Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Chisholm. As a youngster, I attended Kerrimuir Primary School, along with the member for Casey, and went to Mont Albert Primary School for sports days. I certainly do not want to punish my parents for sending me to those primary schools.

Of the two bills the House is considering today, I rise to support the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and to oppose the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 amends the Indigenous Educated (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. The bill focuses on simplifying the legislative arrangements for Commonwealth funding of schools with a high proportion of Indigenous students. It appropriates more than $640.5 million for non-Abstudy payments and anticipates Abstudy payments of an estimated $102.1 million, an amount that will be adjusted as per demand. There is a significant Indigenous population in my electorate that would benefit from this legislation. Census statistics show that in 2006 there were 1,229 Indigenous persons below the age of 19 in Swan. The coalition is committed to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians and will be supporting the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008.

The bill I oppose today is the Schools Assistance Bill. I am concerned not only with the practicality of the components of this bill but also with its dangerous ideological underpinnings. The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 was introduced to the House last month following the expiry of the Schools Assistance (Learning together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004. The bill will appropriate $28 billion to provide funding for non-government schools from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2012.

I am pleased to note that Commonwealth funding for non-government schools remains essentially unchanged. In 2008-09 an estimated 67 per cent, or $6.4 billion, of Commonwealth funding for schools will be provided to non-government schools. The government has also retained the socioeconomic status—SES—funding regime, which it rightly conceded during the 2007 federal election campaign was the will of the people. On the surface, therefore, it may seem that the government has retained the coalition’s policy of support for non-government schools. Indeed, on 9 October, the member for Lalor claimed:

For too long the debate about schools was diverted into unproductive avenues.

                  …              …              …

The true target of our efforts must be individual students no matter which type of school they attend.

                  …              …              …

... we are moving beyond the traditional and discredited focus of schooling debate in Australia; the debate that revolved around competition between sectors and failed to focus on the realities of need and outcome across all sectors.

Fine words. However, as I will point out later in this speech, they are not entirely honest words. Behind the cloak of bipartisanship and pragmatism this bill gives clear suggestions that the Rudd government is planning to replace the SES with the Australian Education Union’s favoured and discredited ERI model. I will return to this topic later in my speech.

Before I outline the components of the bill that I object to I would like to reflect on the importance of non-government schools to Australia and in particular to my electorate of Swan. Recent statistics show that in 2007 a total of 29.9 per cent of primary school enrolments were made at non-government schools. At secondary school level, 33.6 per cent of total enrolments were at non-government schools. In my electorate of Swan, the latest statistics from the state government show that approximately 49 per cent of all enrolments this year were in non-government schools. This breakdown shows a total of 45 per cent of primary school enrolments and 56 per cent of secondary school enrolments at non-government schools. There is thus a greater proportion of non-government schools in my electorate compared to the national average.

This bill is clearly of importance to the many parents and children in my electorate and it is with this in mind that I will express my objections to the bill. I have spent considerable time meeting with parents in my electorate, and they are extremely critical of the Labor state’s curriculum. But they are more concerned that a national curriculum will be heavily weighted to a left-wing education overseen by a communist and will punish non-government schools for participating in the infrastructure developments of their schools. I am concerned by the inclusion of a new provision by which the minister may delay or refuse to authorise payment to a government school. This new provision is detailed in section 15(c) of the bill and states that the minister may intervene in this matter if:

… a law of the Commonwealth or a State requires the body or authority to be audited—the relevant audit:

(i) is expressed to be qualified; or

(ii) expresses concern about the financial viability of the body or authority.

In my experience there are not many audit reports that do not have some sort of qualification in them. The wording of this provision is at present too broad. General points or qualifications by an auditor meant to assist the school in its financial planning could automatically allow the minister to delay payment. Such a provision is likely to put undue pressure on auditors and schools alike to come up with the ‘correct result’ and reduce vital transparency in the auditing industry.

