HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES (REGISTRATION AND STANDARDS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 October 2011.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:03): I rise to make some remarks on this particular piece of legislation which has had several years' gestation, and was one which I took a much closer interest in several years ago when I had the early childhood development portfolio prior to the last election.

Until now, the area of early childhood development has been governed by the Children's Services Act 1985 which regulates babysitting agencies, childcare centres, children's services centres (which are kindergartens, which have a particularly strong history in South Australia), not-for-profit childcare centres, family day care, preschool, and education for those aged six and under. The purpose of that act is to ensure the provision of preschool education, proper care and development of every child. The Children's Services office is responsible for the oversight, and also included in the regime is approved family day care and licensed family day care for no more than four children.

I had a briefing in May 2009 with the department and was advised, at that stage, that lots of changes were underway and that there were a lot of opportunities because commonwealth funding was being made available under a national partnership. There was also discussion of universal access for preschoolers, additional training and requirements for a specific number of hours per week, the national qualified standards framework, national accreditation, which was being driven by COAG, and something called the Early Years Learning Framework. This bill is a culmination of some of those changes, and it will also modernise some of the acts under which the regimes are currently regulated. So, the bill makes significant changes to governance and regulation of early childhood services.

I will talk about this more in detail later in my speech, but I think that it is a shame that the significant details have been released, through the federal government regulations, at the last minute and took place only very, very recently. As we know, with these things the devil is always in the detail. There was a discussion paper in 2008, a draft bill in 2009, and the COAG agenda has been underway through MCEETYA, which is the relevant ministerial council. What we have before us implements the national quality framework. It has broad support, with a few changes, which I intend to flag, to the legislation.

It is a new national system of provider approvals with a national body to oversee standards. It contains details about more concentrated child-to-staff ratios and qualification requirements for staff. The type of approach, in the legislative sense, is to adopt a national law, which is a matter which particularly concerns members on this side of the house and which my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade will comment on in his contribution.

There has been a lot of talk in relation to these changes about improving quality standards in child care and the importance of the early years to a child's learning and development, which nobody disputes. I hope that, in reaching this agenda, governments and regulators have not forgotten to appreciate what is good about what we already have in our system, particularly for those workers who may not have the qualifications but certainly are effective workers.

In that nexus, we can see that there are the early childhood educators, or early childhood teachers (ECTs), who have university degrees, and I understand that that is a fairly new qualification. They have a number of skills in determining what, for instance, constructive play may be beneficial for children at a certain age versus a number of existing workers who do not have formal qualifications but certainly have plenty of experience with small children and plenty of empathy. I believe that it is a shame that a number of those workers have not been grandfathered through those provisions.

Childhood SA, which has been very active since the regulations were released, has put it this way, and I quote from the letter to members of the Legislative Council:

The new laws and regulations will require a higher ratio of staff to children and the number of university and diploma qualified staff required in childcare centres. However, finding and retaining qualified staff is already a challenge and it is our understanding that the TAFE system will be unprepared for the influx of new enrolments that will be legally required from January. Childcare centres have been operating successfully, providing high quality outcomes for years at the existing staff ratios.

The staff ratio is something that will be changed. I think we differ from the government on the timing of those particular implementations.

The recent debate, which has been driven by the release of the regulations, has focused a lot on costs, and the question still remains: who will pay? I have heard both the state minister and the federal minister talk about an average of $8 a week, but that being an average, there will obviously be some who will pay a lot more and others who will pay less. I put on the record that the industry strongly disputes those figures, particularly with future wage increases and associated employee on-costs, such that it calculates that it is more like $13 to $22 a week, or a 15 to 20 per cent increase, and potentially up to $1,000 a year.

The industry argues that those who will be hit hardest are those whose children attend low-cost centres, many of which have children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The president of that particular association says that 20 per cent of his parents are single mothers. The Labor Party loves to use that title of 'working families', but working families are the ones who may be the most disadvantaged by this in that they are not able to afford to continue to pay. I note that the City of Playford service is being tendered out in anticipation.

The final regulations, as I mentioned, were released very late (in late October; a week ago), for implementation on 1 January of next year. Last week, centres realised how monumental the task to implement the changes was, so they have sought delays to the implementation date. I would also note, for the conventions of this Legislative Council, that a bill is supposed to sit on the Notice Paper for a full week. This particular bill was tabled on 19 October, which was the Wednesday of last sitting week, so that convention has been broken in relation to bringing this bill on.

