Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This legislation provides for capital grants for government and non-government schools for the three years 2009-2011. The reason that it allocates funding for that period is that schools, both government and non-government, need some lead time so that they have greater certainty in their own planning and construction programs. I unreservedly welcome this legislation. I have had occasion to say in the past that sometimes the general public watching question time would come to the conclusion that Labor and the coalition agree on nothing and argue about everything. The truth—and that truth is especially encapsulated in the proceedings of the Main Committee—is that there are matters on which we do agree. Funding capital works for our schools is a matter upon which there is unanimity across the chamber. We can and do debate the adequacy of such funding, but any legislation that allocates extra funding to schools is legislation that I would strongly support.

I note that the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006 allocates funding both to government and non-government schools and it does provide an opportunity to debate the funding patterns of various federal governments over the years. The truth is that since this government was elected there has been a very substantial shift in funding towards non-government schools and away from government schools, at least in relative terms. It reminds us that there is nothing in the Constitution or in pre-existing legislation or practice that determines absolutely how much funding a Commonwealth government should spend on government schools and how much on non-government schools, nor is there a strict formula for how much the Commonwealth government should spend on schools compared with how much state governments should spend on schools.

We do hear from some coalition members that state governments should fund state schools, and that then frees the Commonwealth to fund the non-government schools. But, in reality, states increasingly have become involved in funding non-government schools and the Commonwealth increasingly has become involved in funding non-government schools as well. So if you step back to have a look at the rhyme or reason that guides these funding allocations you will fairly quickly come to the conclusion that there is none.

That opens up the possibility of contemplating a new funding model based on pooled funding. Why do we obsess about how much the Commonwealth is giving the government schools compared with states and how much the Commonwealth is giving non-government schools compared with the states? Surely the overall responsibility of both levels of government is to ensure that every young person in this country has the same access to a quality education, whether it is in a government or a non-government school.

I note that Kim Beazley Sr, the father of the Leader of the Opposition, buried the state-aid debate back in the 1970s. I would like to see it remain buried, because we should be funding, fundamentally, according to the needs of the child. Having said that, it is true that there is a concentration of needy students in government schools in poor communities. This residualisation of government schools in poor communities is having a severe impact on the opportunities for those students to get a decent education that sets them up for life.

In part, this residualisation has come about by a movement of students from government to non-government schools. Over the last 20 years, all of the enrolment growth has been in non-government schools; there has been none in government schools. Parliamentarians from both sides of the chamber need to acknowledge that parents are voting with their children’s feet and are taking them out of government schools and putting them into non-government schools. And it is not just those with a very large amount of income that are doing so. Parents with low incomes are still scraping enough money together to pay the fees in low-fee non-government schools, especially Catholic schools, which tend to charge much lower fees on average than independent schools, but also in independent schools.

Because parents are voting with their children’s feet, the government schools in poor communities are left with a very high proportion of students with behavioural problems and learning difficulties, and a large preponderance of students who do not have English as a first language—the sons and daughters of migrants. That does not create a wonderful learning environment. If there is a lot of classroom disruption and bullying then those students who are trying to get ahead are disrupted and distracted. Not only that, but the principal of the school, or often the deputy principal, will spend a lot of time on pastoral care. By that I mean tending to the needs of young people who might have very sad and unfortunate lives at home in dysfunctional families. They can often be subject to domestic violence. All of that means that students arrive at school almost taking refuge, I have to say. School offers them a period of respite, where they can have a peaceful time, only for them to go home and resume a very tough life. I say this not from the abstract but from direct experience in a number of government schools in my electorate of Rankin.

Unless we as a community are prepared to face up to these realities and not glance at the ground and duck our heads and pretend that it is not happening, those young people will not get a decent chance in life and will not get a quality education. That is why I have advocated a needs based funding model for schools, both government and non-government, such that extra funding would attach to the neediest children. All children would receive funding, but extra funding would attach to the neediest children—those children with learning difficulties, with special needs, with behavioural problems or with English as a second language because they have recently arrived from a non-English-speaking country. It is possible to create a formula based on those criteria, such that extra funding does flow to those children.

Unlike the previous speaker, who argued for a voucher which is payable to the parents, I would still argue that the funding should be made available to the school, but as the child moves the funds move as well. He did not actually mean that; he said that the money should be paid to the parents and be redeemable only by spending it on school education. My model is different from that: the money would be payable to the school, but as the child moves the money moves as well. The great benefit of a needs based funding model along these lines is that the situation for disadvantaged students in accordance with the formula would change dramatically, from one of them being considered to be a problem or a liability to being an asset—that is, schools would start competing for disadvantaged students because substantially larger funding would attach to those students.

