HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Before we deal with the amendments, I will place on the record the responses (I think there are four) that the honourable member was seeking. In relation to SACE completion rates, I am advised that students may complete the SACE over a number of years. Many students undertake stage 2 year 12 over multiple years. The completion rate provided is generated by calculating the number of students who have completed the SACE in that year compared with the number of potential completers. A potential completer is a student with an enrolment pattern that, if completed successfully, would enable them to meet all requirements for the SACE.

For the year 2002 we need to be advised of the exact numbers, but the completion rate was 81.5 per cent; for the year 2003, the completion rate was 83.1 per cent; for the year 2004, the completion rate was 83.6 per cent; for the year, 2005 the completion rate was 88.4 per cent; and for the year 2006, the completion rate was 88.3 per cent. The next question was about the source of the 55 per cent of students who commence secondary school and go on to achieve the SACE. The information comes from the SACE review, chapter 8, page 145.

The honourable member also asked about the existing year 12 subjects and whether we have a list of them. The subjects are listed in the SSABSA regulations 2006. My advice is that SSABSA is gathering information on how each of them is assessed; that information is available from SSABSA.

In relation to the tertiary entrance ranking (the TER score) and SACE certificates, the Hon. Rob Lucas asked about the government's position on the SACE review recommendation in respect of the tertiary entrance ranking score being listed on a student's SACE achievement certificate and who, in fact, makes this decision—the board or the government. I believe I did respond, but, to clarify my earlier response, the government has recommended that this should not be included on the SACE student achievement certificates. However, it will be up to the board to determine whether it will be included on the certificate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I asked a question about SATAC but, as I understand it, the minister has not—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: I have some information: I will have to come back to that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister saying that, in relation to the assessment profile for each of the year 12 subjects, SSABSA is compiling that information and it will be provided at some later stage?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister provided the SACE completion rate figures, which were in the 80 per cent mark. She then provided some information in relation to the 55 per cent figure that the minister has been using. If that is not called the SACE completion rate, what is that figure? My recollection, from seeing the minister's statements, is that she has referred to that as the SACE completion rate of 55 per cent. However, if the SACE completion rates that she is talking about are those figures in the 80 per cent mark that she talked about earlier, what is the figure?

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: They are different.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What does this 55 per cent figure refer to? Is it also called the SACE completion rate and, if it is not, what is it called? Can the minister clarify exactly how that figure was calculated?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I said, its reference in the SACE review is Part C, page 145. The 55 per cent refers to students who commence secondary school and who achieve a SACE, whereas the other percentile relates to students who start and complete SACE.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is that 55 per cent of the students who started year 8 secondary schooling some five years ago? You take a cohort of year 8 students and then you track them through and only 55 per cent then achieve a SACE five years later?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that individual students are not being tracked. It is the total number of year 8s versus the total number of year 12s.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to clarify the SACE completion rate, because I think the minister expressed it in two different ways. I thought earlier that the minister told the committee that the SACE completion rate was the number of people who completed SACE and who, at the beginning of that year, had the potential to complete SACE that year. Then a minute ago the minister told us that it was the number of people who started and finished SACE; that is, SACE stages 1 and 2, which seems to me to be a different parameter. Could the minister clarify what the SACE completion rate is?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will reword the information I gave previously. In relation to the SACE completion rate, students may complete the SACE over a number of years. It can be normal for students to complete it over two years. Many students undertake stage 2 of year 12 over multiple years, however. The completion rate provided is generated by calculating the number of students who have completed the SACE in that year compared with the number of potential completers. A potential completer is a student with an enrolment pattern which, if completed successfully, would enable them to meet all requirements for the SACE.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think I understand that. A potential completer must be a stage 2 at the beginning of the year and have met all the requirements by the end of the year? You cannot achieve stage 2 from stage 1?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: During the lunchbreak I visited again the Future SACE and ministerial website. I will not delay the committee unduly by going through all the very many references, but can I just summarise by saying that there are dozens if not hundreds of statements from the minister about implementation of Future SACE; for example, 'This is what it will be', 'Money is being spent on pilot programs as of this year implementing the Future SACE', and 'There will be an aid to any grading system in the Future SACE.'

In all the statements on the SACE website and on the ministerial website it is absolutely clear that the minister and the government are saying, 'The decision has been taken. This is what is being implemented and this is how we are doing it.' The minister has confirmed now that in law that is not correct. The minister and the government have no authority under the current law to do that. The minister in this chamber has just confirmed that these will all be decisions some time next year for the future board, which will then make a decision as to whether or not it will implement the Future SACE along the lines that have been discussed.

I raise the question in relation to the age grading system, because that has been an issue of national and state controversy, with varying views being expressed as to whether or not that is appropriate. Can I confirm that, whilst the government is saying that the new Future SACE will include this form of reporting, the minister cannot make that commitment: that will be the decision that the future SSABSA will take some time next year?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We will have to take the last question on notice. Again, I make the comment that the minister has funded the steering committee to provide the implementation of those on the board. The minister has asked the steering committee to oversee the work being developed by the Future SACE Office to develop the proposals that the board will consider. We need to make that quite clear. The decision to ratify actually rests with the board.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the minister has now confirmed that two or three times in relation to issues, and that is clear. I will put a question on notice; I do not expect the minister or her adviser to be in a position to answer it today. If one looks at Treasurer's instructions and the Public Finance and Audit Act, with which I obviously had some background experience, and the Auditor-General's recent reports in relation to Treasurer's instructions, what lawful authority does the minister have to expend public funds when there has been no lawful decision taken to authorise the public expenditure?

