Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008 that is before the House. I am proud to represent the constituents of Macarthur on this very import matter, in particular as the foundation of our nation’s future relies on education and our education policy over the next decade and beyond. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008 represents a step forward for the Labor government. I am pleased that they have had the sense to adopt the national curriculum as proposed by the coalition and the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon. Julie Bishop. In fact, I remember the Hon. Brendan Nelson speaking on this when he was the appropriate minister.

As the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training in the Howard government, I was proud to work with the former minister and to share in the many great achievements in education that we implemented. Contrary to many assertions that have been made by the members opposite, the Howard government made a colossal investment in schooling and education. The Howard government invested $1.2 billion in school infrastructure through the highly successful Investing in Our Schools Program. That program delivered desperately needed funding for projects in both primary and secondary schools at the state level which the states had neglected to provide. Furthermore, the coalition invested over $700 million of this fund into the government school sector in particular. Unfortunately, the Rudd government has chosen to abolish this program and others in favour of the stuttering education revolution.

This bill before the House is the latest Labor government attempt to tell the public that it is indeed delivering an education revolution. I only hope that the state governments are more willing to cooperate with the Deputy Prime Minister than New South Wales was on the last round of computer grants made in October this year. The Deputy Prime Minister stated in her second reading speech:

This government knows that a world-class education system is the foundation of a competitive economy, that it underpins a dynamic labour market and that it is central to building a stronger and fairer Australia.

I am pleased that the government knows this; however, I am doubtful that it actually believes it.

The coalition has advocated the establishment of a national curriculum to bring transparency, accountability and consistency to what has been a patchwork of state based systems. We believe a national curriculum and, eventually, nationally recognised qualifications will maximise the choices for students to pursue careers anywhere in this country and not just in their states. A national curriculum is the logical step forward in increasing our standards in education, in strengthening our economy and in developing an intelligent citizenry—all of which are vital to the continuing growth and prosperity of this great nation. I am pleased that the government has adopted the coalition’s policy. By creating a new national authority responsible for curriculum assessment and reporting, this parliament will hopefully usher in a new era of transparency and education.

Parents in my electorate of Macarthur and throughout the country have the right to know where they are sending their children and how that school is performing. For too long parents have been left in the dark, unable to access tangible evidence that proves schools are meeting their obligations to provide the best possible education for their children. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister when she states that:

In the past, education policy in this country has been dogged by a lack of transparency. Information about what happens in schools and what difference it is making has been seriously lacking.

Unfortunately, for much of the time that the coalition was in government the state governments were reluctant to hand over any control much less open their departments to more accountability and transparency.

Thus far, the school computer grants rolled out by the Deputy Prime Minister have encountered similar hurdles. It is in the best interests of the state governments to work with the federal government to adopt this national curriculum. I encourage the national and state governments to reach a national education agreement that endeavours to establish shared national targets, outcomes and policy directions through COAG before the end of this year. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that agreements and priorities, including proposals for the national partnerships, to lift teacher quality, boost literacy and numeracy and raise achievement in disadvantaged school communities are vital.

There have been concerns expressed to me by teachers and parents in my electorate that the national curriculum will not raise achievement but may lurch towards meeting the needs of the lowest common denominator. Each state education system has its positive and negative aspects. It is important that each state education minister and their departments show courage in admitting where a policy of another state or of the federal government is possibly better. The temptation to declare one state education system better than another may play well for state government politicians in their local polls; however, it takes conviction and strength to admit that the curriculum standards of achievement in other states are in fact better. I implore the COAG ministers to put aside their political considerations at this next meeting and to work together to create a foundation for a challenging national curriculum that aims to raise the bar for student outcomes. It is what students, teachers and parents in this country deserve.

There is provision in this bill for an analysis of school performance, greater transparency and the reporting of school results and teacher performance, as has been advocated by members on both sides of this House. As the Deputy Prime Minister has stated in her second reading speech:

Accurate information on how students and schools are performing tells teachers, principals, parents and governments what needs to be done.

It is vital that accurate information is available to all stakeholders in a child’s education, particularly parents.

Every year, parents in my electorate and around the country make one of the most important decisions regarding their children’s future, and that is where they send their children to school. I have met with many constituents in my electorate and they are very anxious about where they send their children to school. They come to me for advice because they know that I travel to many schools not only in my electorate but around the country and they are trying to work out a basis for where to send their children and provide them with the best possible education.

In the past, I have encouraged parents to get as much information as they can on schools in their area. However, there has never been an independent, clear-cut analysis comparing schools or school results. The only indicators parents in my electorate have are the UAI results at the end of year 12. Firstly, this is not a reliable indicator of a school’s overall performance. Secondly, it only provides a weak indication of high school performance. This has left an enormous gap in the analysis of primary school performance. The coalition has strongly advocated the need for a national reporting system. The state governments and in particular the teachers unions have been reluctant to open up the nation’s education systems to analysis and scrutiny. The only way we can achieve better outcomes and learning strategies for our children is to allow independent analysis and reporting of school performance. The coalition has always supported transparency and accountability in education. The publishing of results and independent statistics will empower parents. This will hold schools accountable in meeting their outcomes.

