Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I will begin where the Deputy Prime Minister finished—that is, this is a very important debate. We understand that, absolutely. I am not sure that the Deputy Prime Minister understands it as clearly as she makes out, because in fact this bill has been amended by the Senate. The national curriculum aspect of the bill is no longer linked to the funding aspect of the bill. The national curriculum has been removed from this bill by the Senate, and that is why the government is moving the motion that the amendment be disagreed to, because they—not the opposition—are making the decision to put the national curriculum part back into the funding part of the bill. So the government could agree right now to pass the bill, and the funding would flow to the schools as of tomorrow. They could do it if they wished to. They could do if they made that decision. There is no reason at all why the national curriculum has to be part of this funding bill. It is the new Labor way, of course, to link all things together—parts that the opposition does not wish to support with parts that it does. But we do not have to play the government’s game, and I do not intend to.

The national curriculum does not have to be part of this bill. It is not slated to begin until 2012. It is 2008. The government has all the time in the world to get the national curriculum right. It has all the time in the world to clarify the position for Steiner schools, Montessori schools, schools that teach the International Baccalaureate, schools that teach the Cambridge International Examinations method of schooling, schools that teach the Amelia Reggio method of schooling, schools that look after students with special needs and disabilities—all of which are at risk under the way the national curriculum is being described in this bill. Now why is that? Because the way the government has described the national curriculum is not the way that the previous government did. The government has removed a critically important phrase from the way we described the national curriculum. We used to say—it was actually our idea—that we would have a national curriculum or its equivalent accredited by appropriate authorities. The government has removed ‘or its equivalent’ and is simply mandating an inflexible, centrally controlled national curriculum that each school must sign up to or it will not get its money.

The coalition have no difficulties with diversity and choice in education. We stand for diversity and choice in education and always have. We were the party that decided to fund the independent and Catholic school sector in the Menzies government. That was our decision. On this side of the House we have always been in favour of supporting diversity and choice; both the non-government and government sector are important to us. This is an important debate. This is the debate on this bill, because if the national curriculum is linked to funding from 1 January, if every school is required to sign up to it, they are signing up to an unfinished, inflexible, mandated and centrally controlled national curriculum and they have not even seen the fine print, let alone the final national curriculum document.

The Minister for Education was a lawyer before she came into this place. The Minister for Education would not sign a contract for which she had not seen the fine print. The Minister for Education would not advise a client to sign a contract which they had not even seen the terms of. It is the most absurd notion that in December 2008 apparently the sky will fall in if a national curriculum is not part of this bill—it is not slated to begin for four years. It is an absurd notion. The Minister for Education knows full well that she could support the opposition in removing that part from the bill and the money will flow to the non-government schools from the moment the bill is passed. We are committed to supporting that. We supported it in the House of Representatives, we supported it in the Senate, and we will support it again today. We will support the funds flowing. So if the funds do not flow, there is only one side of the House that will be responsible for that, and that is the government side. It is the government’s decision. It is the cabinet’s decision. It is the Prime Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision. (Extension of time granted)

The Deputy Prime Minister talked about the sector. She had a show press conference today where she brought out representatives of the sector. One of those representatives from the Independent Schools Council of Australia wrote to me on 10 October, before this bill was debated in the House and before I gave my speech. In that letter, the Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, Mr Bill Daniels, said:

There are also reservations about several provisions of the Bill.

               …            …            …

The sector has yet to see the draft regulations or guidelines and consequently it is not clear precisely what the Government intends to require of schools under this provision.

He is talking about the national curriculum. He continued:

There is also considerable uncertainty about the final form of the national curriculum given that it is in its formative stage of development. The Bill in effect will require independent schools to agree to have their funding contingent on undefined curricula, subject to undefined arrangements.

Many independent schools offer curricula such as the International Baccalaureate, the University of Cambridge International Examinations, Montessori and Steiner programs and will wish to continue to do so in the future. There are also independent schools that offer high quality teaching and learning programs for students with special needs and ISCA considers that it is important for the autonomy of independent schools that they have the freedom to offer these curricula. It is not at all clear that this will be permissible under this legislation.

The Executive Director of ISCA, Mr Bill Daniels, wrote to me on 10 October 2008 in those terms. It could not be clearer that in October the Independent Schools Council of Australia was urging and supporting the opposition to amend this bill and to remove the national curriculum so that we could have that debate and make it clear in the months ahead. What has changed is that obviously we know the government has held a gun to the head of the independent schools sector, to the non-government sector, and is bullying the sector, as they tried to hold a gun to the head of the Senate last night. All credit to Senator Fielding from Victoria and the opposition for standing by their principles on the issue of the national curriculum.

I am disappointed that today ISCA has done a public press conference with the minister and said what they have said, but I understand it because it would be a very courageous peak body indeed that, faced with the prospect of the government cutting off their money on 1 January, decided to continue to press their concerns. We know that they have concerns; we have it in black and white. It would be very courageous—it would be Sir Humphrey Appleby level courage—for the independent schools’ peak body to today come out and attack the government. They have $28 billion on the table and they know that the election is not for two years. If I were advising them, even though I have a different view on this issue, I would say, ‘You are between a rock and a hard place.’ But the opposition is not between a rock and a hard place, because the opposition believes fervently that this bill can be split—it has been split—that the national curriculum can be taken out of the bill and that we can have the debate about how it affects Steiner schools, Montessori schools, IB schools, Cambridge International Examinations schools, Reggio Emilia schools and other schools of that kind. We support diversity and choice.

The power is in the hands of the government to make the money flow, and all they have to do is insert ‘or its accredited equivalent’—four words, two of them small and two of them long—in the bill and we will pass it. All we need to know is that an accredited equivalent will be acceptable. Why will the government not do that? Why will the government not insert those four words in the bill? Why would the government be so intransigent about it? They were happy to do so to clear up the issue for Indigenous students. They were happy to do so in the face of Senator Xenophon’s amendments that we supported that were our amendments. But, for some reason which I cannot fathom, apparently to insert ‘or its accredited equivalent’ would bring the government to a standstill.

Our view in the opposition is that if the government inserts ‘or its accredited equivalent’ in the bill we will pass it. There is an offer for the minister to consider. We are obviously going to vote against the government’s motion and it will go back to the Senate and the Senate will then have to decide what to do. We will support the bill if you insert those four words. (Time expired)

See this speech in context