HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-02-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Education and Children's Services Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November 2018.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:41): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Education and Children's Services Bill. This bill has been two governments in the making and is, in a generation or possibly two generations, the most extensive overhaul of the underpinning act that supports our education system in this state.

The Education and Children's Services Bill repeals and replaces the Education Act 1972 as well as the Children's Services Act 1985 and is purported to create a contemporary framework for the delivery of high-quality children's services and compulsory education in South Australia. While the previous acts that will be repealed by this particular bill, should it pass this parliament, have provided that framework for education and early childhood services for many decades, it is believed they no longer reflect the needs of our contemporary system. The Greens would argue, however, that some of the contents of this bill no longer reflect the needs of any contemporary system.

I note the words of the minister in the other place in introducing this bill and also the previous minister, minister Close, in their work to develop this bill. I concur with the current minister's words, that our children do deserve access to the best schools, preschools and children's services. Indeed, it is our duty to ensure that.

I note that there was a consultation process undertaken by the previous Weatherill government under minister Close and that that consultation process has largely been accepted by this government, with a few expected tweaks but some really disappointing omissions as well. It is very similar to the education bill that was introduced under the Weatherill government; however, there are some particular changes.

This bill does not include central controls that were proposed previously for governing councils and it removes the provision for the minister to direct, suspend or dissolve a governing council in disciplinary circumstances. The Greens welcome that. We would have opposed that under the Weatherill government and so we welcome the current government's changes to respect those governing councils in our schools. The majority of members on governing councils are parents or other persons responsible for those children and students at the schools. Allowing governing councils to access funds for independent legal advice, if they are in dispute with the department, which was a recommendation of the Debelle royal commission, is something that we welcome.

However, it also—and I think this is to be expected, seeing what has happened in the TAFE sector—removes what the Marshall government calls the exclusive right of the AEU to nominate members of relevant committees formed under the bill. I expect to hear the words 'union bosses' ad nauseam in the debate on this section. Certainly, we have heard it ad nauseam in this parliament so far under the Marshall government. Indeed, the Leader of the Government in this place seems to refer to union bosses many more times than he refers to anything to do within his portfolio of Treasury. I think I have previously remarked that he has used the word 'fiscal' a handful of times but the term 'union bosses' dozens of times. I am sure this debate will see no change in that behaviour, and indeed will reveal the true motivations in some parts of this particular piece of legislation.

Members of selection committees, under this proposal by the Marshall government, will now be appointed by the chief executive, and at least one member will be a person elected from the teaching service to represent them on such committees. Review committees for the purposes of closures and amalgamations will also need to include a staff member from each school to which the review relates, instead of, as is currently the practice, an Australian Education Union nominee—who is not a union boss, but I am sure they will be called a union boss—normally a very hardworking member of the education profession, I should imagine, with expertise related to the task at hand.

It retains the current situation with regard to religious or cultural activities in our public schools. Parents can have their children exempted from participation in these activities. I note that under the Weatherill government there was to be a change in the way those exemptions were gained. Now the opt-out approach will prevail under the Marshall government, whereas an opt-in approach would have been the change made from that consultation and that work that was done previously under the Weatherill government.

The Greens note that we have a preference for an opt-in system for religious instruction in our schools. We do not believe silence should be taken as consent. We do not believe you can prove consent, in fact, if you have not sought and gained that consent. Further than that, we question why religious instruction is taking place within curriculum time at all, regardless of whether it is opt in or opt out. We are not alone in these views. Many parents have contacted my office with regard to those views.

Time and time again we hear media, teachers, students themselves and parents complain that there is not enough time for the curriculum currently, so why on earth are we having a debate about an opt-in or an opt-out religious instruction system, when religious instruction should be confined to outside of school hours, outside of curriculum time. If people choose to do it and have that particular interaction and experience, surely it should not be taking up any curriculum time whatsoever.

The bill also increases the penalties for parents of children who are chronically absent from their school, as well as introducing other broad measures to deal with non-attendance, including family conferencing. It also includes a government audit of school truancy policies and increases the number of truancy officers by some 50 per cent. It does not include the provision previously that the Weatherill government intended for expiation notices for that non-attendance. I think that in itself is a small mercy.

Changes to the information sharing between government and non-government schools and preschools, as well as children's services and the department, are made under the bill. That includes amendments to the exceptions to prohibitions on the use and disclosure of personal information shared under the provisions with those in the government's information privacy principles instruction and information sharing guidelines. This also supports the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The bill was amended in the lower house so that the principles in the bill clarify that children and students should be involved in the promotion of their education and development, and that they should be consulted in respect of the decisions under the act that may affect them. The Greens welcome that particular amendment.

The Greens believe that this once-in-a-generation review of the underpinning acts of education and children's services in this state has one glaring omission; that is, that there is no education ombudsman within the bill, and there was no discussion publicly of the merits of such a position.

I note that in previous years, the member for Bragg, now the Attorney-General, has put a private members' bill to this place for such an education ombudsman. I am incredibly disappointed not to see the Marshall government and the new minister take this opportunity to ensure that we do actually have structures that will provide the best outcomes for all of our children. Indeed, I think it beggars belief that, in what is touted to be the biggest overhaul of education legislation in our state, consideration has not been given to an education ombudsman.