The minister has now confirmed on any number of occasions that the minister has no power in law to implement various decisions that underpin Future SACE. That awaits the future SSABSA next year taking the decision, yet money is being expended now. Officers are employed, pilot programs are being conducted, implementation programs are going on and professional development is commencing. I had the privilege to view a video on the website of Paul Kilvert and other officers giving training instruction to officers in relation to Future SACE. So, we have a position where considerable millions of dollars are now being spent on a decision which the minister at this stage has no lawful authority to take.

When one looks at various Auditor-General's reports in recent times that relate to the stashed cash inquiry and various other Auditor-General investigations, we see that the Auditor-General has raised questions about Treasurer's instructions and the lawful authority to expend money. I do not expect the minister or her adviser to have an answer here; it is a legal question and may well require the involvement of the Auditor-General on this issue. Whilst I am sure the Auditor-General will not want to go through the complete SSABSA debate, perhaps I or someone else may send him the relevant sections of this debate.

I ask the minister whether she would at least give an undertaking that she will take up with appropriate legal counsel available to the government and, if need be, the Auditor-General the issues I have raised in relation to the lawful authority to expend moneys and in relation to Treasurer's instructions, to make sure there have been and will be no breaches of Treasurer's instructions in relation to this issue.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I point out to the honourable member that it is important for him to note that work has been undertaken in response to the SACE and in consultation with the education community, which is seeking reform. We can undertake to get that legal advice for the honourable member.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I understand that the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Lucas numbered 1, 2, 6, 13 and 14 all relate to the employment of the chief executive staff of the SSABSA I will be moving that these amendments are considered together, as they pertain to removing the provisions in the bill that protect the chief executive officer and the staff of the board from the scope of the federal government's WorkChoices legislation.

As it stands, the bill provides for the removal of the chief executive of the Department of Education and Children's Services as the employing authority for the chief executive officer and staff of SSABSA. This was in direct response to a request by all stakeholders that the perceived conflict of interest should be removed. The bill, as it stands, is not opposed by any stakeholder in regard to this matter and sees the current chief executive officer maintained for the life of his contract.

Future chief executive officers will be appointed by the Governor on terms and conditions set by the Premier. This is consistent with other chief executive officers across the South Australian Public Service. The bill also removes the chief executive of DECS as the employing authority for SSABSA staff and replaces him with the chief executive officer of the board. Again, I stress that this provision is not opposed by any stakeholder and was widely consulted on and refined in the development of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not intend to move my amendment at this stage, but I am prepared to canvass the issues that the minister—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You did speak first; you can speak whenever you are recognised. Mr Acting Chair, I am not sure exactly what the minister is suggesting; certainly, once I move my amendment, I do not propose to have all five amendments considered as one. My understanding, which I will clarify with parliamentary counsel when I get a chance, is that amendments Nos 1, 2, 13 and 14 are, in essence, consequential but that amendment No. 6 can stand alone. So, it is possible for the parliament to be consistent and oppose or support amendments Nos 1, 2, 13 and 14 but have a different view on amendment No. 6. The minister was suggesting that in some way she would move that my amendments Nos 1, 2, 6, 13 and 14 be considered en bloc; with the greatest respect, Mr Acting Chair, the amendments are in my name and I will be moving them.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. R.P. Wortley): I ask that you move your amendment No. 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not going to move it at this stage; I am commenting on the minister's pre-emptive strike in relation to what she proposed to do. I am not sure exactly what is intended but what would make more sense, when I get to the point of moving my first amendment, is that if it were successful then I would agree with the suggestion that amendments Nos 2, 13 and 14 would be treated as consequential when we come to them. There would not be any debate on them because they are part of the one package.

Similarly, if amendment No. 1 were defeated I would accept that amendments Nos 2, 13 and 14 were consequential and I would not propose to debate those separately. However, I do not agree with the proposition that it be done en bloc; I also do not agree that amendment No. 6 is part of the package and cannot be part of a stand-alone decision. I have not had a chance to speak to parliamentary counsel but that is my recollection of the discussions I had with them some time last week. On that basis I am happy to now move my amendment. I move:

Page 3, lines 24 to 29—delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Section 4(1), definition of 'employing authority'—delete the definition

The first point I want to make is to remind members of this committee (and, of course, not all members were here in 2006) that we had the controversial debate on what the minister referred to as WorkChoices legislation but what was actually the Statutes Amendment (Public Sector Employment) Bill. At that stage, I remind members that, put simply, the government chose a legal device to, in essence, nominate one person in every department as the employing authority. I said, at the time:

Nevertheless, I re-state my position that it is my very strong view that, because of the legal device that is being used in the drafting of the employing authority, we will see unintended consequences over the coming years, and those unintended consequences will need to be handled either legislatively by this parliament or administratively by the government and departments. I accept that the government will not agree with that position and that one will never know until we get a year or two down the track. However, it is a cute legal device that is being used by the government in relation to this issue.

