Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 appropriates additional funds on behalf of the Commonwealth to increase funding for English as a second language programs for humanitarian entrants and introduces a loading in the recurrent schools funding arrangements for regional and remote non-government schools. As a matter of principle, any additional expenditure by the Commonwealth to enhance the facilities of our schools, whether to the government or non-government sector, is to be welcomed. I welcome the additional spending for education in general in the budget and am pleased to see that Labor’s continued calls for an education revolution are being heard. The Howard government is finally attempting to undo the damage of 10 long years of neglect and underinvestment in Australia’s education and training system. It is unfortunate that the Australian public have had to wait until a few months before an election for the government to finally do this, despite having had a decade to invest in our education system. Labor have put education in the spotlight through our continued education revolution policies and I am pleased to see that the government is following our lead, even if they are only doing it to crassly try and win an election.

The first measure in the bill doubles the amount of English as a second language funding available for humanitarian entrants and recognises the extreme disadvantage faced by this group. This is a welcome measure and an overdue recognition of the severe disadvantage faced by humanitarian entrants and the importance of learning English for new entrants in improving their future education and employment opportunities. This measure will assist with the cost of delivering intensive English language tuition to newly arrived migrant primary and secondary school students. Under the current program, the funding per student is set at $5,277, which will be increased to $9,708 for newly arrived migrant schoolchildren who arrive under Australia’s humanitarian migration program. Increasing the amount of intensive English language tuition for a child who arrives in Australia either as refugee or through a humanitarian program is a recognition of the special needs of these students.

The composition of Australia’s humanitarian program has changed dramatically over the years, with around half of those moving to Australia under the program now coming from Africa. Many families have spent long periods in refugee camps with little access to education, making it difficult for children to return to school or indeed to attend school for the first occasion. By increasing the amount of intensive language tuition these children can receive, this measure recognises the greater need of humanitarian entrants, and that is strongly supported by Labor.

The second measure in the bill provides loadings in the school socioeconomic status, or SES, funding formula of five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent respectively for schools classified as moderately assessable, remote or very remote. These loadings and this measure apply only to non-government schools. Labor welcomes this measure. The reality is that schools in rural, regional and remote Australia have different needs and costs to their metropolitan counterparts. Both government and non-government schools are affected by their rural, regional or remote location. So far as the cost of education is concerned, this is a disadvantage. Indeed, according to the Productivity Commission’s report on government services, nearly 24 per cent of all non-government school students attend schools in regional and remote areas. As a consequence, this budget measure will bring a welcome increase in funding to approximately 400 non-government schools and around 350,000 primary and secondary school students.

The budget papers outlining this measure also refer to a requirement that state and territory governments provide a similar loading for government schools in the next four-year funding agreement, which takes effect from 1 January 2009 and concludes on 31 December 2012. This is despite the fact that until now the Commonwealth has not recognised regional and remote factors in its SES school funding formula, while a number of state and territory governments already include this in different ways. In Victoria, for example, the state government’s funding formula for government schools recognises the special need faced by students in regional and remote areas and includes a rural school size adjustment factor. This measure accounts for the greater costs these schools face outside the metropolitan area and the difficulties rural, regional and remote schools often face in attracting and maintaining staff.

In other jurisdictions where large numbers of students study in remote or very remote areas, funding is provided at a higher rate to account for these factors. In the Northern Territory, for example, the average expenditure per primary school student is around $13,000 compared to the national average of $8,000. Again, for secondary school the average funding per student in the Northern Territory is more than $16,000 compared to the national average of $11,000.

There is, in my view, clearly a need for additional resources for schools in rural, regional and remote Australia. This is one of Labor’s funding priorities for schools. The particular need of students in rural, regional and remote areas is clear. Schools in rural, regional and remote areas have persistent difficulties attracting and retaining teachers. They have limited and restricted access to facilities that their metropolitan counterparts often take for granted. It is often more difficult to get regular access to things such as libraries, museums, galleries and other educational attractions in rural, regional and remote locations than it is for city or town based schools. And with that comes the additional cost and burden of school trips and excursions, whether they be to Sydney to visit the foundation of European settlement, to Melbourne to visit the Scienceworks Museum or indeed to Canberra to visit this parliament and the War Memorial. For many schoolchildren, visiting them is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it is often expensive for both parents and the schools to organise. These are invaluable experiences in a school career no matter where that school may be, but the obvious cost, travel and time burden on those schools and students who come from rural, regional and remote Australia is particularly acute.

