Curriculum Council Amendment Bill 2011
Hon Philip Gardiner; Hon Norman Moore; Hon Peter Collier; Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich; Deputy Chairman; Hon Alison Xamon; Hon Nick Goiran
Second Reading
Resumed from 6 September.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I just have some questions following on from the first questions that were asked by Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm in relation to the make-up of the new ministerially-appointed board. I also had questions about the sorts of qualifications that were expected, but I think the minister has outlined the level of expertise or the sorts of expertise that are being sought. Is there going to be any remuneration for members of the board; and how often will they likely be expected to meet?
Hon PETER COLLIER: It is determined by the minister on recommendations of public sector management.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Are those positions in fact paid positions? Hon Peter Collier: They can be.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Who is that determined by?
Hon Peter Collier: As I said, by the Public Sector Commissioner. It is in section 8 of the principal act.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Okay, because there are 24 positions all up that I calculated.
Hon Peter Collier: It is only the board you’re talking about here.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: I was also talking about the committees and whether their members would be remunerated. Take this on notice because there seems to be a bit of uncertainty about this. The School Curriculum and Standards Authority board will comprise seven members. The Standards Committee will have four people, and one person who is appointed by and is a member of the board, which is five people. The Curriculum and Assessment Committee will have 12 people appointed by the board. I want a list of all the potential positions and which will be remunerated and which will not. Take it on notice.
Hon PETER COLLIER: I do not think we need to take it on notice. Again, this comes under section 8, “Remuneration of members”, which, when amended by clause 13, will state —
A member of the Board or a committee is to be paid such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as are determined in his or her case by the Minister on the recommendation of the Public Sector Commissioner.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH: Was it the intent that these positions are remunerated or not, because at the moment the minister is saying, “We might and we might not”. I want some clarity around whether it was the intent that they be remunerated or whether all or some of these people will work and give their services freely. The minister must have some idea about which of those it is.
Hon PETER COLLIER: Where the rules allow it, yes, it was intended that they would be paid. If they are public servants, they will not be paid.
Hon ALISON XAMON: That clarifies the criteria by which people will be recompensed. The other question I asked was approximately how often it is anticipated that the board will meet. I also ask that same question about the committees.
Hon PETER COLLIER: The council currently meets six-weekly and it is intended that will be the same. The syllabus committees meet eight-weekly, but it depends on the demands of the particular committee.
Hon ALISON XAMON: In the shift from a representative body to a ministerially-appointed body, is there any expectation that the groups that have been represented on the council to date, such as universities, unions, teachers’ groups and the like, will continue to be engaged or consulted on some level; and, if so, how is it envisaged that will occur?
Hon PETER COLLIER: They cannot be on those representation boards; that is right. They can be on the syllabus committees. They can have, quite justifiably, input to the syllabus committees, particularly on content, direction et cetera. Yes, they can still be a key component of the syllabus committees.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I think it was clear that they would have no formal role on the board. What I was asking was whether there were likely to be any other mechanisms, apart from a potential for representation on the syllabus committees, for them to be consulted in any way. Are there any other mechanisms that perhaps exist or are likely to be created?
Hon PETER COLLIER: No; there is no formal avenue, but it is at the discretion of the board. If it is felt necessary that the board have input from a particular group, it is up to the board to use its discretion. Aside from that, their input would be through forums such as the syllabus committees.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Just moving on to a different matter, I of course mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate the issue of professional development, and the minister did reply. As has been acknowledged, professional development will be huge in the implementation of the national curriculum. Will a government body ultimately be responsible for the accreditation of professional development; and, if so, which one?
Hon PETER COLLIER: No; the board will not have anything to do with the professional development of teachers.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Is the minister aware of which government department is likely to have responsibility for professional development in the implementation of the national curriculum?
Hon PETER COLLIER: Sorry; I was just trying to clarify a couple of things. Professional development is always a vexed issue because everyone likes to handball it. Essentially, it belongs to the providers; always has, always will do. If one goes to a school, the school is responsible for one’s professional development, and that umbrella of professional development will remain.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: They don’t get funded for it, though, do they? Do they get funded to deliver professional development at a school level?
Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, they do get funded.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon Michael Mischin): Order, members! If Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich wants to ask
a question, she had best rise, otherwise Hansard will not be able to record it.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I also want to ask about the transfer of staff to the new authority. I want to know whether there is likely to be any significant proposed changes in staff, or will the new authority be similar in size to the current Curriculum Council?
Hon PETER COLLIER: No, the current staff will maintain their positions and then it will be monitored to determine whether there needs to be any fluidity with the staffing levels.
Hon Alison Xamon: So at this point it is not envisaged that there’s going to be a dramatic increase or decrease; is that right?
Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes, that is correct.
Hon ALISON XAMON: Why is there such a big difference in the sizes of the committees? The Standards Committee will comprise five members and the Curriculum Assessment Committee will comprise 13.
Hon PETER COLLIER: The member is talking about the national standards. We will adhere to those standards, of course, whereas, with the Curriculum Assessment Committee the breadth of curriculum is much broader.
Hon Alison Xamon: Is that why there is so much margin?
Hon PETER COLLIER: Yes.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I was picking up on the issue of parents being able to access student records and wondered what, if any, safeguards would be in place to ensure that parents who perhaps should not have access to their children’s records are prevented from doing so. If there are circumstances involving domestic violence or the like, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that those parents will not be able to access those records?
Hon PETER COLLIER: This may not satisfy the member but the bill states —
parent, of a student, means a person who at law has responsibility for the day to day care, welfare and development of the student;
If there are issues with regard to the law or access of that parent to the child, that parent would not have access to the information.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I read that clause to mean that unless very specific legal provisions are put in place to prevent a parent accessing those records, in effect, any parent can access those records.
Hon PETER COLLIER: It is the same situation that currently exists in public education at the moment.
Hon ALISON XAMON: The difference is that we are looking at records of significantly younger children, rather than much older children, so that does potentially raise different scenarios. Is it envisaged that policy guidelines may be created around this provision?
Hon PETER COLLIER: I will clarify that parents can still access details of information of students at primary school. They can do that right now, so that is not going to change.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 24 to 39 put and passed.
Clause 40: Schedule 1 clause 1 amended —
Hon ALISON XAMON: Why was the decision made to change the period of appointment for board members from three to four years, and to five years in the case of the chair?
Hon PETER COLLIER: It is not to exceed those time frames, which will ensure there is a staggering of the board so we do not get the napalming of the board in one year.
Clause put and passed. Clauses 41 to 59 put and passed. Title put and passed.
Report
Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted.
Third Reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Peter Collier (Minister for Energy), and passed.