HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

STATUTORY AUTHORITIES REVIEW COMMITTEE: TEACHERS REGISTRATION BOARD

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:49): I move:

That the report of the committee, on the Teachers Registration Board, be noted.

The Teachers Registration Board—or the TRB, as it is generally referred to—is a regulatory board in relation to professional teaching standards for South Australian teachers. Its main functions are: to administer the provisions of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act for the regulation of the teaching profession; to promote the teaching profession and professional standards for teachers; to confer and collaborate with a number of institutions and organisations in relation to the appropriateness of teacher registration standards and teacher education courses; to ensure and promote national consistency in the regulation of the teaching profession; and to regularly review professional teaching standards.

The TRB is also required to have the welfare and best interests of children as its primary consideration in the performance of all its functions. The TRB also investigates complaints made against teachers. If a complaint has merit, it may proceed to a formal inquiry. A TRB inquiry is heard by no less than three TRB members, but its practice is to hear inquiries with five board members. Of these members, one must be a practising teacher and one must be a legal practitioner. In relation to disciplinary and unprofessional conduct, inquiries and allegations against a teacher must be proved on the balance of probabilities.

Although not adversarial in nature and not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, the TRB is guided by them whilst hearing a formal inquiry. The TRB must also afford procedural fairness to the parties before an inquiry. The terms of reference of this inquiry into the TRB were adopted by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee on 17 November 2008. The inquiry came about due to the motion moved by the Hon. John Darley MLC on 24 September 2008 in our chamber. This was subsequent to the motion first introduced on 26 September 2007 by the Hon. Nick Xenophon, former MLC. The first motion was introduced in response to parents' allegations of improper conduct by an Mount Gambier teacher, which went before the TRB in 2004.

Although forming a part of the evidence received by the committee in this inquiry, the committee's role was not to make a finding in relation to the Mount Gambier matter or any individual cases. However, the committee did have regard to submissions regarding the way in which the TRB conducted that particular inquiry and also drafting suggested recommendations to improve the understanding of the processes of the TRB.

Before proceeding further, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee: the Hons Ian Hunter, Terry Stephens, Rob Lucas and Ann Bressington. I also acknowledge and thank the staff of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee for their contribution and ongoing support. In relation to this inquiry, I particularly thank Ms Lisa Baxter for her research and report writing.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the organisations, agencies and individuals that submitted evidence to the committee during this inquiry. The committee heard evidence from a variety of sources and received both written submissions and oral evidence. The committee also received extensive information in writing, and orally, from the TRB itself.

I personally would like to acknowledge the ongoing cooperation and assistance provided to the committee by the TRB and, in particular, I thank the registrar, Ms Wendy Hastings. Through the information provided to it from all sources, and through its own research, the committee was able to gain a clearer understanding of the key issues.

In relation to the legislative overview, prior to March 2005, the TRB was governed by the Education Act. The purpose of the TRB was to regulate the teaching profession, in that persons employed as teachers in both government and non-government sectors were qualified and fit and proper persons to be employed as teachers. By 2004, it was suggested that the provisions of the Education Act no longer met the expectations of the community or the national standards required for teachers registration. A teacher registration bill was proposed to establish the TRB as an independent body under its own legislation.

The bill formed part of the government's Keeping Them Safe child protection reforms, as it supported the protection of children and recognised the professionalism of the teachers of South Australia. The bill, and subsequent Teachers Registration and Standards Act, significantly enhances the powers, responsibilities and functions of the TRB and raises the professional standards required for teachers to be registered. Numerous agencies and organisations were consulted on the new legislation and given the opportunity to comment on the changes to the TRB as a result of the new act.

The Teachers Registration and Standards Act was proclaimed in March 2005. The TRB explained to the committee that the new act provides for rigorous measures to be imposed on registered teachers and the capacity for the TRB to ensure that teachers hold the required standards to teach—standards that are in line with the public interest and with national standards.

The new act broadened the variety of sanctions available to the TRB in relation to imposing disciplinary action against a teacher. Whereas previously the TRB only had the power to cancel the registration of a teacher, it now has the capacity to reprimand, fine, impose conditions, suspend, cancel or disqualify a teacher permanently from registration.

