HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Education and Children's Services (Inclusive Education) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw the council's attention to the fact that I filed a new set of amendments before lunchtime. They have just been tabled, so I am drawing your attention to the new set of amendments. I do have questions at clause 1, but I suspect other people do, too.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, that set of amendments replaces the—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It replaces the previous set of amendments. I will draw to members' attention that it simply defines 'local school', because that had been a concern the government had raised with me about the previous set of filed amendments, that there was no definition of 'local school' currently in the relevant act the Education and Children's Services (Inclusive Education) Amendment Bill seeks to amend. Currently, under the act, there is no definition of 'local school'. The government is quite right on that, so this set of amendments addresses that issue by creating a definition of 'local school'.

With the government's intent here, what was the policy rationale for singling out disability rather than embedding a broader intersectional principle of inclusion that would recognise multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantage?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised it is because we narrowed it down to the recommendations in the disability royal commission. I understand this will enable us to be the first jurisdiction anywhere in the country to undertake these nation-leading steps in identifying that a child with a disability should not be refused the right to go to their school.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Was that the intent of the recommendation from the royal commission?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that this bill is based off recommendations 7.1 and 7.2. In particular, recommendation 7.2 prevents the inappropriate use of exclusionary discipline against students with disability.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Minister, do you think the royal commission meant to define disability in this more restricted way? Why did not the government include an intersectional approach?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I highlighted earlier, this is a significant step forward in a very good direction. This is a first in the country, where a state has decided to take these steps and implement the recommendations from the royal commission: recommendations 7.1 and 7.2. In a sense, we have been able to work alongside not only government taking this important step but also independent and Catholic schools. It is getting those two private bodies to work together with government to come to an agreement to ensure that this can happen and happen first in South Australia.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the government choosing to be first rather than best by making this more narrow definition the way they have chosen to approach it?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I believe we have gone with the definition that is in the Disability Discrimination Act. As I said earlier, it is not necessarily about being the first. It is not about trying to have that title. It is about making sure that we can get started, and that is what we have done. We have been able to work across not only Catholic but independent education, to work with government to make sure we can really start to make some change here.

This is an issue that comes up regularly. I really do appreciate the honourable member's advocacy in this space. It is a space I know you are very particularly passionate about, for good reason, because we want kids to be able to go to their school, and we do not want them not going to school because they have a disability.

With my title as the Minister for Autism, I have heard time and again of children not being able to go to school because they have a disability. That is the basis of them being removed from their school—how they felt. I feel this is a really important step in the right direction. There is obviously always more that we could do, but this is a good starting point where we have been able to get an agreement not only with government but with independent and Catholic schools to start this journey.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Stakeholders have raised concerns about the limited consultation period of approximately 19 days. Can the minister outline the consultation process undertaken? Do you consider that timeframe sufficient, given the importance of this legislation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand the consultation process opened up through YourSAy on 20 May 2025 and closed on 13 June 2025. I understand the minister also wrote to 51 stakeholders to inform them of the consultation period. I understand that seven stakeholders submitted feedback via the appropriate channels for providing that feedback to the minister, 25 written submissions were received directly from stakeholders and 16 meetings with stakeholders were also held.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Why was that time period chosen? You have obviously indicated that it was less than a month, basically, that was provided for YourSAy.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that a four-week time period is quite normal for a YourSAy survey.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will the government issue guidance or regulations to assist schools and early childhood services to interpret inclusive education in a way that promotes participation and full development for the student, for all students and not just those with disabilities? What is the plan there?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: This particular bill is doing something quite significant. I guess we can look at changes outside of this, but I think that, as a government, we have set a pretty clear example of trying to be as inclusive as possible by building that knowledge in our schools. This is one piece of the story of how we can start to recognise that we should not be excluding kids at schools because they have a disability. This bill is making very clear what we stand for as a government. We are working across both independent and Catholic education to make sure that we can get kids to school in a safe way, and also through other things that we have been doing as a government.

Obviously, there are the autism inclusion teachers, which we see have been a successful program in our primary schools, and we have also seen that roll out as a trial in our high schools. There is $15 million that has been committed to mental health and learning specialists to go into our schools and provide that support, and there is $14 million in infrastructure to span special options and mainstream settings. These are some of the things that we are doing as a government. There will always need to be more done, but this bill, in particular, is a really important piece of making sure that we can make our schools more inclusive.

