Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened to the last two hours of this debate on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 and feel somewhat compelled to make a few comments. A good deal of the debate, particularly from government members, has portrayed this as some state versus Commonwealth debate. We even had the quite absurd proposition advanced by the member for Ryan that some deficiency that he identified in a school in his electorate was the result of 45 years of neglect by what he said was the state Labor government. Obviously, it is an enthusiasm uninhibited by either knowledge or intelligence on the part of the member for Ryan. The simple fact is, of course, that for the bulk of the last 45 years there was a conservative government in Queensland.

Having been involved in the education system for part of that time, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, I can say that it was certainly the case that the conservative coalition government in Queensland provided funding on a per capita basis in Queensland that was, if not the lowest every year compared with other states and the Commonwealth—which then administered the ACT—then the second lowest. That is, for about 20 years Queensland students and schools suffered with one of the lowest per capita funding rates of any state—consistently, year after year.

But the reason I really wanted to enter this debate was not to make that point. It was to say that this is not a debate about state versus Commonwealth; this is a debate about the needs of our schools and the children in our schools. That is what this is a debate about. The Commonwealth and states have for the last 50 years had a shared responsibility in discharging our community obligations to young people in education and to the not-so-young in education.

Before the GST Commonwealth governments provided large amounts of money to the states, albeit through different vehicles. The GST just happens to be a current manifestation. It gets portrayed in this debate as though it is a panacea from which all problems are resolved. No-one believes that to be the case. It would raise the standard of the debate in this place if government members stopped trotting out that argument about GST funding of states every time an issue came before this parliament. It is the panacea to fix all school problems, all road problems, all health problems, all policing problems. All of us in this place know that is a lie. It is not. It just economically does not add up, I am sorry. So the sooner we start to elevate the debate in this place a little bit more seriously, I think the sooner the public will appreciate all of us a little more.

The simple fact is that funding of education in this country has been inadequate. We have a number of academics and scientists here in the parliament today as they conduct their annual Science Meets Parliament activities. Those of us who meet with those visiting researchers and academics—and that is most of us, on both sides of the chamber—know from those private meetings, when we discuss this with them, that there is a shortage of investment in this country in education, training and research. That is not a new thing, but it is a real problem.

We have at the moment a resources boom. With the resources boom we still have a balance of payments problem that is the worst recorded in our history. If we cannot trade profitably when we have a resources boom at our feet, what prospect is there when that falls away? What do you do about that? You invest in the skills of your people. You invest in education and training and you invest in research. We have not, as a nation, done that. There has been a disinvestment. We rate poorly on the global comparison table when it comes to government funding of education, of tertiary education and of research and development. That is an inescapable fact.

This bill provides some money for education, and that is welcome. I have stated in this parliament and outside the very strong belief I have that governments should fund education, research and training at much higher levels than we have in the past. I think it is essential for the future wellbeing of our nation, for our children and our grandchildren, that we do that. That has to be done. You cannot invest too much in education. You cannot have a population that is too well educated. It is easy to waste money. You can put a little bit of money into education and waste all of it. But, properly invested, you cannot spend too much money on education and training. So to the extent that this bill provides some funds for education, I welcome it.

What I do not welcome is the way in which these funds are administered. They lack transparency. They lack any identifiable process to show that the funds are going where they are needed, that they are going to achieve some overall benefit for the educational standards of Australians. Yes, there are many laudable, useful projects that these funds go to, as is the case with pretty well any other program—not just in education but elsewhere.

But the simple fact is that these funds are allocated in secret, behind closed doors. It is little wonder that members in the opposition look at the final outcome, see massive amounts of money going into marginal, government held seats, see massive amounts of money going into National Party seats and say, ‘This secret process seems to turn up a hell of a lot of money for National Party and Liberal members, their seats and constituencies, but not nearly as much for seats that the government members don’t hold.’ There is no accountability in that. There is no transparency. If the government wants to establish its credentials in this, as part of a debate on education and improving the lot of Australians in accessing quality education, it should properly provide to the public—open to the public—a clear statement of the criteria on which these funds are allocated, and that process should be transparent. This should not be a dirty deal done in a backroom in negotiations between some marginal members and the powerbrokers in the government. This should not be some dirty deal done in the backrooms of the minister’s office, but it has that smell about it.

One of the things that give that impression is not just the allocation of funds but what this government then says to the schools. I have a school in my electorate that received funding under this program last year—and I supported a number of applications from schools in my electorate for funding under this program. Because I have a background in teaching, I know a lot of the teachers in my electorate, not just from my current position as their member of parliament but from having worked with them in other roles. The school had the official opening coming up. They wanted me to come along, but people in the school who are my mates rang me and said: ‘Listen, this is happening. We’d like to invite you, but we don’t know whether we’re allowed to.’

These were experienced teachers; they had been in the system for 20-odd years plus. They had been led to believe by the people acting on behalf of this government that they had to invite a nominee of the Liberal minister but they should not invite the local member of parliament, who happened to be a Labor member of parliament. I would not have known that, except for the fact that the people involved are longstanding friends of mine. I said to them: ‘Yes, you’re right; the government are putting the screws on. They are saying that the minister’s going to send someone along from the Liberal Party, and there’s nothing you or I can do about that, but I’m entitled to go as well. I’m the local member, I’m entitled to go, and you should feel no qualms whatsoever about inviting me.’ Of course, they did, and the ceremony unfolded.

When you have people at a school level who are experienced educators, experienced administrators in the school, who are concerned about that situation, it adds to the flavour of this. It adds to the odour; it adds to the smell. It is a bit like the CSIRO scientists who recently expressed concerns. And I think that is a great pity, because one of the areas in need of additional resources and support on both sides in this place is education research and development funding. All of us should be supporting it to the extent that we are able to, properly, within financial constraints. We should all be doing that. I think it is unfortunate that programs like this are being administered in a way that does not comply with those ideals.

We do need to have additional funds. The process should be transparent. There should be a clear needs analysis. The funds should be allocated to those in greatest need for projects identified as fitting an overall objective. No evidence has been put forward to the public or even in this parliament by the government to show that that is the case. Until the government does that, government members will continue to incur the wrath of people on this side of the parliament for behaving in a partisan and crass way. If that is uncomfortable, that, I guess, is the state of play. But I say to those on the government benches: do not pretend that you can absolve yourselves of the problems you have created in that respect by simply saying that it is the states’ fault; they got GST money. Let us lift the debate a couple of notches above that.

In conclusion, can I say that I am delighted to see Sir James Killen in the chamber—a fine Queenslander and a decent and honourable man. I am delighted to see you here, Sir James. I am sure he is here for the celebrations that government members are having this evening. I cannot say I am celebrating in the same way, Sir James, but I am delighted to see you in good health and here to join in those celebrations.

See this speech in context