Also, while I am going to have a crack at the Weatherill government's poor attitude to due process in this place, I would like to add, for the record, that I have not even been offered a briefing on this bill. However, given that I have some experience in the matter I have taken it upon myself, in the last couple of business days, to read about it quite extensively, which is why I am happy to proceed to the debate. No thanks to the government, thank you very much. The minister made the following comment in this place when he tabled the bill on 19 October:

...all stakeholders have been invited to provide advice relating to the matters which will fall within the scope of subordinate legislation...

That is, the regulations. He further states:

The regulations which will be made under the National Law are currently being finalised following extensive national consultations.

That was on 19 October, and this critical part of the regime, which the industry provided input to the government, was still finalising in the middle of last month. There have been multiple changes along the way and industry has been waiting with bated breath for the final version. I think it is fair to say that, metaphorically, it dropped its jaw last week when the regulations were released. If we bear in mind that it is not just the proprietors themselves who will need to understand the regulations come 1 January 2012, but all of their staff, including those who have not even been recruited yet. I will again quote from the Childcare SA letter to us of last week, which states:

The new regulations are to be implemented within weeks in January 2012 but there has been inadequate consultation. There is no indication that the Federal Government or the State Government will be providing additional funding for fee relief through the childcare rebate, the childcare benefit or any other form. There should be at least a delay on implementation to allow more time for us to adjust. If these changes are implemented immediately, many childcare centres will be under pressure to keep their doors open, only adding to already long waiting lists across the state.

I met with the industry on Friday and was informed that the first briefings offered on those regulations were as recent as 31 October, which was just a week ago. Given that penalties and sanctions will apply for noncompliance, I do not think that is acceptable. The sector also met with the minister on the same day and commitments were made by her, but I understand that those commitments are not to be dealt with through amendments to the legislation, but through the ministerial council. I indicate for the record that we will be seeking to embed some of those commitments into amendments to this piece of legislation.

The regulations in question are some 340 pages, and the relevant sections which industry is concerned about are part 4.4, which relates to the staffing arrangements, and part 7.6A, which are the South Australian-specific provisions. I will not read those into the record. I am sure that members will avail themselves of those if they wish to. There are three main principles that we are seeking to embed into this legislation. The first is that all of the key time lines relating to staff ratios and qualifications in the bill will be pushed back by two years, to commence from 1 January 2014.

The second issue relates to children aged from 24 to 36 months. I understand there was a commitment given by the minister that those would be further staggered and we will have amendments to that effect.

The final policy matter is that ratio requirements for qualified staff who are 'on floor' should not be affected when they are on tea and lunch breaks, such that, if one of the staff happens to be in the toilet or in the tearoom, they will continue to be able to be quoted for those ratios.

I advise that the Liberal Party has consulted with the Victorian government (the lead legislator), which has no objections to our amendments. We also have advice that Queensland has delayed a number of provisions and that other jurisdictions are looking to follow suit.

I have some questions to which I would appreciate replies, and I will now read them onto the record. Which universities in South Australia are offering the early childhood development degree? For how long has the course been running, and when was the first set of graduates? How many graduates complete the course each year and how many will be registered to work from 1 January 2012? The industry says that 3,500 early childhood teachers will be required statewide, although that may actually be all new staffing requirements across the sector. My question is: can the government confirm whether that number is correct and, if not, what is its calculation? Will the government provide greater access to public funding to all centres, not just its own but the independent Catholic and private sectors?

In the letter to MLCs—which I assume the government has; I am happy to give it mine, if it does not—industry says in relation to the 1 January 2012 implementation that:

No additional funding for fee relief has been offered through the childcare rebate, the childcare benefit or any other form.

Is this correct? Will the education department provide funding to pay for the new ECT requirement? If so, will all sectors—private/independent, Catholic and government—be included and, if not, why not? With those remarks, I indicate that we will support the bill.

I have some amendments, and I apologise that I have not been able to get them tabled as yet, but all of this took place very late in the piece. I think it would be beneficial if we did not proceed to committee stage until honourable members have had the opportunity to at least examine our amendments to consider whether they wish to support them or not. So, I look forward to the committee stage; hopefully, not today.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:17): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak in support of the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill. We welcome the moves to recognise the valuable role that education and childhood services for those youngest members of our community plays in Australia, and we look forward to a new, modern legislative framework for the registration and regulation of education and early childhood services in South Australia.

