Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is my first opportunity to speak on legislation following my maiden speech. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on important bills. As it is joint bills being discussed, I will start with the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which I welcome. I think the minister and the government are doing the right thing in providing additional funding for Indigenous education. I think one of the great legacies of the Howard government was the intervention in the Northern Territory last year because it finally recognised that what we need to get right in the Indigenous communities in our country is firstly the law and order battle and then educating the young kids—because, as we all know in this place, education empowers people to build a better and brighter future for themselves. I think that intervention is a generational battle, and the generational battle will be won in the field of education, so I support the move of the Education Legislation Amendment Bill.

On the other hand, the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 does worry me to a degree. There are four parts of it which concern me, and some of my colleagues have raised issues, not least the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, who has raised these arguments in this place. The four changes that I think are most concerning are the changes to the grounds upon which the minister can elect to refuse or delay payment under clause 15, which make it easier for the minister to do so; the new requirements in school funding agreements to comply with the national curriculum by 2012, as specified in regulations, which are in clause 22; alterations to the reporting requirements for schools, particularly new requirements relating to information about financial viability and funding sources under clause 24, which are probably the most concerning aspect of this bill and which I will touch on a little bit later; and removal of the previous government’s new non-government schools establishment grants under clause 100, which again troubles me.

Of course, the SES funding method, which is the fairest method for funding private schools, was introduced by the previous government. It was never one that was liked by the other side of the House, it would be fair to say. In 2004, when the previous leader of the Labor Party and the Deputy Prime Minister’s political hero—at that stage—was the leader of the Labor Party, we had the famous private schools hit list, which probably reflected the true views of those on the other side at the time. What they did last year, of course, was to cover up some of those true views very well and introduce policies which appealed to middle Australia, making it look as if they had changed their clothes on this issue. However, what this bill does is to start to build the case to reintroduce the private schools hit list.

See this speech in context