In addition, in the absence of having ready access to these sorts of facilities on their doorstep, school excursions are the sorts of things that take on an additional level of importance in schools outside the major population centres. In the area of educational attainment, schools in rural and regional locations also fall behind their metropolitan counterparts in the literacy and numeracy achievements of students. The 2005 National report on schooling in Australia, for example, highlights the need for greater support for students in remote areas.

For year 3 students undertaking the literacy and numeracy benchmarks in 2005, 93.7 per cent of students in metropolitan areas passed the writing benchmark—which fell to 82.5 per cent of students in remote areas and further dropped to only 62 per cent of students passing the benchmarks in very remote areas. The results are even more alarming in numeracy, especially in later years, with 83 per cent of year 7 students in metropolitan areas passing numeracy benchmarks in 2005, while only 72 per cent in remote areas and fewer than 50 per cent of students in very remote areas passed the numeracy benchmarks. The story is much the same for the number of students who stay at school until year 12. In metropolitan Australia, the Productivity Commission estimates that 70 per cent of students in metropolitan areas complete year 12, with this dropping to 63 per cent in remote areas and plummeting to only 37 per cent in very remote areas. Clearly, there is an acute need to address these issues and improve the educational outcomes of students outside our metropolitan areas.

While this measure will bring a welcome increase to needy non-government schools facing difficulty because of their rural, regional or remote locations, it focuses on the need for further government funding to government rural, regional and remote schools in the next four-year funding arrangement. In my view, this is a government responsibility which falls on both the Commonwealth and the states and territories.

A greater proportion of government schools are in rural and regional locations. The Productivity Commission’s Report on government services 2007 found that nearly 29 per cent of all government students are studying in so-called provincial locations—essentially schools located in rural or regional locations—while three per cent of all government students are either in remote or very remote locations. Twenty-nine per cent of government students in so-called provincial locations and three per cent of government students in remote or very remote locations—that is 32 per cent—compares with 24 per cent of students in non-government schools, which I referred to earlier. This makes the point reflected by the second reading amendment, which I will formally move at the conclusion of my remarks:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.

In addition to those cost and location disadvantages, it is also the case that Indigenous people are much more likely to live and to attend school in remote and very remote Australia than the non-Indigenous population. The vast majority of Indigenous students attend government schools. In 2004, 87 per cent of Indigenous students attended government schools—schools which will not receive any additional funding through this new measure. It is quite clear that as a nation we must make greater investments in Indigenous education and work to close the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.

The Labor leader, Mr Rudd, spoke only a few days ago, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, of the need to set new national, bipartisan goals to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—goals that are achievable and measurable and which fulfil the spirit of the referendum. Mr Rudd proposed that as a nation we commit to the following goals: to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, to at least halve the rate of Indigenous infant mortality among babies within a decade, to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children under the age of five within a decade, and to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within 10 years.

Labor is committed to meeting these goals, and, along with a range of health and family initiatives, education is a key plank in achieving this. Under Labor, all Indigenous four-year-olds will be eligible to receive 15 hours of government funded early-learning programs per week for a minimum of 40 weeks a year. Labor will provide $16.9 million over four years to support the rollout of the Australian Early Development Index in every Australian primary school. This will be adapted to establish a culturally appropriate and nationally consistent means of addressing key aspects of Indigenous children’s early development which are central to their readiness for learning at school. Labor will ensure that every Indigenous child has an individual learning plan based on each child’s needs and Labor will expand intensive literacy programs and develop a new intensive numeracy program to assist underachieving students to catch up with the rest of their class.

Along with the strong commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, our aspiration and our intention is to improve the educational outcomes of all young Australians. While this particular measure deals only with non-government schools in remote and regional Australia, Labor have made a commitment about schools funding along the following lines. We believe that a greater investment should be made at all levels of education, including schools and schooling. Labor will fund all schools on the basis of need and fairness, Labor will not cut funding to any schools and Labor will not disturb the current average government school recurrent costs indexation arrangements for schools funding.

A Rudd Labor government will fund all schools, whether they are government, non-government, religious or secular, based on need and fairness. Labor has made it clear, through its continued education revolution policies, that it will make a greater investment in education at every level. In the context of this bill, that will include schools and schooling in rural, regional and remote Australia.

There are a number of funding priorities for Australian schools. I see a particular need not only for rural, regional and remote education and Indigenous education but also for more funding for primary schools, special education and early childhood education. We have to make a greater investment in schools in rural, regional and remote Australia, in our primary schools, in special education and in early childhood education. It is in these areas that I think the greatest need currently exists so far as our schools and schooling are concerned. I now formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.

See this speech in context