In relation to the background to this inquiry, the inquiry into the TRB received 19 written submissions from interested stakeholders and those included unions, education industry associations, parents, board members, the Department of Education and Children's Services and the TRB. Importantly, the inquiry heard from parties who had experienced direct dealings with the TRB. A number of witnesses provided the committee with their own suggestions on improving the TRB; however, the majority of witnesses were happy with the current TRB processes and practices. Others noted the important role that the TRB has in enforcing professional teaching standards in South Australia.

In relation to inquiry evidence, the main themes covered in the written and oral submissions received by the committee in this inquiry included the appropriateness of the current composition of the TRB; the powers of the TRB and the registrar; the TRB's role in child protection; professional teaching standards; complaints, inquiries and sanctions against teachers; disciplinary action and unprofessional conduct; representation at TRB hearings; the relationship between the TRB and the Department of Education and Children's Services; and the publication of information and decisions by the TRB.

I note that the submission received from the South Australian Association of State School Organisations (SAASSO) contained the most number of recommendations and negative comments towards the TRB. Accordingly, the committee endeavoured on numerous occasions to invite SAASSO to attend before the committee to elaborate on its written submission. This resulted in no less than 15 correspondence exchanges with SAASSO. Requests from the committee for SAASSO's executive officer to attend the committee meeting were outright refused and, instead, two of SAASSO's officers eventually attended before the committee.

After the officers were subsequently unable to answer the committee's questions in person due to their non-involvement with the writing of the submission, the committee provided SAASSO with the opportunity to respond to its questions in writing. Some eight weeks later the committee finally received further information from SAASSO. However, I would have to say that this untimely response some 12 months after the committee's initial invitation was the main contributing factor to the delay in finalising this parliamentary inquiry. The committee has therefore expressed its dissatisfaction with SAASSO in this report and notes SAASSO's unresponsive and, we believe, disrespectful behaviour towards not only the Statutory Authorities Review Committee but also the Parliament of South Australia.

In relation to the Mount Gambier case, as I mentioned earlier, this inquiry into the TRB was initially called for as a result of parents' complaining about the way the TRB dealt with a matter concerning alleged disgraceful or improper conduct involving a teacher from a Mount Gambier school back in 2002. The matter proceeded to a formal TRB inquiry in 2004. It is prudent to note that this formal TRB inquiry was addressed pursuant to the previous governing legislation, namely part 4 of the Education Act.

After hearing the matter on eight separate occasions, the TRB found that, on the balance of probabilities, there was insufficient evidence to uphold the allegation before it. Consequently, no sanctions were imposed against the teacher. The TRB explained to the committee that, unfortunately, the majority of evidence received in that case was hearsay evidence and that the students involved did not provide sufficient direct evidence when interviewed by the psychologist and social worker from the Children's Protection Service at Flinders Medical Centre.

The TRB also stated in its submission to the committee that, with the proclamation of the current act in 2005, a number of the new provisions may have assisted procedurally with this matter. However, the TRB maintains that a different outcome would not have been expected in this particular case due to the evidentiary considerations.

The provisions in the current act referenced by the TRB in supporting this conclusion include: reporting obligations for employers and teachers which ensure that the TRB is notified if a person is dismissed or has resigned, in lieu of allegations of unprofessional conduct; the registrar's wide powers in relation to investigations and the ability to require a person to answer questions, attend interviews, provide information or produce material for inspection; and the increased range of sanctions available to the TRB, rather than being limited in having the power only to cancel a teacher's registration.

Four parents of children in the accused teacher's class were selected to give evidence at that TRB inquiry. The committee received written submissions from these four parents and from one former student who attended in the accused teacher's class in Mount Gambier. The parents and student were subsequently invited to give oral evidence to the committee. Whilst a number of their concerns related to how the school, the school's principal and SAPOL handled the situation, the committee made it clear that the focus of this inquiry was limited to inquiring only into the operations of the TRB.

The parents raised concerns to the committee in relation to a lack of information and support provided to them by the TRB before attending to give evidence before the board. They also commented on the lack of advice given in preparing for being subjected to cross-examination and questioning at the hearing. Other concerns held by the parents included the refusal of the TRB to listen to hearsay evidence; the selection of witnesses by the TRB; and their inability to obtain formal TRB reasons for the decision.

