. I have just canvassed those examples as the sorts of issues which need to be responded to initially at the second reading stage by the minister but which then need to be explored in some detail in the committee stage of the legislation. I flag here at least some of the issues we intend to pursue in the committee stage that might assist the government and the minister to provide as much information as they can.

As I said, I go back to the fact that the Centrelink advice that the Hon. Mr Evans asked about is important. The minister has undertaken to table that. We are still looking for the information we asked for last week in relation to retention and completion rates of SACE in the SSABSA bill, answers to the questions we asked and responses to the issues that we have raised here, and then hopefully we will be in a position to expedite proceedings through the committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (11:43): I rise briefly today to indicate my support for the second reading of this bill. This is a simple bill that amends the Education Act 1972 to ensure that all 16 year olds are participating in full-time education or training until they turn 17. I believe this is a positive measure, provided that the training and education is meaningful and stimulating. It is extremely important that a young person be involved in education, employment or training. Now more than ever our young people require adequate training for a competitive, challenging and evolving workforce.

Our education system should be practical enough for young people to see that there is a clear pathway to their job of choice—provided they are willing to put in the effort, of course—and develop the skills necessary to perform that job. Tertiary education is not for everybody. The important thing is that our young people have opportunity, and the commitment to introduce technical education in South Australia by both major parties is to be commended.

Having said that, I think we are all aware that there are young people at school with no desire whatsoever to be there. This achieves nothing for them and it disrupts their classmates and teachers. There will always be some hard-core troublemakers, but the challenge for us is to provide resources and to develop programs to make training relevant enough to keep this number at a minimum.

Schools which focus on vocational training (such as Fremont-Elizabeth City High School) strongly emphasise pathways to work outside the school environment, such as acquiring trade skills, and this is certainly a positive thing. This problem can be reduced by more schools providing relevant and more attractive options for people with little or no interest in an academic pathway. We want to see as many 17 year olds as possible achieving their full potential through full-time education, training and/or work.

I would like to add that my three sons (that sounds like a TV show) all left school at the beginning of year 10. They lost interest and just were not engaged. They were high performers and ambitious, but school somehow lost its zing. We came to an arrangement that they could leave school, but they had to find work or get into some sort of training or tertiary education. One of my sons went on to get an international business degree at university and another son went on to study IT.

What did it for them was that they actually had permission to have a break from school to assess where it was that they wanted to go and had a choice about that direction. I think this is also something that we need to consider with our young people. We need to look at what is disengaging for our children about our education system. What is it that we need to do to improve it, to make sure that they have variety, that they are challenged and, most importantly, that they do continue to learn. My second-oldest son's complaint was, 'It is not just challenging me any more and I am not learning anything new. It's boring.'

With those comments, I support the second reading of the bill. I think there are amendments being proposed that I will consider at the committee stage.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:47): This year the Rann government has embarked on a significant legislative reform process for education, care and children's development. The proposed amendments to the Education Act 1972 will, rather than just lift the school leaving age to 17, put in place a new compulsory education age that will ensure that all 16 year olds will be required to be in approved learning, training or work. This will include traditional school activities, participation in an approved non-school-based approved learning program, including an apprenticeship or traineeship, a TAFE course, enrolment in a trade school or other registered training organisation; 16 your olds will be able to seek an exemption if they have obtained substantive employment. Young people who have already achieved the SACE, or an equivalent qualification, will not be required to enrol.

The Hon. Rob Lucas waxed lyrical in accusing the government of not having been up-front as to what this legislation is actually about. I refer him (and the Hon. Michelle Lensink) to a news release in January 2005 headed 'All young people to be learning or earning'. It states:

The state government will aim for all young South Australians to be learning or earning under the new South Australian Youth Engagement Strategy (SAYES), unveiled today. 'Today, I lay down a commitment to have all young South Australians learning or earning', he says. 'That means they need to be at school, in training or in a meaningful job. There is no other option. We are making a guarantee to our children that we will help them achieve their potential—whichever path they choose...every decision within government that impacts on young people will be taken with this commitment in mind. Every new direction and program will be tailored to our learning or earning focus.'

I refer also to a news release of 2 May this year which was headed 'New school-leaving age for South Australia.' It stated:

We want every young South Australian to be in school, training or meaningful work.

Perhaps the honourable member could ask the shadow minister in the other place for a copy, if he has not seen it. It goes on:

However, teachers, parents and students themselves recognise that school does not suit all young people.

I refer him to those news releases, and also on 12 September this year there was a release headed 'School, training, work until 17.' In his usual mischievous way, the honourable member suggested that we had not made that clear, but that is clearly not the case.

