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

Well, it is part of a case. Member for Moreton, you might be embarrassed by it. I understand. But this is part of the case. We are back to building part of the case which is back to the attack on private schools. This legislation is about reducing choice. Otherwise, what is the point of the provision for asking for schools to report financial information to the minister? More importantly, what is the point of the provision to allow the minister to release this publicly? Maybe the minister in her final remarks can answer that question, because it seems to me a very strange provision to have in the bill, unless you intend to release that information publicly. And, if you are intending to release that information publicly, what is the point? I ask the member for Braddon to ask the Deputy Prime Minister that question.

I imagine this will elicit a response from those on the other side. We all know what this is about: it is about supporting their friends and allies at the teachers union. Ultimately that is what we are getting back to. This is what we are building to. The education union certainly does not like private schools.

This brings me to standards. Standards are something I think are extraordinarily important in the education system that we are building. I have two young children and I certainly want them to go to schools where they report on a basic A to E report card and where the parents are able to glean from the reports basic information about how they are going, not political correct mumbo jumbo where eight criteria are ticked and the students are asked to self-assess. I think what the education system needs is good strong competition where kids who do well are rewarded; kids who decide that they want to go off into trades and so forth also have the ability to do so. We need an education system based largely on choice and reward for effort. This bill does not do that.

While I support the bill’s intent of providing the funding to the private education sector—because, of course, this is dealing largely with the private education sector—I do not support the provisions which allow the minister to report on the additional fundraising sources that private schools are able to use. I think it is important that the minister address those questions in her final remarks.

The bill also makes some changes to the grounds upon which the minister can elect to refuse or delay payment, making it easier for the minister to do so. It might be reasonable to introduce this clause to ensure the financial viability of the school, but this subsection appears to presume that, if an audit statement is qualified, it necessarily signals that the school’s financial situation is precarious enough to warrant the minister to refuse or delay payment. That raises questions about what the need for that provision is.

The new requirement that schools comply with the national curriculum raises questions in my electorate with schools such as the Montessori school at Aldgate, which will have trouble complying with the section which requires that the five areas of statements of learning are met: English, mathematics, science, civics and citizenship education, and information and communications technology. I think it is very important that that issue be dealt with, because it raises some questions from some of the schools in my electorate.

In summing up, I think this bill has some fundamental flaws, particularly the section which relates to reporting on funding sources. It raises questions on why the minister is undertaking to do so. I think this is getting back to the old Labor days of 2004 with the Latham-Gillard combination back again. I support the member for Sturt’s amendments to the bill.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context