Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When the funding program for school chaplains was first announced in 2006, it was broadly supported by the Labor Party. I know that because I was one of the few who raised objections to the funding in the caucus. The then leader, Kim Beazley, was very supportive of the proposal and made the same point as the member for Canning: that the program was well received in the state of Western Australia, where it had been in place for some years. I must say that I have not changed my view of the National School Chaplaincy Program. As I said in 2006—and it applies even more today—there is a crying need for a boost to school counselling services and family support measures and these should receive priority over a program which, as far as I can tell, is poorly targeted and does not address the needs of disadvantaged schools in my electorate of Fowler and other electorates throughout Australia.

I have to say that in my 11 years in this parliament I have visited the full range of schools in my electorate. As members would be aware, visiting schools often leads to a wish list of resources and facilities that the schools desperately need. But in those 11 years I cannot recall one request—not one—for funding for a school chaplain. School staff are increasingly frustrated by the lack of response when mandatory notifications are made to the New South Wales Department of Community Services. It is clear that the crucial needs of so many students are not being met.

While some may see value in chaplaincy services, it is easy to see where resources are most needed. ‘Praise the Lord and pass the Ritalin’ is no substitute for well-resourced and professional intervention where children face a home life often dominated by alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and family tragedy. While such intervention is the responsibility of state governments, it makes no sense for any government to lavish funds on chaplaincy programs while denying children and families adequate support. In a similar way, personal support programs exist in every school but, again, in many cases a shortage of resources restricts the ability of these programs to fully meet the needs of the school community. It only remains for chaplaincy services to address the spiritual side of student welfare. This in itself is a contentious aspect of the chaplaincy program, with not all religious bodies being happy with school chaplaincy services being provided by another denomination or faith.

At a time when we are to compare the performance of schools nationally, we acknowledge that all schools are not created equal. Study after study in Australia has found that the most significant indicator of a student’s performance is the home environment. Good teaching can only make a difference when students are receptive to learning, but in many schools in the Fowler electorate teachers can spend most of their time dealing with behaviour problems and only a small fraction of their time on teaching. It is the good students who miss out because of the loss of teaching time. We must admit that classroom teachers can only do so much to deliver the stable and caring environment in which learning can take place. Teachers must first of all be educators, not social workers. Without backup resources, our poorest performing schools cannot be expected to improve.

So far, the proposed steps to follow the identification of poorly performing schools include little in the way of intervention which will improve the home and school environment, which is necessary to help students. While we talk of the cycle of poverty, as a nation we have done little to break that cycle. We know that education is the key to improving the lives of young Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, but while ever we simply put the total responsibility on our schools and teachers we will never address the problem. We do not need school chaplains. We do need resources and professionals to improve the home, community and school environment to support our teachers to do what they should—and that is to teach. That would be a real education revolution.

See this speech in context