I now refer to the details in the provisions of this bill, particularly to the formation of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority as an independent statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the bill will include provisions to ensure that state and territory education ministers’ responsibility for curriculum arrangements in their own jurisdictions is recognised and respected and that non-government school systems are participants in the new national arrangements. The authority will be responsible for the management of curriculum, assessment and reporting at the national level and will report to all Australian education ministers through the ministerial council. The bill provides for an authority that will be led by a 13-member expert board of directors responsible for overseeing the functions of the authority. Membership will include a chair, a deputy chair, one nominee from the Commonwealth, one nominee from each state and territory education minister, one nominee from the National Catholic Education Commission and one nominee from the Independent Schools Council of Australia.

I have two major concerns with the proposed make-up of this authority. Firstly, just over one-third of students in my electorate in Western Sydney attend Catholic or other non-government schools. It is fundamentally important that the participation of non-government schools is preserved. This legislation must ensure that any proposed changes to the national curriculum in the future will have input from the teachers and parents of schools that are responsible for the education of over one-third of the student population—that is, non-government schools. If anything, the new authority under-represents the non-government school sector. They have been allocated only two of the 13 appointments. I urge the government to reconsider the make-up of the authority to proportionally represent the interests of non-government schools. With over one-third of students in my electorate attending these schools, with similar figures across the country, it is only fair that they have a proportional say in what their schools will be teaching.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of the board will be appointed by state education ministers. Although I do see the logic in having each state education department represented, I am concerned that the appointments to the authority will become politicised. The curriculum—as in what students will actually be taught—moulds the way each new generation will think. Over the years we have seen accusations of political bias of teachers and curriculums that are set by the state governments. Education must be consistent. That is why the coalition proposed and supported the idea of a national curriculum. In modern 21st century Australia it is absurd to have seven different curriculums setting seven different approaches to education. Providing a consistent and stimulating curriculum for students is one aim of a national curriculum. The appointment of representatives to the authority by state education ministers, with the authority having the right to reject a proposed candidate, is bound to cause instability in the authority and as a consequence in the direction of the national curriculum.

The national political landscape at a state and federal level is dominated by Labor governments. They will hold the balance of power when choosing who is appointed to the authority that will recommend the standards of the curriculum. Although I will not presume that the ministers, nor their appointments to the authority, will overtly exercise political bias, I believe that that is a risk in the provisions of the bill. I ask the government to please consider this when nominations are put forward. If our education system is to produce inquisitive, open-minded and competent citizens who possess the capacity for free thought, they must not be overwhelmed by political persuasion. Instead, the authority must ensure that the curriculum gives students the tools to eventually make up their own mind, to be given both sides of a story or a history and to openly question what might have been rather than be told what should have happened. In her second reading speech, the Deputy Prime Minister discussed the benefits of having a national curriculum. She stated:

In developing a single national curriculum, the authority will ensure that every young Australian has access to the highest quality education—regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic background.

As I referred to earlier, the curriculum must raise the standard of achievement and not slump to accommodating the lowest common denominator. The national curriculum must be implemented with the intention of raising the standards of education for students. It is completely unacceptable that year 12 students leaving high school for university sometimes have to take bridging courses at university to learn basic spelling and grammar. Teachers must be given the tools to ensure their students do not slip through the cracks without learning the basics. Many teachers in my electorate suggest that a reduction in class sizes and a better student-teacher ratio is not enough to prevent this from happening.

A major area of concern I have in relation to this bill is the direction that the national history curriculum will take under this advisory board. The appointment of Professor Stuart Macintyre to draft the national history curriculum highlights the risks of a political appointee being entrusted with writing a holistic approach to history. For too long Australia’s students have been subjected to history based on case studies and a bland outline of Australia’s history. It is vital that the history curriculum provide students with a sound grasp of Australia’s history but also Australia’s heritage and the context of our history within the history of the rest of the world since 1788, not just from 1901. Australian students already lack a basic understanding, and therefore a valuable appreciation, of our British inheritance of Westminster democracy, the rule of law, and our place and links with Western civilisation.

Nor in the state curricula to date have we encouraged a deeper knowledge of the Australian political system beyond year 6. During my time in Canberra, one of the greatest pleasures for me as a member of parliament has been to welcome primary school groups to this place to learn more about the political system. However, it is my overwhelming belief that we should also encourage high school students to visit Parliament House in Canberra and to encourage them to fully understand the political system in this country so that they can play a better role in the growth of this country and further their endeavours to be leaders of this nation at a later date. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister when she states, ‘We must ensure that all Australian children achieve their educational potential, and that more of them complete schooling through to year 12.’ This country was not built on past generations accepting second best.

I feel it is important to reflect at this time on the symbolism of our national coat of arms. The kangaroo and the emu present on the coat of arms symbolise our nation striding forwards and never being allowed to take a backwards step. It is my hope that this new national curriculum, as prescribed in this bill, will indeed take our nation further forward and provide a solid foundation for the happiness and success of our future generations.

See this speech in context