The approach proposed in this legislation is in line with recent interstate and overseas developments in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, and it has been proposed in the United Kingdom. In January 2007, a public discussion paper was released which proposed raising the leaving age to 17, and 28 submissions were received on this reform, including from unions, all three school sectors, universities, parent organisations, and business groups such as Business SA. Interestingly enough, no submission was received from the Hon. Rob Lucas, but we did receive one from the minister for higher education.

All stakeholders support the proposed bill, which has been the subject of extensive consultation with enhancements provided by stakeholders through the Legislative Reform Stakeholder Advisory Group. This government made history when it raised the school-leaving age from 15 years to 16 years from the start of 2003. The compulsory education age bill is part of the government's wider, $84 million School to Work Strategy which includes 10 new trade schools for the future and a new SACE certificate for senior students.

This is not just an arbitrary raising of the school-leaving age but a strategy that is based on solid research, proven advice of experts and data collation, and it is built on significant investment. The bill will enable 16 year olds to be required to enrol and participate in compulsory education from 2009, to coincide with the introduction of the new SACE.

The new SACE will enable young people to have access to multiple paths of study and be better prepared for whichever path they choose. It will enable young people to stay engaged in education, training and work. The changes enabled by this bill will alter the way education happens for many senior students. In addition to traditional school lessons, a student's learning options could include TAFE courses, part-time work, apprenticeships, university studies, alternative education programs and community work.

Since 2002 this government has invested just over $30 million in school retention initiatives, such as the school retention action plan—a range of programs clearly having an impact on retention figures. In February this year the Department of Education and Children's Services announced that attendance figures showed South Australian students were at school 91 per cent of the time. Of the 9 per cent of absences recorded, only 3 per cent of absences from school are unexplained and the other 6 per cent are explained by illness or family-related reasons.

However, while figures such as these are good news, we need a system that engages the 45 per cent of young people who currently do not complete their year 12 SACE and addresses the needs of more than 70 per cent of young people who do not go on to study at university. It is estimated that there will be approximately 1,200 16 year olds who will be supported by the new legislation who would otherwise have dropped out of school. A key program that supports young people at risk of disengaging which is already showing some success is the innovative community action network, the ICAN initiative. This is a network of schools, community groups and government agencies that work together to reconnect some of the most disadvantaged young people back to education and training.

Another initiative that has been successfully trialled this year is the flexible learning options (FLO). A FLO enrolment provides schools with some flexibility in funding individual students who are at risk of dropping out of school to access other learning options, including community-based learning programs, training programs and access to mentoring programs to help those students remain connected to the school. The 16 year olds who fit into this new cohort of students will be required to enrol and participate in full-time education or training, or a combination, until they have completed the SACE, achieved an equivalent qualification or turned 17 years of age. However, young people under 17 years who are already employed or wish to take up full-time employment will be able to seek an exemption.

The Rann government's $84 million school to work package will ensure that South Australian students will have more choice than ever before, while at the same time going some way towards addressing industry demand for skilled people. Our new trade schools for the future will build on partnerships with industry, TAFE and local businesses so that young people can access more careers and are not limited by what a particular school offers.

South Australia really has a record number of apprentices in work, and our new trade schools will help increase these numbers and open new opportunities for our kids to get a trade and high-level technical skills. These schools will be hubs for driving skills development, but will also work with other schools to build expertise and assist teachers to develop curriculum that serves the needs of all students. Introducing this legislation now for implementation in 2009 will allow the necessary time for the government, Catholic and independent schools, as well as other parts of the education and training system such as TAFE, time to plan and develop further opportunities for senior students.

Implementation of the changes has been the subject of an Implementation Interagency Advisory Group, which was established in May 2007 and includes representatives of all key stakeholders, including the non-government education and training sectors. This group has been working to identify all implementation issues and has provided vital feedback, which has informed not only the bill but also the development of the implementation policy and communication strategies. Issues identified by the group include consideration of subordinate legislation that may be needed and how best to register, track, monitor and support students affected by the proposed changes. Advice has been received from the group, particularly representatives of the training provider and supporting sectors, about how young people who disengage should be followed up and by whom.

The group has also advised on the definition of full-time employment. It is proposed that in the exemption guidelines this will be defined as 25 hours or more a week, and the definition of full-time participation in learning or training will be determined by the course or program provider. Guidelines for the approval of exemptions are currently being developed in consultation with all stakeholders to ensure consistency and that pathways chosen support a young person's future. The work of the interagency group will be ongoing until the changes are fully implemented. As issues have been identified, they are addressed, for example, the wording related to zoning of government schools and the need to make explicit the need to retain parents' right to choose a non-government school for their child.

On advice from the stakeholder advisory group it is proposed that all young people will register with SSABSA before they turn 16 years. In all instances this will be done by the school on the young person's behalf. All young people will be required to notify SSABSA of their approved learning programs when they enrol, and in most instances this will be done by the provider on the young person's behalf. Following advice from the stakeholder advisory group, it is proposed that regulations be developed that will require providers of approved learning programs to notify SSABSA if they become aware that a young person is no longer enrolled or participating in their program. Any regulation developed will be undertaken in collaboration with stakeholders and consulted on before being made.