The committee gave the TRB an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by these parents and has included their responses in the committee's report. Ultimately, however, it was not this committee's role to make a finding in relation to this particular matter, which was before the TRB in 2004. The committee was sympathetic to issues raised by the parents in relation to the way in which the TRB conducted that particular inquiry and, as I mentioned earlier, the committee has had regard to those submissions in drafting recommendations for the minister to consider.

In relation to recommendations, the committee's formal recommendations in this inquiry arise out of the examination of all evidence received by the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. The committee's focus has remained at all times on whether the current operations of the TRB can be improved.

In relation to the Mount Gambier parents' criticisms on their not receiving adequate information prior to the TRB hearing they were involved in, the committee recommends that the TRB's current witness-proofing process be expanded and formalised to include giving witnesses the following information prior to a TRB inquiry: the names and roles of the formal parties to the TRB investigation and inquiry; the role of legal counsel representing the registrar or assisting the TRB at a hearing; the procedures used by the TRB at a hearing; the processes of examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses; the right of witnesses to have a support person attend; and the possible implications and use of statements or documents during the questioning of witnesses.

The committee further recommends that a formal information package, in writing, be distributed to potential witnesses in a TRB inquiry before they are called to give evidence. This package can then be used as an aid by the potential witnesses and elaborated upon orally by the TRB or by counsel representing the Registrar when proofing the witnesses.

The committee sees this information package as an important reference tool to be utilised by TRB witnesses, and it may decrease the level of future misunderstandings by witnesses regarding TRB inquiries and processes. However, I note that the TRB articulated to the committee on several occasions that witnesses are currently proofed by the TRB before attending an inquiry. Nonetheless, if the committee's recommendations assist in avoiding any future misunderstandings they are a worthwhile consideration for the minister.

In relation to TRB decisions being open and transparent to the public, the committee recommends the publishing of case summaries on the TRB website to occur as soon as its decision has been handed down in each case. It is important to note that since this inquiry into the TRB commenced the TRB has increased the information made available to the public on its website. Concise summaries of completed inquiries are published which give an overview of the issues involved in each case. However, the committee feels that the time frame for the publication of these summaries could be shortened and that the process could be conducted on a consistent and regular basis. This information will also aid in providing teachers with updated examples of behaviour that is deemed unprofessional by the TRB.

In expanding its openness and transparency, the committee also recommends that the TRB include in its annual report the number of warning letters issued to teachers in the previous financial year. The committee received evidence during this inquiry that witnesses before the TRB had been confused as to their actual role in TRB proceedings. The committee notes that, although an initial complaint may be lodged to the TRB by a parent, the formal complainant throughout an investigation and inquiry is the Registrar.

If the matter proceeds before the board through a formal hearing, the Registrar or the lawyer from the Crown representing the Registrar, acts as prosecutor and presents the case before the TRB. To make this clear, the committee recommends that the Teachers Registration and Standards Act be amended to include a section, entitled 'Parties', which clearly lists and defines a potential party to TRB proceedings. The committee notes the use of such definitions in legislation governing other boards and tribunals.

The Registrar of the TRB is also required to keep a register of teachers which includes specific information on the registration of each registered teacher in South Australia. However, the Registrar is only required to publicly disclose the following: registration information on the TRB website; the full name of each registered teacher and the expiry date of the teacher's registration; and the person's registration number.

The committee considers that parents and the public should have access to a TRB website that includes details listing if a registered teacher has had restrictions or conditions imposed on their registration. This accords with the recommendations and reviews made in the past in relation to the South Australian statutory health boards, including the former medical board of South Australia, which published on its website all practice limitations imposed on practitioners, excluding health conditions. The committee has, therefore, recommended that any restrictions or conditions that have been placed on a teacher's registration be listed against their name and publicly available on the TRB website.

As mentioned earlier, the current Teachers Registration and Standards Act has improved the reporting requirements of employers of teachers. However, a teacher's employer is only required to report to the TRB if they dismiss or accept the resignation of a teacher in response to allegations of unprofessional conduct and if they have reason to believe that the teacher's capacity to teach is seriously impaired by illness or disability.

