HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Office for Early Childhood Development Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2024.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:13): I rise today on behalf of the Liberal opposition to speak to the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. This bill seeks to establish in legislation an Office for Early Childhood Development to act as an overarching body for South Australia's early childhood sector. The establishment of such an office was a recommendation of the Gillard Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care and I think it is important to note that the office already exists. It was established under the powers of the Public Sector Act over the last year as a government department with Kim Little as its chief executive.

This bill would establish the office in legislation, meaning that it would require a new act of parliament to amend the duties of the office. It seems that the key reasons for legislating the Office for Early Childhood Development is to ensure that the Labor government's election promise to deliver three-year-old preschool will be enshrined in legislation. The bill will also provide additional powers through the office which it would not otherwise have as a regular government department, namely information-gathering powers, which I will discuss in further detail shortly.

The early childhood education sector in South Australia is very difficult to coordinate, with both government and non-government institutions, including community and not-for-profit institutions, small businesses and massive national companies. There is certainly merit in having a government unit to provide a certain level of policy leadership for the sector and to help address the challenges facing the sector.

There are well-documented workforce shortages across the sector, there are infrastructure challenges and there are childcare blackspots in South Australia where it is difficult to find long daycare services. It is very concerning that the number of children entering preschool with at least one level of vulnerability on the Early Development Census has been growing in South Australia, when in other states it has been diminishing. Recommendation 1 of the Gillard royal commission was informed by this data and set out a target to reduce early childhood vulnerability to 15 per cent. I understand that it is currently sitting at around 22 per cent.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the fantastic work done by the former Marshall Liberal government, led by the former Minister for Education, the Hon. John Gardner, member for Morialta, to address this challenge and get better outcomes for our young children. The first three years of children's lives, the first thousand days, are a time of rapid development and potential vulnerability.

Positive interventions to address vulnerabilities during this stage, whether through the early diagnosis and treatment of a challenging condition or even just the social opportunities created by playgroups, for example, can improve a child's short and long-term prospects. In 2021, the Marshall Liberal government announced a $50 million package to better support parents and children in these early years.

One of the key measures in this package was the provision of $16 million a year to expand the reach, frequency and number of free child development checks available for preschool-aged children. Those development checks are incredibly important as they enable early diagnosis of serious conditions and can also be a reference point where families can be pointed toward services that can remediate or help reduce the risk of vulnerability.

I would also like to point out that other initiatives, including the early childhood app and what has now become the Words Grow Minds campaign, along with investment into playgroups and grants for councils to make more child-friendly spaces, were all developed under the former Liberal government. I am very pleased that these bodies of work have been continued by the Labor government as they greatly support parents and the important work they do supporting their child's development.

This bill sets out the functions of the Office for Early Childhood Development. It has a long list of functions, including to promote universal access to three and four-year-old preschool, developing and implementing funding models, and connecting preschool providers to the broader early childhood development system.

As a result of the functions of this bill, it establishes the legislated responsibility for the government to deliver three-year-old preschool. I note the fact that the government will of course not be delivering on that promise because they do not have the workforce and they have set out a new delayed timeline of 2032, about eight years from now. Notably, there are no enforcement provisions in this bill if they do not deliver on this requirement.

Much of what this bill seeks to achieve builds on the work begun by the former Liberal government and is indeed already happening. This bill is specifically about creating a legislated office rather than the office just doing the work as it currently stands without the need for legislation. Returning to the information gathering powers set out in clause of 11 of the bill, I wish to reiterate the concerns that were raised by the shadow minister for education, the Hon. John Gardner, in the other place.

Clause 11 sets out that the chief executive can require and seek information from a specified entity which can basically be anyone who is relevant to the early childhood services sector, anyone who is relevant to the functions of this act. That information can be on really any matter that can be related to the functions of the act.