As we have said in this bill, we will be providing data so that people can see how it is tracking and whether it is working. We know that in South Australia—I think I saw some stats here before—we have seen a significant drop in suspensions and exclusions. In term 2 of 2025, compared with term 2 of 2024, suspensions are down 7.3 per cent and exclusions are down 20.8 per cent. That is a good indication that some of our policies are working. As I said, we can always do more, and this is the next piece of that story.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to this specific bill, what guidance and regulations will be provided to assist schools?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand there is a cross-sector group that has been pulled together to agree on a set standard of responsibilities and on how that will be rolled out.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will there be dedicated professional development for distinguishing behavioural issues from disability-related behaviours for both teachers and principals?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Sorry, could you repeat that?

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will there be any dedicated professional development or support for teachers to allow them to be able to clearly distinguish whether it is a behavioural issue or whether it is a disability-related behavioural issue?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Going back to what I was saying before, the autism inclusion teacher role is very much a big part of that in building knowledge. We know that knowledge is a critical part of supporting our teachers and having a greater understanding in our classes about what autism is. They are there as a pillar of knowledge to support their peers. But what we have also recognised is taking that knowledge beyond the classroom and going back to where we need to while people are at university studying to be a teacher.

We have been able to work again across the private sector to bring all universities to one table and seek to have modules about what is autism and what it is to have a disability inserted into our teachers' learnings whilst they are at university. We have achieved that. Those modules have been rolled out over the past couple of years and are making a significant difference for people. Before they enter the classroom they are getting knowledge and whilst they are in the classroom we are providing that knowledge through the autism inclusion teacher role.

We are, as a government, investing not only time but the autism inclusion teacher is $28.8 million. That is a significant investment and one that is enabling teachers to have time to come out of the classroom and learn more about autism, the largest disability cohort in our community.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: How will success be measured? Will the government monitor not just compliance but improvement in actual student inclusion, and how will this be done?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the new section 63B will require schools to report to the minister annually on the number of children with a disability who had their enrolment refused on the basis that it would impose unjustifiable hardship on the school. They will also need to report on the number of students with a disability whose enrolment was cancelled or any measures taken by the school to reduce the number of refusals or cancellations of an enrolment of a student with a disability.

I am also advised that the number of times students with a disability were suspended, excluded or expelled will need to be reported on, including the number of students with a disability who were suspended, excluded or expelled, and of other students; the number of instances that each student was suspended, excluded or expelled and for how long; and the total number of students with a disability enrolled at the school for the proportion of those who were suspended, excluded or expelled.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a supplementary on the collection of that data. Will that data also include where an appeal has been successfully lodged against those actions?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that it will not.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why will that data not include the times that was attempted to be tried and the student and their carers have successfully appealed it? Surely that would also be data that would be really useful to ensure that we have inclusive education in this state.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate the member's feedback. My understanding is that this has been a co-designed guiding principle from government, independent and Catholic schools. These are the requirements that have been landed on. As we know, there will be an opportunity to review this if the amendment is successful, and that could be one of the things that was looked at.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What is the intended commencement date of the actual operation of this act once it passes this place?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I understand this will be rolled out in stages, as administrative requirements will need to be put into place. I understand that it is anticipated that we will be collecting data in the calendar year of 2027.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: How will the department assist small or regional schools that lack local allied health or inclusion experts to meet inclusion expectations?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that a number of the mental health support specialists that we have are also based in our regions. There are also general programs that support the disability inclusive programs that we have through the education department that are also able to support our regional communities. The autism inclusion teacher role is also within our regional communities, where they are given the opportunity to learn and build their knowledge.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Why has the government chosen to seek only data about students with disability and not other equity groups?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that the focus of this bill is recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 of the disability royal commission. As we have highlighted, this is a really important step in that right direction to get started with collating data and also making our schools more inclusive.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Are the government and our state schools in particular currently collecting this data—to be specific, not just on disability but on other equity groups?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the department currently publishes limited suspension, exclusions and expulsions data through the Data.SA website and the South Australian government data directory.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question was: is the government ensuring that there is the collection of data that can be broken down into other equity groups to identify perhaps, for example, whether there are more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children falling into the cohort of suspension, exclusion or expulsion than non-Aboriginal children?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that this bill does not capture that within the current parameters. I appreciate what the honourable member is asking in regard to what actual data is collated to support the more vulnerable groups that are missing out on our schools and schooling. We know that children with a disability are more likely to miss out on school through exclusions, and that is why the significance of this bill needs to be progressed, so we can ensure that those who are vulnerable are not missing out on school purely because the knowledge might not be there about how to best support them and also have the parameters in place to say that they need to have a place in our schools.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I referred in my second reading speech to the report commissioned by Linda Graham and her team that inquired into suspension, exclusion and expulsion processes in South Australian government schools. Recommendation 28(c) of that required that the SA Department for Education:

Make exclusionary discipline data publicly available and disaggregate by gender, year level, priority group status, school phase, category of school, reason and duration to enable greater public scrutiny of progress towards reduction in use.