The bill provides for follow-up of 16 year olds who disengage to be undertaken by authorised officers, as is the case currently for children of compulsory school age, that is 15 to 16 year olds. Each approved learning program provider sector will have a nominated authorised officer. It is anticipated that these officers will be from the government sector and the non-government provider sectors that indicate a willingness and capacity to follow up the young person and support their re-engagement; for example, the Catholic Education Office has indicated that it is willing to undertake this role for 16 year olds in its sector.

Each district office within the Department of Education and Children's Services will have a nominated participation engagement officer who will have responsibility for coordinating follow-up of all students who disengage before they turn 17 years of age, and facilitating their re-engagement where they are not followed up by the sector or the program provider the young person last attended.

It is important that any follow up will focus on re-engaging young people to support their future achievement and not on a punitive response to them having disengaged. Hence the bill does not provide for penalties for either young people of compulsory education age or their parents.

While most young people who fall into this new compulsory education cohort of student will be engaged in any of the various pathways, there are some young people under 17 who have special circumstances. They may already be employed, or wish to take up full-time employment, or they may have already achieved a SACE or similar qualification. The bill will enable these 16 year olds to seek an exemption.

Young people aged 16 who are working as part of formal learning or training, such as through an apprenticeship, will not have to seek an exemption. It is well recognised that to ensure future success young people should be assisted to remain engaged with relevant learning or training. This bill is a key initiative that supports this, and I certainly urge members to support this important piece of legislation.

The Hon. Rob Lucas raised a few issues, in his recent contribution, in relation to wanting some information on Centrelink. I think the question was asked in the other place as to how this bill would affect 16 year olds' eligibility for the commonwealth Youth Allowance. In response to that I can indicate that we have been assured that verbal advice from Centrelink indicates that nothing in this bill will adversely affect a young person's eligibility for Youth Allowance. The following information details Centrelink's guidelines:

For Youth Allowance, full-time study means your course attracts an equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) of 0.375 or more in your teaching period; your course is considered full-time by the institution where you are studying; you are doing at least 75 per cent of the full-time workload; or, if none of these apply, you are undertaking at least 15 hours of study per week.

You may also be considered a full-time student if your minimum workload is reduced to at least 66 per cent of the normal full-time workload because of the institution's normal requirements for the course, or a specific direction in writing from your deputy principal, academic registrar or equivalent officer, or a written recommendation from your deputy principal, academic registrar or equivalent officer for academic or vocational reasons.

In relation to part-time study:

For Youth Allowance, part-time study means you have a study load less than 75 per cent of a full-time workload and you need to enter an activity agreement and undertake other activities to make up a full-time workload; for example, job search.

A young person looking for work would be required to do so outside the participation required of them by the course or training they are undertaking. An exemption would only be granted after a young person had received an offer of full-time employment.

The Hon. Rob Lucas also raised an issue in relation to some data that was asked for by the Hon. Iain Evans in the other place. My advice is that detailed attendance data is not released publicly; however, unexplained non-attendance rates for 2006 were supplied, I am told, to the Hon. Iain Evans' staff verbally. Staff were advised of a figure of 3 per cent for 2006, which has remained steady over the past few years. The unexplained non-attendance rates for 2006 were also released publicly by a departmental media release dated February 2007, and there was subsequent media on this including, I understand, on FIVEaa with Leon Byner.

The data for 2002-03 was unavailable due to the definitions and the reporting being tightened. So, my advice is they will be unable to supply the truancy rates for the past five years for that reason. The information for these years was not comparable to the 2004, 2005 and 2006 figures, due to these changes. The department found that schools often placed information in the unexplained absence section of a report that should have been defined elsewhere. I would urge, as I said, all honourable members to support this very important piece of legislation.

In the mid-1990s, former Liberal premier Dean Brown charged a task force with examining whether the school leaving age should be raised. He was quoted in The Advertiser of 8 May 1996 as saying it was prompted by 'the clear experience that, the longer people stay at school, the greater the chance of getting a job'. So, what did the Liberal task force recommend? A school leaving age of 17.

Former premier John Olsen went even further, saying in The Advertiser of 8 October 2000, 'Raising the school leaving age is about ensuring young South Australians are given the best possible chance of gaining employment, either through higher education or real job skills before they leave school.' He went on, 'Early school leaving significantly reduces life and employment options and increases the risk of involvement in crime.' We agree, and that is why we are acting with this legislation.

Doing nothing—and I hope that members opposite remember this—is not an option for school leavers and it is certainly not an option for our government. So, I do urge honourable members to support this legislation.

Bill read a second time.

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