As was noted in the minister's second reading speech, these are, in fact, amendments to the Education Act and the Children's Services Act, 1972 and 1985 respectively, which are now 39 and 26 years old respectively. So, in terms of looking at my own life, our attitudes have certainly come a long way with regard to the standard of care and education services that my mother would have expected for me as opposed to what I expect for my daughter.

I have a daughter who is very much in the target group for the improvements that will be brought about as a result of this particular piece of legislation and this ongoing federal reform. I think it is essential that we prioritise early childhood education and care services not only in South Australia but obviously across Australia.

Certainly the Greens believe that education and early childhood care must be seen as part of a lifelong learning process. We believe that parents should be able to afford a high quality level of education and early childhood care and also to be engaged with the workforce. Caring and educating our children should not be used as something to fuel a profit-driven industry. We believe that you only need look at the situation with the ABC centres to see why childcare should, in fact, be treated as an essential service.

We further believe that we have to improve the quality of care that we are affording our young children, not only with highly qualified and well-paid staff but lower staff-to-child ratios. At present, the conditions for our childcare workers are poor. Workers are paid unacceptably low wages, and this must change. We must also have a better educated workforce. Of course, this will cost money and governments should be on notice that, if they are serious about better outcomes for us as a nation, we have to do something about the standard of our early childhood education.

UNICEF has assessed the standard of child care and early childhood education in Australia, and we are the third-last in the developed world for child care and early learning. That is not something to be proud of; that is something to take on board and work swiftly to move upwards from that unfortunate place on that ladder. UNICEF is a credible organisation and, if it ranks our childcare standards as the third-worst in the developed world, we should be taking this issue on board as a matter of urgency.

The Greens have worked in other states and at federal level to improve access to child care for parents and also to improve the stability of child care in the aftermath of the ABC Learning Centres' collapse. We place a high value on this stage of education and care for children and their families, and, while I commend the lowered ratios of 1:4 for children under the age of two, the Greens would like to see that being a 1:3 ratio. It is obviously an aspirational goal but it is certainly not one that is unattainable.

We would also like to see a commonwealth commissioner for children and young people. We believe that children are vital, obviously, to our future, but also to the here and now; and an investment in our children is something that we will recoup as a nation. We would like to see greater investment in our children through increased support for an educated and well-paid workforce in this sector. The Greens have moved at a federal level to ensure that the rebates afforded to parents are increased, and we would hope that measures would be taken to ensure that childcare workers themselves are afforded better pay.

The bill before us has been sometime in the consultation. As has been noted previously, the initial consultations began in 2008 and were followed up by a second round in October 2009. It was concerning to see this issue on the front pages of The Advertiser late last week, and I am particularly concerned by some of the words spoken by the member for Waite, not only in that paper last week but also in his second reading speech. He noted in the other place that he was:

...a little disappointed that there has not been more strident opposition to this measure from the industry itself.

He went on to note:

It is a divided industry in the sense that early childhood services are provided in some cases by state government-owned operations and even state government kindergartens that are funded wholly from within the education department budget. They are in some cases run by councils, by not-for-profit organisations, by church groups and by the private school sector.

In some cases—in fact, in many cases—they are run by the private sector, largely by mum and dad type operators who, as part of a family business, offer private child care and early childhood services to customers.

The member for Waite goes on to outline his own personal involvement, having run many childcare centres as his background. He certainly comes from the perspective of having been a private childcare operator.

I again point to the collapse of the ABC Learning Centres as an indication why as a state government we need to take care to ensure that we do not see such situations happen again, where hundreds, if not thousands, of families are thrown into turmoil. I certainly was one of those. We lost our place. The ABC centre at which I had my daughter did not believe that under two year olds were a profitable venture, so almost overnight—within a few weeks—I had no childcare place for my child, who was under two years, because she could not be made a profit out of.

That certainly threatened my connection to the labour market. I was lucky that I had a very supportive employer at the time who allowed me to use a combination of care options and certainly very flexible workplace practices to keep my job, but I was on the verge of having to quit that position as a result of the fact that the only place I had been able to find for my daughter at the time had been in a private childcare centre and that collapsed underneath us. The uncertainty, trauma and stress of that time, not to mention having your child shifted from pillar to post, should not be repeated. I hope that the place of the state in terms of ensuring that child care is accessible, affordable and available to those who need is paramount.