The entity must provide information within the period specified by the chief executive. That is quite a significant power. An entity who refuses or fails to comply with such a notice is guilty of a new offence, with a $5,000 penalty. There are probably 2,000 stakeholder organisations in South Australia affected by this legislation, largely long daycare services, preschools and out of school hours care services and some significant umbrella-group stakeholders as well.

While these organisations already operate in a heavily regulated environment and already have certain information provision requirements in order to receive government funding, the opposition is concerned about the impact such powers may have, particularly on smaller entities, which may struggle with the burden of compliance. The shadow minister has questioned if such a power and the $5,000 penalty for failing to comply is necessary.

The Liberal opposition is concerned that a family daycarer operating as a sole trader in effect, or a small business or community not-for-profit institution could find itself with a notice from the chief executive seeking information and have the threat of a $5,000 fine hanging over their head if they do not comply. I note that the shadow minister has undertaken further consultation on this legislation between the houses.

While there seems to be broad positive feedback about the existence of the Office for Early Childhood Development, some stakeholders did raise concerns about the potential for misuse of the information gathering power set out in clause 11. The Association of Independent Schools highlighted that schools and early childhood centres already have significant responsibilities for compliance reporting and that applying heavy penalties may not be conducive to increased compliance if an entity's capacity to comply is hampered by matters outside their control or due to under-resourcing.

Such information may be useful for the office, and these powers may be very convenient; however, it is the opposition's view that they are not necessary and may have unintended impacts and potential for misuse. There is certainly an important role for government to play in improving early childhood development outcomes, including through support or coordination with non-government providers.

A number of functions of this bill are welcome developments, many of which started under the former government, and we are of course very pleased to see them continue and we will support them. While the opposition is not convinced that it is necessary to legislate this office and provide additional powers above those granted to regular government departments, we acknowledge that there is broad stakeholder support for the Office for Early Childhood Development and for the bill.

However, as I have outlined, we have concerns regarding information gathering powers. I indicate that we will be opposing clause 11 at the committee stage, and I foreshadow that I have a number of questions to ask the minister during the committee stage. With those remarks, I conclude my second reading contribution.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (12:23): I rise to speak in support of the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024 very briefly. We know the substance of the bill before us but I think it is particularly important, given what has just occurred in this place today, and indeed, yesterday, to point out not only that the bill enshrines the key recommendations of the Gillard royal commission into legislation when it comes to early childhood education and care—and we know that by enshrining that in legislation it elevates the importance of this framework—but to commend the Minister for Education and his team for heeding the advice and input of the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People, Ms April Lawrie, in particular.

From the briefing I had, it was made clear to me that her input into the final bill was hugely important. It was described as the single biggest impactful feedback that was received and resulted in really good and positive changes to this piece of legislation. Those changes were, as I understand, also supported by SACOSS and others.

I make that point because we have just had another piece of legislation debated, which I will not refer to specifically, where we argued for exactly the same thing. In fact, yesterday, when we had the inaugural speech of the presiding member of the First Nations Voice, he specifically referred to the consultation and work that had been done on this particular piece of legislation. What that demonstrates, and what I am hoping the government hears, is the good work that can be done and can come from the sort of input that we have previously asked for.

I will not harp on about it, but I would like to once again extend my thanks to the Minister for Education and his team for taking on board the concerns around the bill and making what probably was a good bill much better and much more reflective of the sorts of issues that ought to be encapsulated within the provisions of the bill, particularly as they relate to Aboriginal children. With those words, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (12:26): I rise briefly to support the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill and support the government's significant commitment to giving every child the best possible start in life through the bill. The government's pledge to provide universal access to teacher-led preschool for three year olds is a bold vision for the future and provides our state with a unique opportunity to improve developmental outcomes for all children, especially our most vulnerable.

This historic $1.9 billion investment is primarily in response to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care. The opportunity to build a brighter and better future for generations of South Australian children has received widespread support and I share this commitment to invest as much as we can in the transformative potential of quality early childhood education.