Why has the government failed to act on that recommendation here?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am happy to look into that further for the member.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If the government is happy to look into that further, why are they not doing it now and why can they not provide a reason why they have not actually acted on that recommendation?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I said, this bill is really about the recommendations 7.1 and 7.2. As I have said, this is not something that other states have done. This is something we are getting on with doing and something that I think we can all recognise is an important very first step in this process of making sure that students who have a disability are not missing out on the opportunity to go to school. As we said, we have seen data that is already showing that our exclusions are coming down. That is a good step, but we also need other pieces of legislative framework that can help support and make sure that our kids can go to school.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For those kids who are not currently going to school because they have been excluded, suspended or expelled, do you think they might actually appreciate that we look at the recommendations of previously commissioned reports, not just the one particular report at this time? Further, why is information under section 80A, which provides detailed data on suspensions, exclusions and expulsions of students with disability, exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, given the importance of transparency and accountability?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate the member is wanting to get a broader understanding of the data that is available. I am happy to look into that, but this bill that is before us today is really going to make a significant step in the right direction. I know I am sounding like a broken record and I apologise, but it is something that should be celebrated. It is something that we are doing as a first in the country and something that is going to support some of our most vulnerable kids and their families by making sure there is a space for them in our schools.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that in a previous answer the minister said that it was not about being first, but apparently it is about being first again. We were the first to have Linda Graham do an examination of our suspension, expulsion and exclusion processes, and when she started that she was told that there was not the data at all. In fact, she had to go digging, digging, digging to pull it together to produce that report, because it was not being collected and collated in the way that should have always been happening.

What we have here, I think, is deja vu all over again, and a little bit of window dressing, a little bit of celebration of a very small bit of progress, when we could be doing so much better. My question to the minister is: who made a submission to the YourSAy consultation process? You have given us the numbers, but you have not told us which organisations or individuals made a submission.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for her question. I cannot recall the exact number that I said earlier, but those that did provide submissions included the Association of Independent Schools of SA, the Attorney-General's Department, Catholic School Parents SA, the Centre for Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology, the Child Development Council, Children and Young People with a Disability Australia, the Education Standards Board, First Peoples Disability Network, the Guardian for Children and Young People, the Law Society of South Australia, Siblings Australia, the Australian Alliance for Inclusive Education and South Australia Police. Some of the other stakeholders also included were the Disability Minister's Advisory Council, the South Australian Primary Principals Association and the State First Nations Voice to Parliament.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I ask a question in relation to the reporting of data that is collected? The number of times children are refused, the number of times at government schools is included, non-government schools is included, and the list is substantial there, but there are also provisions there which say that whilst identifying trends you also cannot disclose, obviously, the schools in question.

Behind the scenes, is there an intention of government to actually monitor that data to see whether specific schools are refusing enrolment in higher numbers? I appreciate that publicly, in what the government is going to place on the public record, you do not intend to do that, but will that trigger a separate process behind the scenes where the government can actually monitor which schools, if any, are actually refusing enrolments, and if there is a pattern, I guess is what I am asking, amongst any schools?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: It is a very valid point that you have raised. There is significant data that it can help influence the outcomes of what happens within our education department, and also within our independent Catholic schools. I am happy to take that on notice and look into it further.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps just to refine that a little: I guess what I am asking for is red flags. If there are red flags about specific schools, will they be acted upon and monitored behind the scenes?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I appreciate that and I will look into it further.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will make this the final question because we are clearly not going to get that many answers. Will, in the same way, schools that are actually adopting good practice and keeping children included in their school also be monitored and perhaps those examples replicated? Will the government ensure that happens within our education system?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I can speak very confidently with the autism inclusion teacher role in this space. We have very much celebrated the people who have gone above and beyond to show that they have not only increased education knowledge for themselves but knowledge for their peers. Every year, we acknowledge them through an award for the autism inclusion teacher of the year.