If you consider the dynamics that are unleashed as a result of that, it is very easy to imagine non-government schools, including some that may be quite well-off, working out how they can get their hands on some of these disadvantaged students. If they get their hands on the disadvantaged students, if they are able to persuade the parents to bring those disadvantaged students out of poor government schools into somewhat better-off and non-government schools, that can only be good news for the those kids and also for the students who remain in the poorer government schools. The classes in the poor government schools will become more regularised, if you like, and if those classes are more regularised, there is a lesser concentration of behavioural problems and learning difficulties, creating an environment much more conducive to learning and excellence.

In effect, you would have government and non-government schools bidding and competing for disadvantaged students rather than the current situation where they are being pushed into or kept in poor government schools in poor communities. In addition, not only would some of those students be attracted into other schools but those who remain would be generating extra funds for the poor government schools, so the poor government schools would be less poor—that is, more money for poor government schools and more money for those schools who attract disadvantaged students.

What would the money be used for, particularly in poor government schools? This, in my view, should be a matter for those schools, subject to an overall curriculum and some generally accepted programs such as Reading Recovery. In those schools that receive the extra funds, they would be able to hire teacher aides to assist in Reading Recovery programs to ensure that, wherever possible, literacy and numeracy standards are raised in those poor government schools. They could put on extra teachers in those schools where class sizes could be reduced.

I am not an advocate of across-the-board reductions in class sizes. I do not imagine for a moment that reducing class sizes across the entire schooling system, say from 30 to 28 students, would make much difference at all to learning outcomes. But, in schools where there are concentrations of students with behavioural problems and learning difficulties, instead of one teacher having 30 students, one teacher might be able to take 10 students and give them one-to-one support and tuition. I believe that that would produce real results.

So the extra funding could be used on teacher aides, on extra teachers. Controversially, I am a supporter of paying our best teachers more. I do not care what you call that. We can get into stifling debates about terminology, but I believe it is important that our best teachers be attracted to and retained in our most disadvantaged schools. If that is controversial and it makes me unpopular within my side of politics, so be it, because I fundamentally believe that it is important that the best teachers be attracted into and retained in our most disadvantaged schools, and that can and should involve paying them more.

I know that most teachers are motivated by a sense of altruism, a commitment to learning and teaching and because they feel good about it. We as Australians should be very proud of the teaching profession in this country, but it also helps for those teachers to get a bit of extra acknowledgement through a bit of extra remuneration. I have never heard anyone say they do not want the money. I think it is a good thing that they get extra remuneration as acknowledgement of their wonderful contribution to turning around the lives of children. I would argue strongly that our best teachers should be given incentives to work in our most difficult and challenging schools.

We should be having a genuine debate about this rather than having ridiculous debates on shocking terminology such as ‘performance pay’, ‘merit pay’ and ‘vouchers’. These debates are small-minded, because they are about labels. Across the chamber, and in the broader community, we need to have debates about quality and about ensuring that our young people have a flying start in life.

The extra funding in respect of disadvantaged students could also be used on a ‘full service’ school model—a school that is financially able to provide on campus a nursing service, a visiting GP service and, indeed, police services. In very disadvantaged schools, and in other schools, it is quite common for young girls to get pregnant. They are very worried about how they are going to tell their parents. They are anxious and distressed about it, and often they have no-one to talk to except the principal or deputy principal—who then spend all their time on pastoral care instead of teaching. But if you had a resident school nurse—or a school nurse rotating amongst, say, three schools—they could help with the pastoral care. A psychologist could help with pastoral care. A GP could help with the pastoral and physical care needs of students.

All of these wonderful opportunities exist. I believe we should move beyond the stifling political debate about tags and labels. We should work out the best ways of delivering these services. We should work out the best ways of rewarding teachers and having them come to, and stay in, our most disadvantaged schools. Instead we are straitjacketed by these ridiculous debates.

I said at the outset that I welcome this legislation because it provides extra funding for schools—and that is a good thing. I would now like to comment on a very good document, provided by the Australian Education Union, which sets out in a most rigorous way the extra funding requirements of our government school systems in order to ensure that disadvantaged students are given a reasonable opportunity. In today’s dollars, that extra funding comes to about $2.9 billion. That gives us an indication of the magnitude of the task. In a budget of well over $200 billion—and that is only the federal budget—we should be looking at ways to accommodate that task. It will happen not overnight but over time. There can be no greater investment than investing in the talents of our young people.

Why is it that people say the kids are not as gifted and talented as kids in better-off communities? That is absolutely repugnant. It is an absolutely disgraceful attitude, yet I have to say that many people hold that attitude, including some people who live in the poor communities. We should be able to lift up the spirits of every young person in this country. We should be able to develop and nourish their talents so that they can be great contributors to our society and so that they can have a wonderful life.

If we move to a needs based funding model that makes sense, is practical and gets rid of all this stupid debate about tags and labels, we will have done a great thing for this country. I do not see any real signs of the coalition government doing it. The Labor opposition is committed to a needs based funding model. I have to say, I think that the likelihood of that happening will be real only upon the election of a Labor government. In the meantime, I fully welcome this legislation.

See this speech in context