The committee has recommended that the TRB and the Minister for Education consider addressing the issue of whether, in certain circumstances, the TRB should be directly notified of serious allegations—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Order! I am trying to listen to the member.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am glad somebody is listening.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The President has a conference going on up there, and I can't hear you.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am glad you are listening, the Hon. Rob Lucas. Perhaps I should start that sentence again. As I was saying, the committee has recommended that the TRB and Minister for Education consider addressing the issue of whether, in certain circumstances, the TRB should be directly notified of serious allegations made of unprofessional conduct against the teacher, even if the teacher has not been dismissed by an employer nor resigned.

The committee felt that in serious cases, such as those involving allegations of sexual abuse, it may be prudent for the TRB to be in a position earlier in the piece to decide whether an investigation and subsequent inquiry is warranted. If the TRB had the power to investigate allegations of serious misconduct at an earlier point in time, and not have to wait until the teacher has been dismissed or has resigned, it may lead to a speedier process for the victims involved.

As this recommendation necessitates review of a reasonable and consistent definition in order to define the serious unprofessional conduct allegations that the recommendation encompasses, the committee is of the view that the TRB and the minister are best placed to consider this issue. The committee received submissions in this inquiry arguing that the processes for qualifying for teacher registration have become outdated.

Submissions also suggested that the current teacher registration system does not recognise that other persons with suitable qualifications in other fields may be potentially valuable educators. The committee also heard that people with considerable skills, expertise and qualifications willing to take other pathways into teaching should be considered with an open mind. However, the committee did receive information from the TRB that it is currently possible for the TRB to grant a special authority to a person who is not registered to teach but who can teach, on the proviso that they comply with imposed conditions and restrictions.

The Department of Education and Children's Services (DECS) provided the committee with information on the Teach for Australia Program, which currently exists in Victoria and the ACT. This program allows for professionals or graduates from areas outside education to be designated a disadvantaged school in which to teach in their particular area of expertise. After two years of teaching experience, and after completing a postgraduate diploma in teaching, the person is granted full teacher registration.

The committee does not believe it is in the position of recommending a specific program to broaden the pathways into teacher qualification and registration, but it does recommend that the TRB should consult with DECS and the relevant universities on considering a program such as the Teach for Australia Program, which recognises a larger range of undergraduate study and professional qualifications.

The committee also received a number of submissions in this inquiry, which argued the way in which the TRB should be composed. In particular, the committee received opinions which called for the parent representation on the board to be increased. Currently, as is the case in other state teacher regulatory authorities, half of the 16-member board must be registered teachers. As part of the remaining board membership one member must be a parent of a school student, nominated by the minister to represent the community interest.

The committee heard that this parent representative has consistently been from the Catholic school sector. The committee recognises the need for parent representation on the TRB and is of the view that there should be two parent representatives—one from the government school sector and one from the non-government school sector. The committee sees this amended board composition as sufficiently representing the community interest.

The TRB composition also includes a requirement that there be a legal practitioner on the board nominated by the minister. The Presiding Member of the TRB must also be nominated by the minister. However, there is no formal specification as to the Presiding Member's professional qualifications. The committee heard that the TRB has consistently had a presiding member with legal qualifications, as they are called upon to offer legal advice to non-legal TRB members throughout TRB inquiries. The committee agrees that the Presiding Member should also be a legal practitioner and recommends that this specification be formalised in the Teachers Registration and Standards Act.

In conclusion, the committee is thankful for the opportunity to have inquired into and reported on the operations of the Teachers Registration Board. The committee sees the TRB as an important statutory authority which is given the crucial task of registering fit and proper persons to teach the students of our state. The committee is hopeful that the proposed recommendations, if implemented, will result in the TRB continuing to perform its statutory functions in an appropriate manner in order to successfully regulate the teaching profession in South Australia.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:16): I rise to speak only briefly this afternoon, and I will seek leave to conclude my remarks when the parliament sits next sometime in September, but I did want at the outset to make some brief remarks. I firstly thank the other members of the committee, as the chair has just done, and I also thank the staff for the work they have undertaken. In particular, I acknowledge the outstanding work of Lisa Baxter and the work she has done in drafting and crafting the committee's very many draft reports into the final report which has now been agreed by all members.