We do have an ombudsman in many areas of life, but not for education specifically. That is despite the fact that every South Australian, at some stage in their early lives, will spend more than a decade in the school system and despite the fact that the education system is the second-largest government employer. Unfortunately, there is currently no specialist independent person or body to specifically handle those complaints within the education system. In this matter, we are lagging behind other OECD countries, where best practice is that they do have such an education ombudsman. Indeed, approximately two-thirds of countries have such an ombudsman or such a specific agency to receive those complaints related, in this case, to public schools.

I think it is a very unsatisfactory situation at the moment where staff within the system, students within the system and particularly parents within the system often have little recourse for complaints other than to make those to facets of the education department itself, which then only investigates itself. This is not a situation that provides best outcomes. Again, I note the outcomes of the Debelle inquiry, where I think such a role would have seen no need for such a royal commission and no need for the awful circumstances and situation that that particular school community then found itself in and the appalling results that came from the previous arrangements.

Reports of problems in our education system are far too common. They range from teachers' complaints about the stresses placed on under-resourced staff to parents feeling pressured to vote for school closures to the epidemic of bullying, and it is really disappointing that this government has not taken this opportunity to ensure that we have an independent person or body to handle these particular complaints.

They come to the fore particularly, I would like to note, with regard to children with disabilities and their access to education. I refer members to the very important work initiated originally by the then Hon. Kelly Vincent on the select committee for access to education for children with disabilities. It found time and time again that our system is failing far too many children. It would not be a magic wand, but it certainly would go a very long way to fixing many of the problems before they become unsolvable and intractable.

The Greens' amendments would establish an independent education ombudsman within this particular act. That ombudsman would have the ability to investigate any matter concerning the provision of educational services by an educational service provider and any matter relating to school discipline where the matter occurred or relates to the conduct occurring before or after the commencement of the section to which it would amend. We also share the concerns, and I note the work currently, of the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People. I understand the current work of that particular commissioner is looking at endemic bullying, and I again draw members' attention to the report made by the commissioner on that particular matter.

I draw particular attention to something I believe would be very important work of an education ombudsman, and that is the way that suspensions, expulsions and exclusions are used in our current schooling system. It is reasonably common knowledge, and certainly the select committee that I referred to before draws this out, that far from simply being disciplinary measures, these processes are used to attract funding for a child in trouble. The system has set these children up to fail.

An education ombudsman is required to ensure that all of our students get a fair go, that all of our teaching staff, whether they be union bosses, union members or non-union employees, get a fair go and, indeed, that we have the best education system possible to serve our state. We know that education is vital and transformative in individuals' lives but also for our state, for our very wellbeing and further than that, of course, for our competitiveness and ability to really shine on a world stage when we are talking about the very intense global market that most Australians will find themselves in in terms of the workforce.

I note that support for an education ombudsman has previously come in the form of a private members' bill from the member for Bragg. It has also been brought before this place before by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. It is supported by people such as the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People and by the South Australian Association of State School Organisations. It is a significant missed opportunity in this particular bill.

I think we fail the next generation because we can almost guarantee that we will not be debating such a bill again any time in the next few years. If we miss this opportunity now to ensure that particular voice, that particular expertise that will give those supports within our school system that is not present and not established, then we will be back again with royal commissions and inquiries and yet again, as I think we all know, having the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top. That is the role that an education ombudsman could and should play and that is the role that should have been investigated as part of the due diligence of preparing this particular piece of legislation to come before this place.

We will, no doubt, be further debating the opt in aspects of religious instruction and the role of the Australian Education Union within our schooling system. It was stripped away by the then Marshall opposition under the previous government within the TAFE debate and we have just seen some of the mess that that particular corporatised TAFE situation led to with the governance of TAFE. Having strong voices of all persuasions, be they bosses or union bosses or students or parents or staff, is vital early on in any particular sector to ensure those voices are heard when the problem is not intractable and when the problems can easily be solved. Otherwise, we will be back yet again, seeing children failed by our school system and bullying not necessarily taken as seriously as it should.

We have established provisions in the bill to clamp down hard on truancy but there is very little work here to support those children who are bullied to within an inch of their lives or, indeed, who are bullied to take their own lives. What supports will be accessible to them when they face that situation where their families are facing quite punitive measures for that child being absent, potentially, from a place where they are tormented?

Finally, in the debate on the bill I think we will see, yet again, some more union bashing without understanding the true worth of having those union voices at the decision-making tables, of the role in industrial protection within a workforce, and we will be setting up a system where staff can be handpicked to be yes people for decision-makers within the department who already have quite a significant amount of power, and unfettered, and where they are largely put in charge of investigating themselves. That is not a situation that the Legislative Council should oversee and so we will be strenuously opposing those provisions of this particular piece of legislation put before us.

With those few words I look forward to the debate, I commend much of the bill and I echo my disappointment that it does not have an education ombudsman as a significant lost opportunity. I question why such attention is being given to instilling religious instruction and the ability for schools to have Christmas carols or not. I bemoan the quality of the debate under the previous government where the opposition was obsessed with whether or not Christmas carols could be sung in schools but was not obsessed with ensuring that we had good complaints structures, such as an education ombudsman, within this piece of legislation.

This bill should be about learning, not liturgy, and it should ensure that each child in our state gets the best possible opportunity. Our public system is not there for preaching to those children without their parents even knowing.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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