I then went on to highlight a significant number of issues relating to the Education Act. Later on I said:

The legal device being used of an employing authority in some respects in the Education Act is a legal nonsense. You run into dead ends whichever way you go. It is my view that there will be unintended consequences of this legal device and construction that has been used.

That was in December 2000 and we are seeing, in this legislation, the first example of what I warned of back in December 2006—that is, unintended consequences.

The minister is highlighting, 'Whoops, when we actually passed that legislation the unintended consequence was that the chief executive of SSABSA, all of a sudden, was being employed by the chief executive officer of the Department of Education and Children's Services.' Bear in mind that, under the current law, it is an independent board and has its own staff and, through that legal device that the government put through back in 2006, all of a sudden they made the chief executive officer of the Department of Education the employing authority of the chief executive of SSABSA and the staff of SSABSA. That is the first of the unintended consequences.

I make no criticism of parliamentary counsel in relation to that because it was a government policy decision and it is well nigh impossible to think through all the unintended consequences of this legal device, or the cute legal trick that the government sought to use to make the point in relation to WorkChoices legislation; this is the first example in relation to that.

Let us come back to the essential principle of this, which is: do we believe in an independent board? There will be other amendments later on in relation to this issue. If we believe in an independent board, how do we have an independent board if the Minister for Education, with or without ideological biases or ideological bent—Labor or Liberal; I will be politically agnostic or ambivalent about this, because you can have a Liberal minister with an ideological bias or you can have a Labor minister with an ideological bias—who will be responsible for the employment of the chief executive officer of what is meant to be an independent board?

The history and tradition has been that the independent board has employed its staff. It has been treated as an independent body, an independent authority with an independent officer. What do you have in a situation where the minister says, 'Right, I want one of my mates or cronies in the position, and I will appoint someone there who does not have the full support of the independent board'? Let us be fair and say that there are drafting provisions in relation to seeking agreement between the board and the minister but, nevertheless, the minister has a veto right in and of that particular construction.

From our viewpoint this issue is part of an overall package in respect of the independent board. If you do not believe in an independent board then, fine, go along with what the government is suggesting and have the minister appoint the chief executive officer. You can have an entirely consistent position, and that is the government's position, and so be it. I disagree with it, but you can have an entirely consistent position if you are going to do that. However, if you are going to support an independent board then you need to have a position where you do not have the minister of the day appointing the chief executive officer.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: In response to the honourable member, I remind him that it is an independent board. It is not a ministerial appointment as such; it is actually an appointment of the Premier, recommending to the Governor. I also remind him that the legislation states that the minister must consult with the board before the minister makes a recommendation—so, again, it is independent. I reiterate what I said before: this bill sees the current chief executive officer maintained for the life of his contract, and future chief executive officers will be appointed by the Governor on terms and conditions set by the Premier. That is consistent with other chief executive officers across the South Australian Public Service.

The bill also removes the chief executive of DECS as the employing authority for SSABSA staff and replaces him with the chief executive officer of the board. The bill, as it stands, provides for the removal of the chief executive of the Department of Education and Children's Services as the employing authority for the chief executive officer and staff of SSABSA. This was in direct response to a request by all stakeholders that the perceived conflict of interest should be removed. The bill, as it stands, is not opposed by any stakeholder in regard to this matter.

Again, I have to stress this position: the provision in relation to what we are anticipating is not opposed by any stakeholder and was widely consulted on and refined in the development of the bill. For the member to suggest that this is not going to be an independent board, or that there will be ministerial interference is grossly unfair.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Will the minister confirm that the opposition that came from the education sector was to the notion of the chief executive of DECS being the employing authority for the chief executive of SSABSA? That was as a result of the WorkChoices legislation of two years ago. Under my series of amendments, the chief executive of DECS will not be the employing authority of the SSABSA chief executive but the board. I am not sure of the point the minister is making. I understand what was the opposition, that is, that they do not want the chief executive of one school sector, that is DECS, being the employing authority of the chief executive officer of SSABSA. I accept that and the government has gone down a path of making the minister the person responsible for the appointment of the chief executive of SSABSA.

The package of amendments that I have moved makes the board the employing authority in relation to this issue. Both the government and opposition have met this criticism, as I see it, of not having the chief executive officer of DECS as the employing authority. We have just gone down two different paths. The government prefers that it be the minister and from my political viewpoint the minister is as bad as the chief executive officer of DECS. I am saying that the independent board is the ultimate employing authority.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I thought we had made plain that to protect the staff the government will implement the appointment of the chief executive by the Governor, and the staff are employed by the chief executive of SSABSA.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (12)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Evans, A.L. Hood, D.G.E. Lawson, R.D.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller) Ridgway, D.W.
Schaefer, C.V. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

NOES (9)

Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K. Kanck, S.M.
Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C. (teller)


Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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