This afternoon I want to make brief comments about two issues; the first one relates to the peak parent body in South Australia, the South Australian Association of State School Organisations (SAASSO). Those readers of the report will see that there are some remarks and findings in the report that are critical of the performance of SAASSO and in particular its interaction with the Statutory Authorities Review Committee in relation to this inquiry.

I have had a long-term association with SAASSO dating back, I think, to the 1980s and 1990s when I was a shadow minister, firstly, and then a minister of education, and since that period my interaction with SAASSO as an organisation has been considerably less because I have not had direct responsibility for the education portfolio. I must say that in all my earlier experience in the eighties and nineties I had been mightily impressed by the capacity of SAASSO to represent parents within government schools.

They are not the only parent body representing parents in government schools. The South Australian Association of School Parents' Clubs (SAASPC) is another body that represents parents of children in government schools. However, SAASSO in my view has always been the peak body representing state school parents and, as I said, my relationship when I was a shadow minister and then a minister with the body has been that they have undertaken very good work on behalf of parents and their constituency during those periods.

I would have to say, and the committee has found accordingly, that I have been mightily disappointed—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like the opportunity to hear the Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —with the interaction of SAASSO with the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. Because I have had no ongoing association with SAASSO, I do not know what the nature of the problem was within the organisation. Personally, I can only surmise that there has either been a strong difference of opinion between the volunteer parents who run SAASSO and the staff appointed to work for SAASSO, or that there has been a difference of opinion between various groups within the parent body, volunteer parents, that is, one particular group against another particular group in terms of control of the organisation. I do not know, but clearly there was something amiss in relation to the governance issues within SAASSO.

As the committee has reported and I think the chair has referred to, the committee went to extraordinary lengths, having received a copy of a written submission, to try to get someone to come to the committee to answer questions in relation to the submission. My guess is that the executive officer would have drafted the bulk of the submission. I do not know that for a fact, but for whatever reason—and perhaps there was a difference of viewpoint between the paid staff and the newly elected volunteer parent members of SAASSO, or office holders of SAASSO—the executive officer was unable or unwilling, or both, or not allowed, to come to give evidence to the committee.

Then, when the newly elected parent reps came—and I have no criticism in particular of them—they were newly installed in the job and had not been involved with the drafting of the submission and therefore found it very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to answer the committee's questions in relation to the written submission which we had received some time earlier. For all those reasons, I express my disappointment. I still have confidence that the organisation can right itself in terms of looking at its governance and ensure that it continues to do the job that it should be doing, that is, representing the views of parents of students in government schools in South Australia.

I hope that those people involved with SAASSO will accept my comments in the spirit that they are given because, as I said, I have had experience with this organisation over a number of decades and I was disappointed at the interaction of this organisation and our committee on this particular occasion. Other members will speak for themselves, but I suspect that there were some other members who would have wanted to be much more critical of the issues that relate to SAASSO than perhaps the words that I have just put on the record at the moment.

The second issue I wanted to touch on briefly—and I will return to it when we further consider the report in September—is in relation to the parents of the school in Mount Gambier that was referred to in the original motion to establish this particular reference with the committee. Members will know that my original home is in Mount Gambier. Members will know that I still have family members in Mount Gambier, although my home is now in Adelaide.

I have to say that as a parent my heart went out to the parents and the families who have fought for many years now, since 2002, to achieve what they want to achieve, and that is, from their viewpoint, justice in terms of what they believe has occurred to their children. As a parent, I can understand the pain and the anguish that they felt back in 2002 and continue to feel, obviously, as they fight to have their case heard in the various fora available to them.

They were angry and disappointed at the TRB procedures and hearings in relation to this particular issue. I will address some comments about the committee recommendations in September, and the chair has also addressed some comment in relation to the committee's report. We hope that the recommendations of the committee will potentially make more transparent and understandable what are currently, in my view, complicated and difficult to understand processes that the TRB has been using.