I also welcome the increased access we will be seeing in South Australia to kindergarten or preschool education, and certainly the new program is something I see as a welcome way forward and I commend the state government for its role in that. I go back to the words of the member for Waite, who warns that with these particular changes kids will go into backyard care. He warns that there is no child to staff ratio, no safety fences, no regulations and nothing governing the food, the air conditioning and safety of these children. He also certainly believes that, should the costs go up, more and more parents will find a range of ways to have their children cared for that certainly fall beyond the bounds of this system of child care or early childhood education, preschool and the like.

I put to the member for Waite that surely the priority then should be to ensure there are more affordable, accessible places. I am flummoxed by some of the claims about the amount by which childcare fees will apparently go up as a result of this particular legislation. I am not so far convinced of the figures that have been bandied about, although I am open to seeing evidence of these should that be available. However, so far I have not been convinced by the member for Waite's arguments on that.

The Greens have certainly seen that the role of early childhood education and services is something that will ensure that Australia's international and domestic obligations to our children are not only met but potentially exceeded, and we commend the government for its role in furthering how we view our children and the investment we make in our children. We look forward to the committee stage of this bill, and we are certainly eager to see what amendments may be put up by the opposition or other members. With those words, I indicate general support for the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:30): I rise to indicate Family First's position on this bill. I do so in the knowledge that the Hon. Ms Lensink has flagged a few amendments of which, of course, we have yet to see the final detail. She has given notice to us all that she intends to put forward those amendments, and I would say at the outset that Family First is certainly in principle in support of the amendments she is proposing. Obviously, that is subject to the detail of those amendments, but by and large the concept looks good to us.

I think the reason I raise that at the outset of my speech—normally of course you would address amendments in the middle or towards the end of your speech—is that, as the Hon. Ms Lensink rightly pointed out, we have had a very interesting development in terms of the process of this bill coming to us. The big issue, I think, is that we have only started to see some of the real detail of this bill in recent days and of course, as with all of this type of legislation—national legislation—the reality is that the detail, in terms of the specifics that compose the framework, will be the important part in determining how this bill works in practice. I think, as the Hon. Ms Lensink highlighted in her contribution, we have really only become aware of that in recent days, so it is very difficult to have a final position on this matter with that in mind.

The summary of all that is that we are largely supportive of this bill. It has received widespread agreement across the country and we do not see it any differently to that, but I do think the amendments that have been flagged by the Hon. Ms Lensink on behalf of the Liberal Party look favourable to Family First, at least in principle.

Obviously the bill aims to ensure the continued provision of excellent quality education services to children in this state by requiring registration of and regulations on all early childhood and education services in South Australia. There is nothing wrong with that. This bill replaces the myriad of regulatory schemes that currently operate and this legislative change would bring South Australia in line with the nationally consistent standards as agreed by COAG back in 2009, I understand.

Family First is supportive in principle of what the government wants to do. However, we do have some reservations and concerns about the effect of this bill on families and small businesses, in particular. Family First has two primary concerns with what has been proposed. The first concern is the effect that changing from the Non-Government Schools Registration Board of South Australia to the new regulatory authority will have on independent schools. Our current regulatory system is antiquated and it means that one service provider can be required to meet the regulations of more than one regulatory body. In some instances these regulatory bodies have competing interests and that, of course, can be the source of the problem.

In one sense, then, having one regulatory body reduces the chances of any company or private business having to manage the competing interests of two or more regulators. Having the one regulatory body would then likely provide a clear and obvious benchmark for the provision of education and childcare services within South Australia. Again, this precise standard would minimise red tape and compliance issues that business owners face when conducting their businesses. Family First is in support of this principle.

That being said, a concern that has been raised about the potential for the board to minimise or eradicate certain curriculum that is taught in some independent schools is a very real one, because it may not align with the beliefs of the board. We saw an example of that in recent times, about 12 or 18 months ago. The purpose of the non-government schools board, as I understand it, is to ensure that non-government schools, whether faith-based or not—and, of course, they largely are—hold high educational standards, cover agreed areas of teaching in the curriculum and have adequate financial structures. Presumably the regulatory board under this bill will have the same purpose.

My particular concern remains that any code of conduct that is created subsequently to this bill may in fact be based upon philosophical or ideological positions rather than policy-based regulations, which in turn could meant that independent schools could be precluded from teaching the curriculum which best suits their culture and beliefs.

I have been informed that the government has been working closely with the Association of Independent Schools on this issue and I thank the government for taking a proactive role in addressing this issue. I have had conversations with the now premier, the then education minister, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, about this specific issue. He gave me assurances that that would not be the case and, frankly, I am happy to accept that. Having said that, I did consult with the independent education sector, of course, and they, by and large, are comfortable—although, I must say, a little nervous—about what is being proposed.