This demonstrates, not only for that individual, how significant it is when you do build your knowledge and the impact that you can have on a school community, it is also recognition in front of your colleagues and also in front of your local school community that you have made the effort, you have gone above and beyond and been able to achieve something that then makes sure that students feel welcome in their school, that they want to participate, and also that that knowledge can be shared with their fellow teachers.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 3, after line 37—Insert:

(2) Section 62(2)—delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) Before giving a direction under this section, the Chief Executive—

(a) must, in the case of a child with a disability—subject to any relevant measures relating to the management of the enrolment capacity of a school, ensure that the child has been given a genuine opportunity to be enrolled in the child's local school (being the school closest to the child's usual place of residence) with the provision of reasonable adjustments and support that are based on the best available information and research; and

(b) must, in any case—take reasonable steps to consult with—

(i) each person who is responsible for the child; and

(ii) any other person or body prescribed by the regulations,

and may consult with such other persons or bodies as the Chief Executive thinks fit.

This indeed addresses that a child must be given a genuine opportunity to be enrolled in their local school with the provision of reasonable adjustments and supports based on the best available research and evidence being our first response, not in fact using exclusion, which should in fact be the last resort. I commend the amendment to the council.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I have a few questions for the mover, if I may, because I have only just had an opportunity to see this now. How has the definition of 'local school' been arrived at? Is that consistent with the definition in terms of school zones and has there been consultation with stakeholders in terms of arriving at that definition?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Hon. Robert Simms for that question. The reason I have inserted—and the only difference in this set of amendments—a reference to 'local school' being defined as that which is geographically closest to the place of residence of the student is because the minister and the minister's office in considering these proposed amendments said on Monday at 4.49pm this week on 27 October that they had received advice from the department that was suggesting a different set of words for proposed amendment No. 1, but were still finalising the exact options for wording, along the lines of:

Requiring the CE, prior to directing the enrolment of a child with disability, consider that the school at which the child has applied for enrolment, or is enrolled at, has complied with any relevant matters referred to in the Disability Discrimination Act 1993 and the Disability Standards for Education 2005 in relation to the child.

The email from the minister's office went on to state:

There are concerns from the department about the ambiguity of the current wording of the proposed amendment, that it introduces a subjective standard for the CE, and that new concepts like local school, which is not currently in the Act, would be introduced.

It further states:

Let me know. If you are amenable, I can get the department to do up some wording that Tammy could then move as an amendment.

I then had my office write back to the minister's office to say, 'Sure, draft up some wording.' They then came back not wanting to support the amendment after all, so I am here moving it with their suggested 'local school' definition being defined as something that is geographically the closest to where the student lives. Perhaps, the government has a different definition they would like to insert of 'local school'.

It is actually quite interesting that the act currently does not have a definition of 'local school'. The minister in her answers today has repeatedly referred to the local school being the one where the child should be able to have that entitlement to education, but has not actually defined 'local school' herself in outlining that entitlement. Every child in the state actually has an entitlement to education. It is not just the UN that says that; it is our state laws. If the government has a different definition, I would like to see it and progress this amendment in a way that at 4.48pm on Monday they seemed willing to do but now are unable to.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I thank the member for her question and for the time she has given to draft these amendments. I understand that the minister's office has provided those briefings. As you are aware, we are unable to support these amendments at this time because, as we have highlighted, stakeholder engagement is important and we understand that this would not necessarily be clear in being able to interpret how this would actually play out and be used at a practical level, so that is why we are not able to support it today.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: On behalf of the opposition, we would also like to thank the honourable member for her great work in this space and also engagement with key stakeholders. It is concerning that there have obviously been some issues. At this stage, I think we will have to vote with the government and not support the amendments, but we will be supporting, which I will note for the record at a later stage, the Hon. Robert Simms' amendment. I do hope that, overtime, if there are issues in this space, we can address them in a timely fashion as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think the Hon. Tammy Franks has just made it even more difficult to oppose this amendment in its current form, and there is certainly some logic in the changes that have been made to make it consistent with what the government thinks could work in this. Notwithstanding that, I have already indicated that I do support this amendment and will continue to support this amendment and, for the record, indicate that I will support all of the Franks amendments and the Simms amendment that has been filed.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 3

Noes 13

Majority 10

AYES

Bonaros, C. Franks, T.A. (teller) Lee, J.S.