Secondly, I am deeply troubled by the new requirement that schools comply with the national curriculum. As honourable members will no doubt know, part of the Rudd government’s education revolution has been to develop a national curriculum in four subjects: English, mathematics, science and history. Personally, I support a national curriculum. I think that it is a fantastic idea. Requiring non-government schools to abide by a national curriculum is inappropriate. It is likely to prevent Australian citizens from taking internationally respected qualifications such as the International Baccalaureate or the University of Cambridge International Examinations as non-government schools will find it difficult to comply with the national curriculum whilst continuing to teach within their chosen curriculum in other areas.

Similarly, it is likely that alternative educational philosophies, such as Perth Montessori School’s in my electorate of Swan, will face similar difficulties in meeting the requirements of this clause. The Perth Montessori School is based in the suburb of Burswood. Montessori education is centred on the child, with the Montessori ‘director’—or teacher—guiding rather than teaching. They are facilitators in the process of learning. The Montessori director presents the information to the child in a climate of mutual respect. By following and observing the child the Montessori director can recognise and respond to each child’s individual needs. Development of self-esteem, tolerance, mutual respect and concern for others are traits that are nurtured in a Montessori environment. In May I had the pleasure of presenting a flag to the Perth Montessori School and was fortunate enough to be given a tour of the school by principal Gary Pears. I saw for myself the benefits of their different educational approach. The school would simply not be able to function if a national curriculum was forced upon it. Diversity breeds strength, and this legislation would homogenise.

To enforce a national curriculum is to restrict parental choice and to restrict competition in the marketplace. According to an article in the Australian newspaper on 8 October 2008, education is Australia’s third biggest export, worth $13.7 billion, after coal and iron ore. We cannot afford to become uncompetitive in the global market for skills, which is what this provision will propagate. This argument on its own is enough for one to seriously question the wisdom of the national curriculum provision. When one takes into account the initial steps the Rudd government has taken towards its creation, the argument becomes compelling.

The formation of the history curriculum is to be overseen by Professor Stuart Macintyre, a former Communist Party member whose major works include histories of Marxism in Britain and a history of the Australian Communist Party. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: is this professor likely to provide a balanced and accurate history of Australia for the learning of our future generations? Last week the framing document for the English curriculum was released. Whilst the back to basics approach is welcome, the inclusion of critical literacy means we must reserve a decision until the full document is released. The English curriculum is being written by Professor Peter Freebody, a leading advocate of critical literacy in English courses. According to Professor Freebody:

Literacy education is not about skill development, not about deep competence.

This is not a message I would want my son to be taught under, and yet this is the man who, if Kevin Rudd has his way, will dictate what every school child in our country must learn. These choices by the Rudd government show that Labor cannot be trusted to decide on a national curriculum for our government sector, let alone our non-government sector.

Thirdly, I would like to draw attention to the additional reporting requirements for schools, particularly in relation to funding sources that this bill would lead to. Section 24(1) of the bill indicates that the minister will be given substantial new powers to demand information about the internal financial affairs of a school community. Schools in my electorate would have to disclose details about fundraising events, scholarship funds and even PTA meetings and chook raffles, a time-honoured tradition in Australia. Similar to the first provision I spoke about, this places a high red-tape burden upon schools. Non-government schools should be focusing on providing a quality education to their students and not spending resources preparing costly reports for the federal government.

More seriously, though, this is an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of schools and has significant implication for privacy. Parents should be encouraged to contribute, not discouraged from contributing, extra funds towards their child’s education. Can the government tell me that they do not want a group of interested parents investing in the infrastructure and, more importantly, in the safety of their children’s school? Does investing in infrastructure and safety of the school have to be done only by the state? Why would the curriculum budget be slashed because individuals want to improve the infrastructure of a school? Why? The only reason I can think of is the politics of envy. The only other explanation for why the government would seek this information is that it is planning to return to the union favoured ERI funding system, which has no basis in fairness. The Labor Party wants to build up its database of sensitive financial information and ultimately use it to restrict funding to many non-government schools in my electorate. I will go into this further later in my speech.

Another objection refers to the removal of the non-government schools establishment grants. The Howard government saw merit in increasing the viability of the non-government sector and encouraging new schools where community demand and private sector interest warranted it. This was crystallised in the new non-government schools establishment grants. Sadly, section 100 of this bill only makes provision for those schools approved in 2008 to receive grants in 2009. This amounts to a phasing out of the coalition’s new non-government schools establishment grants. The Labor government would appear to be returning to the ideological position taken in their new schools policy, and ultimately this will make it increasingly difficult to set up a new non-government school.