Nevertheless, it remains a sizable investment and we all have a responsibility to ensure this will be money well spent and this will require well-planned frameworks for implementation combined with appropriate levels of transparency and accountability so we can all be confident that our children are receiving the care and support they need to achieve their full potential and contribute to their communities.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (12:27): I rise to speak in favour of the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill and in so doing I want to acknowledge the work and leadership of the minister, the Hon. Blair Boyer, and his team in getting this happening. I know the minister to be somebody who is very passionate about early childhood education, and I think that is demonstrated through this bill.

I also note, as other members have, that this legislation is also being matched by a $1.9 billion investment in the budget to commence the staged rollout for preschool for three year olds and other key reforms in the early childhood sector across the state and they will commence in 2026. We really welcome that in the Greens. I think that is something that will have a transformative effect on our state and so again I do recognise the government's leadership in that regard.

We know early childhood education and care is vital for children's development and for South Australian young children to have the best chance to be their best selves as they grow into adulthood. It is vital this support is provided to women and families.

Part of this bill is the establishment of the Office for Early Childhood Development. It is great that progress has already been made in this regard. The goal of the office, I understand, is to reduce the number of South Australian children who are developmentally vulnerable—and it is a goal that the Greens support—from 1.8 per cent above the national average to seven points below. What is critical here is the acknowledgement of the role of government in ensuring that children in SA are provided with access to positive learning environments and the supports they need from a young age. There is lots that the state government can do, and this is a start.

The functions of the office are indeed appropriate. It has the task of aligning children's needs with support and service, which is something that is obviously very important. It also has the task of promoting inclusion within the early childhood development system for children with disability and children in care. Again, these are things that should be key priorities. It also makes sense, from the Greens' perspective, that the office has responsibility for the overall strategic direction of government early childhood development services, and I understand that is to be the case.

The Greens welcome the fact that a chief function of the new office will be to promote access to preschool for all three year olds and four year olds. As early childhood expert Loris Malaguzzi once said:

The wider the range of possibilities we offer children, the more intense will be their motivations and the richer their experiences.

Early childhood education and care should be universally available and accessible and it should be free. It should be high quality and it should be culturally appropriate. This has been the long-term policy position of the Greens. We also strongly support the principle that early childhood education and care should be government funded and provided by accredited community organisations and not-for-profit providers.

We are pleased to see within this bill some recognition of the unique needs of First Nations children. We welcome the fact that the functions of the office will include upholding the principles of Aboriginal self-determination and safeguarding the cultural identity of First Nations children. First Nations communities are, of course, best equipped to understand how best to make early childhood education and care culturally responsive and to break with Australia's history of cultural assimilation.

We also welcome the fact that the First Nations Voice, we understand, has had input into this bill. I certainly echo the sentiments the Hon. Connie Bonaros made earlier when she reflected on the significance of the speech that we heard in this chamber yesterday. Indeed, the speech was one of the great, powerful and uplifting moments in this parliament, and it was a speech that I think will echo through the ages in terms of its significance. It is really encouraging to see, already, the government working with the Voice to seek their input on important proposals such as this.

One of the suggestions by the Voice is that all committees established under the act by the office or by the minister have a First Nations representative. I think that is a really good suggestion and certainly one that we hope the government takes up. We are optimistic about the changes that will be legislated in this bill. We commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (12:32): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Office for Early Childhood Development Bill 2024. It should come as no surprise to this chamber that I am speaking to this bill, as I have worked in the early childhood and care sector for over 14 years. I have spent most of my career advocating for educators, children and families within my union, the United Workers Union.

I had the privilege of being part of so many children's early years journey from the age of six months to five years. I have watched children flourish in an environment that supports their learning, their autonomy and self-help skills and their literacy and numeracy, from learning to feed themselves to writing their names and getting ready for school skills. It all matters. I am a firm believer in the importance of the early years as a foundation to later life success.

