Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Can I clarify what is under consideration here and respond to some very false claims made during this debate on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The amendment that the Senate moved was to delete clause 22 of the bill—that is, to delete the whole section that refers to national curriculum. The shadow minister, apparently, says he is now arguing for something else. But what is before this parliament is the motion that I have moved that amendment No. 4 be disagreed to. Voting against that means that people are voting against the entire national curriculum clause. The shadow minister ought not to try to confuse people. Voting against that is voting for the deletion of the whole clause which deals with national curriculum.

Secondly, there has been a misrepresentation in this debate of the way that our national curriculum proposal works in relation to Steiner, Montessori, International Baccalaureate and other schools. The government have made it perfectly clear publicly—I have done it in speeches and we have spoken to these schools—that the national curriculum will be about content and achievement standards. There will continue to be flexibility. There will continue to be room for innovation and creativity and for the development and delivery of curriculum methods at the local level in schools. We have made it abundantly clear that we will ask the National Curriculum Board to advise on the best way of acknowledging the internationally recognised curricula of Steiner, Montessori, International Baccalaureate and other such schools. I spoke about this publicly in a speech quite some time back. We have made it clear to those schools.

Thirdly—and I think this really does need to be said and I want to correct the record in relation to it—I am not writing the national curriculum. The government appointed the chair and deputy chair of the National Curriculum Board. They are internationally recognised educationalists. Representatives on that board come from states and territories and the independent and non-government school systems. I think it is highly offensive to the individuals involved to suggest, as the member for Mayo just did, that in some way they are party political.

The member for Mayo has laid bare what this debate is about. It is about the Liberal Party and it is about credit for the shadow minister. It is all about them. It has nothing to do with the educational standards of Australian children. The people who speak on behalf of non-government schools, those who represent at a national level the Catholic and independent schools system, have spoken loudly today and they have spoken clearly. They have said to this parliament: pass this bill. They have said to this parliament: pass this bill with clause 22 in it. The government hears their voices. The government wants to make sure that non-government schools open next year with the benefit of $28 billion of resources. With those words, we are going to continue to work to get those schools the resources they need and to deliver on our election commitments of transparency and national accountability. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

See this speech in context