I have to at the outset agree with the statement of the Chair. We indicated to various parties that made submissions to us individually and then as a committee that, as a committee, we had been charged with the responsibility of looking at the effectiveness and efficiency of the Teachers Registration Board. We were looking at the Teachers Registration Board as a whole. We were not there to re-hear individual cases, as the Chair has indicated. We were not there to re-hear the particular case in relation to Mount Gambier. We were there, as I said, to look at the overall issues in relation to the TRB and to be informed by the particular issues that related to the Mount Gambier school in order to make recommendations for the future in relation to the Teachers Registration Board .

I hope that parents will understand that that was a limitation on the committee and the members of the committee. Having heard the evidence of parents and having seen some of the evidence of the children—I am only speaking personally, because this is not part of the report, obviously—I am sympathetic to the concerns that they have expressed. As I said, I understand their anger and frustration over many years in terms of seeking answers to many of their questions.

It was not just issues in relation to allegations of sexual abuse that had to be considered in this case. Evidence in relation to what I would deem to be issues of competence of a teacher's performance are also canvassed and covered by the allegations that related to this particular teacher at the school. These allegations of a child being stood in a corner for much of the day to the degree where the young child soiled their pants because they were not allowed to go to the toilet were not ultimately tested at the Teachers Registration Board hearing. I think in the year 2002, when we are talking about young children, frankly, it is the sort of behaviour that should be deemed unacceptable by anybody who looks at these circumstances.

Clearly, there are difficult issues in relation to abuse of a sexual nature. I understand that it is a difficult issue in terms of being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt something as significant as an allegation of child sexual abuse. However, there are a whole range of other issues which, in my view, strike at the heart of a teacher's competence—a teacher's general performance—which I would like to address further when we come back in September and look at some of the evidence presented to the committee.

If I leave the parliament this afternoon with one damning statistic in relation to the performance of the Teachers Registration Board and the whole processes over a long period of time, it is that when asked the question as to how many teachers had been found guilty of either incompetence or gross incompetence, we were told that there had been two teachers. I think one in 1998 was guilty of gross incompetence and one in the last four or five years found guilty of incompetence (or vice versa).

When we have some 35,000 teachers in South Australia who are registered and we get a figure like that, on something as broad as competence, that only two teachers in 15 or 20 years have been found guilty of incompetence or gross incompetence, then I think there is potentially something wrong, if I can understate the case, with our processes and the operation of the Teachers Registration Board. I do not make a direct criticism necessarily of the TRB because it may well be that not too many allegations of incompetence are being brought to the Teachers Registration Board and maybe that is a part of the issue as well.

Whilst it is part of their purview in relation to the work that they do—that is, they can look at a teacher and make a finding of incompetence in terms of their performance—maybe not too many allegations are being brought before the Teachers Registration Board on that particular issue. Maybe some are going there and the Teachers Registration Board is finding against them. I am not sure what the correct response to that is. I think that is an issue, as we further explore this particular report and as the government responds and hopefully the TRB responds to the report, that they might like to further explore as well.

Perhaps it is not the best explanation but with regard to the more serious crimes that some of the most well-known and fearsome mobsters in the United States were accused of, in the end, some of them were done for tax returns and a range of other issues like that. Nevertheless, they were still offences and they still got done for those particular offences, but the various authorities were unable to get them on some of the more serious crimes for which they had been—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Like mass murder.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, mass murders, racketeering, a whole variety of things like that of which they had been accused for many years. The FBI and others had not managed to get them on that but, in the end, they had committed other offences for which they had been found guilty as well.

I want to flag that issue: when you get a series of allegations in relation to a teacher, some are obviously the most serious which are in relation to sexual abuse and clearly they have to be considered to see whether there is sufficient evidence. But if there is also a variety of other claims which strike at the heart, in my view, of the competence of a particular teacher in terms of their performance, I just find it unacceptable that any teacher could adopt a process where a young child could be forced to stand in a corner when they want to go to the toilet and be refused permission to go to the toilet and be left in a situation where they soil their pants and are left in that set of circumstances for the rest of that particular school day.

I am sure that all members in this chamber would not see that as being an acceptable practice in any school in South Australia or Australia. With that, I indicate that I will return to the issue when we next sit in September and I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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