Family First also recognises the measures that the government has taken to ensure that the appropriate educational bodies represented on the board meet the needs of specific subcategories within the education and childcare sectors and that they are adequately represented. On the face of it, this bill does not minimise or, indeed, eradicate the rights of independent schools to choose their curriculum. However, it would be remiss of me not to voice a concern on such a significant issue and to highlight that Family First will be watching how this actually works in practice and consulting with the independent sector very closely.

Having dealt with the first concern, our second concern relates to the increased cost both for those who run childcare centres and for families seeking the services of childcare centres. No doubt, all members of this chamber have been lobbied quite extensively by groups—parent groups, in particular, and, indeed, the organisations that run these centres themselves—who are concerned about the potential for substantial cost increases. This is a very real issue, and we have seen media discussion about it, as well as extensive lobbying of us as MPs on this issue.

The increase in child to carer ratio is a very challenging issue because it may very well produce a beneficial outcome of the improved education of our children (and this, of course, is something that we all would want). However, on the flip side of the argument, the increased cost of running the childcare centres cannot always be absorbed by the business alone which, ultimately, means that the increased costs will be funded by the end user, which is, of course, the parents of the children who attend the childcare centre as it may be. This increased cost is simply not sustainable in the current economic climate for many families.

Family First supports any increase in the health, welfare, safety and education of our children. However, certain questions need to be answered as to the impact of these changes on both the business owner and, indeed, the family; because the changes that are made may look like they are going to benefit the end user by changing the ratio but, in fact, they may work to their detriment because it may mean that families simply no longer use the service at all. So an improved ratio is a benefit potentially, but if it is done at such a cost that it means it precludes parents accessing the services for their children, then of course the benefit is lost. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that appropriate and sustainable changes are made which benefit the people who we all represent.

Many childcare providers have expressed their concern at the increased need for higher child to carer ratios. High quality outcomes have been produced for years within our current model. The member for Waite in the other place (who has many years' experience running childcare businesses and, for that reason, I think has a valid voice on this issue and one that I am certainly pleased to listen to) has also stated that our childcare system is already excellent and indicated that this change may be unnecessary. He is somebody who has direct experience in the industry and I think we should, at the very least, carefully consider those comments.

The hiring of extra staff to meet the increased child to carer ratio would always mean a greater cost for the end consumer. However, when you couple this increased ratio with a lack of qualified staff, it means that the private business owner will have to hire teachers on teachers' award rates. This is, of course, in addition to the requirement of a four-year university-trained early childhood teacher on staff. This is a further increased cost that many small businesses will struggle to meet.

The costs invariably will be passed on to those who are accessing the services which, in turn, places our focus as legislators upon the increased cost to the family. I am told that all members of the Legislative Council have received a petition signed by over 1,800 parents who access long-day childcare services. The parents are concerned (as, indeed, is Family First) that the increase in the costs of child care, which have been estimated to be an increase of up to 20 per cent per day per child, may, in fact, be too much for many families who are already struggling with the constantly increasing cost of living.

In a recent letter received by my office, an independent childcare provider quoted that their fees were $75 per day and a slightly discounted rate of $365 per five-day week. My understanding is that these figures are at the lower end of the scale of figures that we have been seeing with respect to child care in this state. Adding an additional 20 per cent with those fee costs then increased the cost to about $90 per day or, if the same discount applied, something like $438 per week. Should the family then have two children in child care the total childcare bill, under this model, would be around $876 for one week. The average South Australian family simply cannot afford this cost, obviously.

Despite the federal childcare benefit providing some relief to parents, there are still many hardworking South Australian parents who are means tested out of this benefit who simply cannot afford the increase to childcare cost that this bill would create. There has not been any indication that either the state or federal government will provide additional relief in this regard.

Numerous independent childcare businesses have contacted Family First, as I am sure they have other members in this place, voicing their concerns that many families will simply not be able to access child care at this increased cost, which will subsequently mean that a parent will have to quit their job, in some cases, in order to care for their children. That is a choice that a number of parents will not want to make for various reasons.

Alternatively, parents may opt to leave their children with their neighbours or in so-called backyard child care provided by, in most circumstances I would imagine, people without appropriate qualifications who, therefore, would not meet the stringent regulations placed on childcare centres. I should say that I am not against people who want to make those sorts of arrangements by any stretch, but the point I am trying to make here is that what is being proposed would substantially increase the cost for most parents and, therefore, make it difficult for a number of parents who probably already struggle to find the money to provide these services for their children on an ongoing basis. In short, we are making it more expensive for parents to access these services.

