IEU Member Briefing – Re Proposed changes to the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2014
20 May 2020
The Independent Education Union in South Australia represents teachers working in non- government schools—this is approximately one third of teachers on the Register.
We provided a comprehensive response to the Review of the Act to the Parliamentary Committee in May 2019.
We note that while the proposed legislation before the Parliament, the Teachers Registration and Standards (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020, does appear to have taken into account some of the issues that we raised in that submission, the fundamental issue of representation and regulation of the profession by the profession has not.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
We strongly support the maintenance of the Board in its current form including the numbers of board members because we believe that its composition genuinely reflects the interests of the stakeholders and the profession. We also are of the view that the current number of members is necessary to carry out the functions of the board in the best interests of the profession and the students they serve.
Fully funded by teachers
The notion that the Board should be reduced in size because other boards are downsizing is a nonsense. It reflects an ideological view that does not take into account the purpose of the Board and its functions. Nor can cost be cited as a reason for reducing numbers as the Board is funded solely by teachers for teachers.
Unions are the professional voice – they and practicing teachers should not be excluded
The education unions are the bodies that are the voice of the profession in South Australia and were instrumental in the establishment of the Board. They did this to ensure that the profession was appropriately regulated so that teachers were properly qualified and fit and proper persons to teach. As such they are the most appropriate body to put forward quality nominees for positions on the Board to serve the interests of the profession rather than having the ability to simply respond to a ‘call for expressions of interest’ by the Minister and allow the Minister to make an appointment. This is likely to result in a board with only three practicing teachers, none of whom have been elected by their respective unions. The current Act requires at least half of the Board must be comprised of practising teachers, seven of whom are nominated by the respective teacher unions.
ALP amendments go part way
The proposed amendments by Dr Susan Close MP go some way address this matter but the proposed numbers of four for the Australian Education Union and one for the Independent Education Union does not fairly represent the non-government sector. We propose that if accepted the number of nominees from the Independent Education Union be two. We also suggest that to ensure the integrity of the Board’s functions Dr Close’s amendment to Clause 7, 9(2) should be further amended to read (1) must be ‘practising’ teachers.
The TRB should be under the control of the profession, not the Minister
We maintain a strong objection to the Minister being able to nominate members of the Board rather than the principal representatives of teachers, their respective unions. As it stands in the Amendment Bill 2020, the Minister has the power to not only appoint the members of the Board, but the Registrar and the Presiding Member. We believe that this confers undue power to the Minister when it should be vested in the profession for the profession. There are multiple references to additional unspecified functions being assigned by the minister that take the direction away from the control of the profession by the profession.
Outsourcing functions of the board disempowers the profession
With the proposed reduction in overall numbers and practising teachers the Bill recognises that this will compromise the Board’s ability to carry out its existing functions on behalf of the profession enabling the Board to export its functions to external bodies such as the Department for Education and the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and co-opt ‘experts’ to sit on committees and panels.
Codes of conduct need to involve the major stake-holders
Under the proposed Bill the Board may publish or adopt codes of conduct. Our concern here is that with the proposed method of appointment of Board members it would be possible for these codes of conduct to be agreed with minimal input from registered teachers. We would support Dr Close’s amendment for Clause 26 (2a), which requires consultation with key stakeholders including registered teachers.
Conclusion
We also raise a number of other concerns that we have with the bill as it stands but stress that the selection process for members of the Board and the composition and number of Board members are our primary concerns.