Children are confident and involved learners; they are natural scientists who investigate the world in their own unique ways. Educators are expected to nurture and provide resources for children's autonomous learning. I have fond memories of our science experiments, with one of the children's favourites being the baking soda and vinegar volcano experience in the sandpit. At this young age, everything is an opportunity to try out new skills, an opportunity to fail and to succeed and an opportunity to learn through trial and error. Every new experience creates neural pathways in their mind and expands their world.

Yet, despite all we know about the importance of the early years, the data from the 2021 Australian Early Development Census indicates that one in five Australian children start school developmentally vulnerable. This rises to two in five for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, and I am not surprised because over the years I have also watched disadvantaged children struggle through the system. I have watched their cries for help that come in the form of challenging behaviour or lack of participation. I have seen parents struggle to navigate a system that is meant to offer them support for their children in the most critical years of their life.

We know that in a supportive, active learning environment children who are confident and involved learners are increasingly able to take responsibility for their own learning, personal regulation and contribution to the social environment. Improving outcomes for South Australian children requires an holistic approach across the entire early childhood development system. That is why this bill is so important.

The bill establishes the Office for Early Childhood Development and grants them the legislative authority to oversee that holistic approach and provide support, assistance and a venue for collaboration. The first task of this new office will be to work collaboratively to mobilise long day care, early learning centres and government services in every community to deliver a universal three-year-old preschool.

Universal three-year-old preschool was one of the key recommendations from the Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care. There are also a number of supporting recommendations that discuss the implementation models of universal three-year-old preschool that have been adopted by this government. The three-year-old preschool will be rolled out progressively from 2026, with a focus on regional and remote communities. Access to preschool in these communities will not only support children's development but will also support workforce participation and improve economic outcomes in the regions.

Long day care centres across the state that already meet the quality requirements and are ready to roll out programs will also begin delivering three-year-old preschool from 2026. Long day care centres are where I have spent most of my career in the sector, and I know that we have some incredible private and community centres that will be ready for the task in 2026. Naturally, these reforms will require us to expand and invest in the early childhood education and care workforce. We need to see this workforce recognised for what they are: dedicated and talented professionals. This is a skilled workforce that is equipped with creating programs to support and develop each child's unique learning.

Because children's learning is dynamic and complex, it requires an exceptionally passionate and professional workforce. An investment of $96 million in early childhood education and care workforce initiatives will support attraction, qualification pathways, retention and quality. In addition to universal three-year-old preschool, the government will provide additional supports for particularly vulnerable children with integrated hubs and additional preschool hours being made available to children who need them the most.

This bill includes functions to promote the participation of children with disability and children in care in the early childhood development system. The impact of early intervention on a child's development outcomes can be massive, and this is a crucial time for parents to make connections to supports and services that can help them and their child.

Early learning centres often play a role in facilitating these connections. The bill also includes functions for the office to support research in the early childhood development space and to support and facilitate the sharing of data across the system. Additionally, this bill includes specific additional functions for the Office for Early Childhood Development in respect of First Nations children. Shared decision-making and co-design with First Nations leadership and community will better support children and their families and unlock the full benefits of preschool programs.

The bill was one of the first to be considered by the state's First Nations Voice. The Voice engaged with the government on the bill and provided suggestions for amendments to address matters of interest to First Nations people. The Minister for Education, Training and Skills, the Hon. Blair Boyer MP, and the Chief Executive of the Office for Early Childhood Development, Kim Little, met with members to listen and engage with their feedback. As a result of this engagement, a number of amendments to terminology were made to strengthen language and better resonate with First Nations communities. Further, clause 8 was amended to include the requirement that committees established by the minister or chief executive must include at least one Aboriginal person as a member.