Mr President, I remind you that the purpose of this bill is to ensure the continued provision of excellent quality education services to children in this state and to provide a regulatory system for all childcare and educational facilities. Creating a system that would require parents to seek these so-called cheaper private or backyard operations as an alternative to paying higher costs that would be associated with child care as required by this bill I think defeats the purpose of the bill in the first place. It seems that, whilst the improvement of the children to staff ratio has been welcomed by many sectors, it may in fact place too great a burden on the people whom it was intended to benefit.

To reiterate, our position is that we are generally supportive of the concept or certainly the goals that this bill is trying to achieve; however, I think some very real questions need to be asked. I think all of us need to pay attention to the very substantial lobbying that we have received on this issue from the community. There is genuine concern out there by literally thousands of people. We have all received a petition of at least 1,800 signatures from people who are concerned about the cost of this. I think the goals are admirable but it may be that the cost could be a very limiting factor for many people.

Just to reiterate, I said at the outset that we are favourable to the amendments that have been flagged by the Hon. Ms Lensink. Obviously, we have yet to see the detail of them but, in principle, we are supportive of them. We also agree that because the convention of not having a full week for this bill to be on the table has not been followed on this occasion (and there may well be good reasons for that; I am not sure) I think the Hon. Ms Lensink was also right in that it would not be suitable to proceed to committee today.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:43): I rise to speak briefly on the Education and Early Childhood Services (Registration and Standards) Bill 2011. The bill seeks to amend the Education Act 1972 and the Children's Services Act 1985 to establish a national legislative framework for the registration and regulation of all education and early childhood services.

Nationally consistent standards were agreed by COAG in December 2009 and articulated in the National Partnership Agreement on the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care (National Partnership Agreement). The agreement seeks to promote quality education and care in long day care, family day care, preschool and out of school care services.

What has motivated me to contribute to this second reading debate is the fact that this is another example, as introduced in the House of Assembly, of a bill which proposed national law. When introduced in the other place the national law, as it applied in South Australia, was to be applying a law of the Parliament of Victoria. The Legislative Council of the 52nd parliament has commendably adopted a high level of scrutiny in relation to national law proposals. Some of the concerns that have motivated this council have been issues such as the state-federal balance: does the bill, for example, involve an inappropriate abdication of state legislative or administrative power?

We have also been concerned about executive-parliament balance: does the bill involve an inappropriate involvement in the legislative process by the executive, particularly in subsequent modification of the legislation? The executive, in that instance, might be the federal executive; it might be the state executive; it might be ministerial councils; or it may be some committee of advisors. In terms of executive-parliament balance, we also need to be mindful of how regulations are handled by the bill and also how subsequent reviews are taken.

Another issue that has concerned this council has been citizens' access to the law. If a South Australian has to look at a Victorian act to know what the law in South Australia is, it makes it more difficult for people to access the law.

This council, certainly the opposition, appreciates and respects the dynamic nature of government structures in Australia. The increased use of interjurisdictional legislation partly reflects the growing sophistication of intergovernmental cooperation within the Australian federation. However, it also has gone hand in glove with a long-term expansion of commonwealth power, through judicial decisions and a shift in the fiscal balance towards the commonwealth. I certainly believe that it is important for local, state and federal governments and parliaments to respect the appropriate balance in the federation.

Turning to this particular bill and the assessment of the opposition, the national law in relation to this scheme should not be a law by reference to a law of another parliament. The shadow minister for education, the member for Unley in another place, David Pisoni, moved for the national law to be housed as a schedule to the South Australian act, able to be updated by a disallowable regulation. This was the strategy this council proposed in relation to the health practitioner legislation, and the government implicitly endorsed that model by supporting the amendment in the other place. I commend the government for accepting this amendment and ensuring that this parliament maintains an appropriate oversight of the national law.

I also commend the council, because I believe that it is only through our consistent demands for good legislative practice that the government is proving itself to be more open to a rational, balanced approach to legislation. I believe that it is very important that this council does not cave in in the face of executive stubbornness. I have found it usually the case that this council does not disagree with government bills lightly. To get a coalition of support to oppose a government bill requires careful thought. Usually, the executive insisting on a bill reflects executive stubbornness rather than council obstinacy; after all, we are merely doing our job.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.

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