NOES

Bourke, E.S. (teller) Centofanti, N.J. Girolamo, H.M.
Hanson, J.E. Hood, B.R. Hunter, I.K.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. Martin, R.B.
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Scriven, C.M.
Wortley, R.P.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Franks–2]—

Page 5, lines 37 and 38 [clause 7, inserted section 63B(7)]—Delete subsection (7)

I draw the council's attention to this issue in the submission that was made to this bill by the Centre for Inclusive Education and, of course, the findings of the Graham review. The bill now actually does propose to exempt certain new provisions, including what would be sections 63B, 80A(6) and 81B(6), from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1991. These exemptions would prevent public access to important information about enrolment, disciplinary and behavioural practices in our schools and, if enacted, would conceal the data that is essential for understanding how inclusion, exclusion and discipline operate in practice across our education system.

As Dr Spyrou has said, transparency is fundamental to public trust. Indeed, I understand many of the submissions to the draft exposure bill emphasise that, without access to data, it is impossible to know whether or not inclusive education is being delivered equitably, or whether particular groups of students, especially those with a disability in this case, are being disproportionately excluded.

I note that I have a further two amendments not at this clause. I will treat this as a test vote for those further amendments. This measure would promote transparency and accountability, support public oversight of exclusionary practices, and ensure that we have confidence in our state's commitment to inclusive education.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I rise to indicate my support for the amendments.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that the government does not support this amendment. This would remove the FOI protections in respect to the information provided by non-government schools to the minister. This bill has been co-designed closely with the Catholic and independent school sector and the FOI exemptions in relation to their data has been a critical consideration. Under usual circumstances, their data sits outside of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. To remove this exemption would significantly undermine the spirit of the agreement reached across the sector over the course of the development of this legislation.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Just touching on my contribution around the fact that this bill has had consultation and, as I said, I did verify that and speak directly with both Catholic Education and independent schools, I do think they have been very cooperative throughout this process, so therefore we will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I support this amendment. As I indicated in my second reading remarks, I do believe we need to have more transparency when it comes to the private school and independent school sector, and so I support the amendment on that basis.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My amendment is consequential, and I will not be proceeding with it.

Clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

New schedule 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 9, after line 26—Insert:

Schedule 1—Review of operation of Act

1—Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the provisions of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 enacted or amended by this Act to be conducted, and a report on the results of the review to be submitted to them.

(2) The review must be completed, and the report submitted to the Minister, before the third anniversary of the commencement of this clause.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report on the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 sitting days after the Minister receives the report.

(4) In this clause—

Minister means the Minister to whom the administration of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 has been committed.

This amendment is fairly self-explanatory. It requires that there be a review conducted and reported to the minister before the third anniversary of this bill coming into effect. I think this review provides an opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Ms Franks and others during the committee stage of this bill.

It also gives an opportunity to hear sector feedback on how this is working in practice. I think it is a fairly non-controversial proposal, but one that makes sense in this context when we are undertaking reform such as this.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I certainly support a review. It is disappointing the government did not have one themselves. I ask the mover: what year would the review take place in?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: It would be three years after the point of commencement of this clause, so I assume that if the bill comes into effect this year, then the review would happen around this time in 2028.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If the member had been in the chamber when this was discussed, he would realise that they are not starting to collect data until 2027 and, in fact, this is probably not going to happen until 2030. Is he disappointed that, instead of 2028, it is going to be 2030 before we see an actual review, and would he be able to perhaps specify a calendar year in his review clause?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I am not quite sure what the purpose of the questioning is, other than to potentially embarrass the mover.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yes, mission accomplished, the Hon. Ms Franks. But from my perspective, it is fairly clear it is three years from the commencement date, so I am not going to play calendar games with Tammy Franks.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the government confirm that they are not intending to collect the data until 2027, as they previously answered at the clause 1 questioning?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: We are anticipating collecting the data in 2027. Whilst I am on my feet, I am happy to support the mover's amendment. I know this is not about firsts, but it is something that is new. I appreciate the mover putting the review process in, and I am sure everyone in this chamber will be looking forward to seeing what those results are.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: We are supportive of the amendment, and I thank the honourable member for putting this forward. I think it is very important given that it is a new change and also to make sure that the sector also has the opportunity to provide feedback as well.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am hoping the minister can confirm for the public record that, as part of the review that does eventually take place, the specifics of the amendments that have been moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks will indeed be revisited and reconsidered.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: In the absence of any political will to reconsider them before 2030, can we have a commitment and some assurance that that indeed will occur at least by the 2030 review?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am getting nods from the advisory box, so I am advised that that would happily be looked at during the review process.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (16:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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