The first five years of life are fundamental for children's health and positive development, as more than 90 per cent of the brain's development occurs during this time. These days will impact the rest of their lives. I am truly excited for the future of early childhood education in this state. I am excited to see this bill pass, and I am excited to see the next generation of educators discover the joys of this profession. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (12:39): I thank members for their contribution, and particularly the last speaker who brought her life experience to bear on what we are discussing. It is always informative when we have members in here who, for a range of reasons, are able to bring what they have dedicated their life to previous to coming here, and are making the decisions that we make in here better. I thank honourable members and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I have already outlined in my second reading speech why the Liberal opposition wants to oppose the clause. We do not feel that it is necessary and is a bit of an overreach. I will not go through that explanation again but I have a few questions to ask the minister. Because there is significant power given to the chief executive in clause 11, can the minister explain what measures will the government put in place to ensure that there is no potential misuse of power in terms of information gathering and that smaller entities will not be disadvantaged?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Very regularly, in fact every day there are many public sector officials who handle information that is delicate and sensitive in nature. There are public sector codes of ethics and there are information and privacy principles that apply to the public sector, not just for this but in a whole range of areas.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Who were the stakeholders that the government consulted to have the clause included, and is there a list of organisations that the minister can provide? What feedback has been received? Did any of those organisations or people consulted demonstrate any concerns about this clause and, if so, can the minister outline those concerns?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that there were a range of stakeholders consulted, and as a result of that consultation changes were made to the draft bill. For example, I am advised that the Guardian for Children and Young People submitted that the power to require information in the bill should not apply to independent statutory officers such as the guardian that were not normally subject to direction by the Crown. In that example, in response to those comments the bill was amended to remove that particular office.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have a question for the Attorney and a question for the mover. Just on from what the Attorney has said and to be clear for the record, in its original form there were some issues raised around these particular provisions by stakeholders or bodies or associated entities. Those issues were addressed to the satisfaction of the concerns that had been raised in the main, and this is the result of having gone back with an amended form of provisions that addressed the concerns that were raised?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised in relation to the example I gave that that was an example of concerns being raised and that provision being changed, and, I am advised in that example, to the satisfaction of the statutory officer who had raised the concerns.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: My question to the mover, then is: who did the opposition consult with in terms of the changes? Did they go back and seek any feedback about whether there had already been changes made to their satisfaction, or is this just a Liberal position that, 'We think this is overreach'?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: If I can ask for your gracious patience, a range of questions I am about to ask the minister might address some of the questions you have; it will come out in terms of consultation and why, if that is okay. For example, out of the 2,000 stakeholders and organisations that are captured within this legislation, one of them being the Association of Independent Schools, which represents its membership, I need to ask the question back to the minister as to whether that organisation has been consulted, if that is okay, honourable member.

My question is: out of the range of organisations that the government has consulted, does that include the Association of Independent Schools, and have they provided any concerns?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, yes, the Association of Independent Schools was consulted in relation to this particular clause. I am advised that they raised no concerns.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Clause 11, subclauses (1) and (2), refer to any entities and any matters where the government can issue a notice to ask an organisation to provide information. Can the minister provide any examples that you foresee where such information would be summoned or such an entity would be asked to provide such information? Are there any examples?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Probably the prime example, I am advised, is providing information about enrolment details to ensure there is no duplication.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In clause 11, subclauses (3) and (4), there is a time period for an entity to respond. Can the minister provide any example in terms of what is deemed reasonable? What type of time period are we talking about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that it would depend on the scope of the information required. Obviously, if it is detailed information, what would be reasonable would likely be longer. If it is very simple information it would probably be shorter. The test of reasonableness is one that is extraordinarily well-known legislatively and legally, and that is exactly why you use phrases like that depending on the scope of the information that is being asked for.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: In clause 11(4), if an entity refuses or fails to comply with a notice there is a maximum penalty of $5,000. What will be the process undertaken to determine this penalty, and what measures, in terms of procedural fairness, will be provided to safeguard the private sector or a non-government entity from being disadvantaged?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I really do not understand the question about the non-government sector being disadvantaged. I am advised this applies equally to government and non-government sectors, and where we as a parliament deem something ought to be complied with. That is not just saying something should happen, but actually providing that incentive and mechanism for enforcement for it to happen as we are doing in this bill, as we do pretty much every day of the sitting week in bills before us. It would be up to a prosecuting authority to investigate, and to apply and to have that penalty apply.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Sorry to interrupt this line of questioning, but I actually had a question for the Hon. Jing Lee around the amendment that arises from this exchange. I think in the honourable member's reply to the Hon. Connie Bonaros, she seemed to suggest that the independent schools association had been advocating for this change, but she put that proposition to the Attorney and he indicated that that is not what the independent schools association had said to the government. Is this something that the independent schools association have put to the Liberal Party that they want? I just do not understand where this is coming from as a proposition.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: You will see further that the Hon. John Gardner, the shadow minister, has consulted with some private sector small businesses and sole traders. They are concerned that there is a bit of overreach, and I will come to it in my next question, if I am permitted. If you look at the provision of 11(4) and then 11(5), the bill seems to offer more provisions for a state authority compared to an entity, a private entity in the non-government sector, than for refusal to apply it.