Having stated my specific objections to the aspects of this policy, I would like to consider in more detail the ideological underpinnings of this Labor bill—in particular, the danger to the SES funding model. The Howard government established the SES, or socioeconomic status, approach in 2001. The SES model, rather than asking parents intrusive questions about their income and other personal information, links student addresses with the ABS census data on three variables: income, education and occupation. The resulting socioeconomic index is then converted into an SES score for each school. The SES scores are then compared to the average amount it takes to educate a child in Australia. Non-government schools which draw students from high socioeconomic areas are then provided with a lower percentage of this average than non-government schools which draw students from lower economic areas.

The SES works well. It is a discrete, clear and simple mechanism for distributing federal funding. The SES legislation package also guaranteed that federal funding would not be reduced for any single non-government school. Many parents make significant sacrifices to be able to send their children to schools that reflect the values they hold or specialise in programs in which their children excel. The SES model reflects government’s appropriate role in enabling those parents to make the choices that are best for their family and for their child.

The union favoured ERI model is flawed. The model, used from 1985 to 2000, primarily measured the ability of a given school to generate funds by itself. It then took the discrepancy between this figure and a standard level of resources based on government school per-student cost to determine the level of government assistance. The model was widely criticised as too complicated, susceptible to manipulation and generally a disincentive to private effort. The funding achieved by a given school depended to a large extent on how familiar it was with the funding model and frequent changes to the formula. Many schools sought financial advice from specialist ERI advisers or accounting firms. This was a difficult cost to bear for many non-government schools and was clearly inequitable. Finally, the ERI method was an overwhelming disincentive for schools to raise income. The ERI reporting requirements meant that increases in a school’s private income could raise a school’s ERI score and reduce its federal funding. Even goods provided free of charge had a monetary value placed on them. In this way the ERI became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Despite their policy backflip to keep the SES to appease voters at the last election, it is clear that the Labor government have ideological objections to the SES model. In 2000 the member for Lalor was quoted as saying:

The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of … alumni funding raising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like.

She went on to argue:

… it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw …

The member for Lalor is certainly not alone. The member for Prospect said in 2004 that he preferred the ERI, or education resources index, and the member for Eden-Monaro was quoted last year in an article in the Australian as saying that the Labor government would:

… move away from—

the SES—

and get down eventually to a proper needs-based approach.

These comments indicate a clear ideological difference between the Labor Party and the coalition. The member for Lalor’s comments in particular show that the politics of envy still dominate thinking in the Labor Party. Labor still has not accepted that funding non-government schools is the best way to provide choice for Australian families. It is in this context that the government’s provision that requests sensitive financial information becomes suspicious. It is only natural to suspect that the intent of the Labor government review of school funding in 2010 will be to radically restructure the funding model of non-government schools along the lines of the old, discredited ERI model in time for the next funding quadrennium, 2013 to 2016.

Education should be about providing the right skills and a balanced perspective for our children. I have a son in year 11 who attends a non-government school in my electorate of Swan. I want him to have an education that provides him with the skills he needs so that he can follow the career pathway he chooses. I want him to have a strong grounding in reading, writing and arithmetic. As important as that, though, is that he leave school with a balanced perspective on the history of our nation, its future challenges and our place in the world order. I do not want him to have the Marxist philosophy that would be preferred by certain members of the ALP.

The member for Lalor said over the weekend that the coalition were against a national curriculum. We are not against a national curriculum—indeed, quite the opposite. We are for a balanced national curriculum that helps Australians gain nationally and internationally recognised qualifications and do whatever they want to do in life. What we are against is a curriculum designed by left-wing academics pushing their own agenda that does not fit with the values of our nation.

In conclusion, there has been much speculation in recent times that there is little or no ideological difference between the two major parties anymore. This bill should dispel that myth. This bill will impose stifling regulation on the non-government sector and reduce competition and choice in the education market. This bill represents all the things that we do not see or hold as the values of the Liberal Party and the coalition, and therefore I oppose it.

See this speech in context