If you look at 11(5), a state authority, for example, if they refuse or fail to comply with a notice under the subsection, 'the Chief Executive may, after consultation with the State authority', so they are providing consultation to the state authority to actually get information about whether to comply with this particular section or not, and then it also provides for the state authority to report the refusal or failure to the minister or responsible minister for the state authority, including the details of failure, so there is a provision. There seems to be more provision given to a state authority than a non-government and private sector entity. I just want some clarification on that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the question, and it is probably a good question to ask. I am probably in quite a good position to be able to answer that. As a general principle within the state government, legal proceedings are not instituted against different parts of the state government. There are a whole range of procedures that apply for mediation, discussion, so that you are not litigating one part of state government against another, and as Attorney-General I am well aware of how this happens in a whole range of areas.

Given that as a general principle it is a very unusual thing for litigation to occur between different parts of state government, it would not be at all unusual for different parts of the state to have processes to organise for things to be sorted out before litigation occurs, but there are no such arrangements in place that I am aware of between private entities and the state government.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Clause 11(6) provides, 'the Minister may, by notice in writing, exempt an entity from the operation'. I know this is a hypothetical question but is there an example you can think of where you can get an exemption?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, but it is a fail-safe in case a situation arose. While I am on my feet, just a couple of questions to the mover, if I may, in relation to this amendment. Very broadly, what benefit does the mover think this will bring to the scheme if this clause is taken out? How will that benefit what this is aimed at—the development of children?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: I indicated the Liberal opposition is supporting this bill. I never said that it does not. With this particular clause, we feel that it gives significant power to the chief executive of the office. Such power then will summon small and very small entities such as those in the private sector to comply when the sector itself is already full of accountability and compliance they have to go through, so this particular clause is really to question the government as to whether this is necessary. Now that I have asked the questions, and the minister has given the answers, I am satisfied that this clause is necessary based on the answers provided today, but we just needed to have those clarifications.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear, is the honourable member withdrawing her amendment to strike this out?

The CHAIR: Attorney, it is not an amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Is the honourable member now informing the chamber that the Liberal opposition will be supporting this clause?

The Hon. J.S. LEE: My understanding is that it is not an amendment as such. The reason that I had to move that this be deleted is based on the reasons and explanations I have given. With the questions that I have asked and the satisfactory answers that I have been given so far, I have made the determination that we are satisfied with the clause being part of the bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I might just comment. It is concerning, and I appreciate the honourable member has now changed the Liberal Party's policy and position on this over the last two or three minutes. It is everyone's entitlement to do so and I appreciate that; however, the last answer the honourable member gave in relation to what benefit will this provide to children, I think, was instructive.

As I understood the honourable member, there is no advantage to children and could even be a detriment to children but this is what some small operators had told the Liberal Party they wanted to do. I just think it is extraordinary that the Liberal opposition would not just think, but admit in the chamber, that something may be of no benefit, even detrimental to children, for the very scheme that we are trying to put in place here because there has been, as I understood the representation, a small business owner who does not want to provide information. I just think that is extraordinary.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think we have understood clearly what the Attorney has said in response to these questions. Effectively, you have no other recourse in relation to those entities. There is, of course, lots of recourse available if you are a state authority for the government to deal with in the way that they do, and we know that they do.

My problem fundamentally, though, on the issue that the Attorney has just raised, with detracting from the purpose of the bill, is I think we do need some clarity because when we come to these sorts of clauses they are still drafted as an amendment, and the opposition is expecting the crossbench to make a decision as to whether to support the opposition to a clause or support the government position.

Two questions remain unanswered to my satisfaction. Firstly, who asked for the changes? Secondly, is the mover no longer proceeding with that so we can inform them ourselves whether we are going to support the opposition's position or the government's position? I think we have made up our minds but I think it needs to be clear for the record.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One further thing that I think is worthy of putting on record in relation to this is there is a very similar provision in the Education and Children's Services Act, clause 13, that allows for the requirement of information being provided very similar to what is happening here. What the opposition, I think, had proposed, but may not be proposing now—it is not entirely clear to us—means that in effect the information that could be required to provide better services is not as important for younger children as it is for older children. Again, I think that is an extraordinary position to take.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I may be able to assist here by indicating that the Greens will not be supporting the amendment, on the basis of what I have heard, in which case it might be a moot point and we may be able to spare further time being focused on this. I make no criticism of the Hon. Jing Lee because she is not the portfolio holder for the Liberal Party on this, it is the Hon. John Gardner in the other place. However, I am a bit perplexed by the position of the Liberal Party on this issue.

It seems to me quite reasonable to say that, if you are going to be getting access to large amounts of government funding, then of course you are going to have to meet some compliance requirements. To strike out those provisions I do not think adds any benefit at all to the regime. If anything, it could undermine the integrity of what is being proposed here.

There is an interesting analogy, I think, with the debate we had recently around private schools and my push for more transparency in terms of reporting of private schools. I note that the Liberal opposition were vehemently against that and they tend to always fall into line with the views of private schools and private providers and do not, I think, often put enough focus on the work of the public sector.

I will point out that the Labor government were also found wanting when it came to that bill. They did not have the wherewithal to stand up to some of the whingers in the independent schools sector who always cry out as if the sky is going to fall in when there is a proposal for there to be a bit more transparency applied to them. We do not support the Liberal Party's amendment. Let's draw a line under it and get the honourable member to put it forward and watch it fall flat.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I go one step further than that. I think the issue here is that the mover either moves—

The CHAIR: It is not an amendment, it is just a clause.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: We would like to know their position, Chair, and I will tell you why it is important. What will happen after this debate is the Liberal Party will go back to whoever it is they have spoken to and say, 'Well, we tried and failed because nobody in the chamber supported us, because the only way this could get through is if the crossbench collectively sided with the opposition.' So it is important. It is important for those people who are actually reading this and want to know where we landed. My position is that I do not support it, but I would like to know what the mover's intention is.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I was really quite surprised when the minister said that out of the consultation with the Association of Independent Schools no concern has been raised with the government. However, the evidence that I received, as supplied by the Hon. John Gardner, shadow minister for education, is this: the Association of Independent Schools highlighted to us that schools and early childhood centres already have significant responsibilities for compliance reporting and that applying heavy penalties may not be conducive to increase compliance if an entity's capacity to comply is hampered by matters outside of their control.

They feel that such information may be useful for the office, for the chief executive. These powers might be convenient; however, they felt that they are not necessary. It is up to the opposition, the Liberal Party, to project this and to advocate for organisations that have come to us with this proposition. I understand that this is not an amendment. I move to actually oppose the clause, but I also understand that, given the views of the chamber and also respecting everybody's opinions and taking everything into consideration, including the answers as given by the ministers, I will now not oppose it, based on the reasons and answers that have been given.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (12 to 18) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (13:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 13:06 to 14:15.

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