Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If anyone heard that contribution they would have worked out pretty quickly that the only bit of any importance was the last bit where the member for Sturt said that the opposition had won government. That is really what this motion is all about—apparently they have won government. We will see how that works when we are in the chamber and in terms of the law and the Constitution. Apparently Mr Pyne is a member of the government, so we find ourselves in an interesting set of circumstances. This motion is really just about trying to delay the role of the government and our implementation of some very important policy that we had in place before the 2007 election. There has been an ample amount of time for a whole range of stakeholders, including the opposition, to play a constructive role in this, which they have not done.

There are range of things which I think are very important in getting a national curriculum up and fully operational in Australia, and none is less important than the future of all of our children—the future of students in this country. At some point in time, when discussion, debate and consultation come to a natural end, if you like, there is a natural place where the situation goes from thinking about it, looking at it, consulting, doing surveys, going through all the motions and going through every part that needs to be done to actually getting on with the job and implementing something. That is exactly where we are at as a government and, I believe, as a country. That is the important part we are at now. This is not a new concept, nor is it a new idea. Not is it something that has taken people by surprise, whether they be teachers, students, parents or anyone else. I can recall many, many years ago, if not decades ago, people discussing the merits of having a national curriculum and how good it would be—in fact, how great it would be—if we ever got to that place in this country. We will get to that place and we will do it under a Labor government.

I note, because I think it is important, that this motion is about delay. Part (2) of the motion says:

… requires the Government to delay the implementation of the national curriculum …

I do not think we can delay any further. I do not think we can afford to delay; we have already had a delay. Those years of delay were the 12 years that the opposition were actually in government—they delayed it for 12 years. It took us getting elected in 2007 to get on with the job, to go beyond the delays and just thinking about it or considering it as a wonderful idea—and I know everyone believes that—to actually implementing this very much needed policy.

There are some great things about our Federation and there are some things that do not quite work very well, and one of those is the area of education. When you have six states and a couple of territories, there is bound to be a state with the best system and others that are not quite at the same level. What is important here is that we find a base level where we can bring up every child in this country and where every student can have the same opportunities. There needs to be an equalisation between the states and territories in terms of where education is going and the standards that are implemented.

In my home state of Queensland we have been working on this for a number of years now with the Queensland state government. We have now introduced what is called the prep year, the pre year 1 year, which will make an enormous difference over a period of time to bring young Queensland kids in line with other states in their educational experience and the opportunities they get. There are a whole range of very, very good reasons why this needs not to be delayed but to continue on. There is our international and global competitiveness. I believe competition between the states needs to end. Competition ought to be between students, not between states, and it ought to be at an international level. The time line for this has not been rushed. Development began in 2008 with the preparation of papers outlining the broad shape, and they were finalised and published in March 2009. Draft curricula were first published from March to May 2010 and 150 schools were involved in a trial. At the end of the consultation period 3,650 individual online surveys were carried out and 209 written submissions were received from 186 peak organisations.

The reality is that government and government agencies have been taking note of all of those. Twelve hundred people participate in national and state forums. Extensive consultation has continued; it has not just ended but has actually continued. There has been independent mapping of the four curricula against state and international assessments. The result of the mapping against international assessments is very encouraging. It shows that we should expect the same level of performance from our students as do high-performing countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada and Finland.

The program that we bring forward may be difficult. It may be tough. It may involve people actually getting on with the job, looking outside the square and starting to tackle some of the harder issues—but I do not believe that delay is one of them; I do not believe that that is the one we ought to pursue. If we listened to the opposition, they would have us delay for a further 12 months. But, in reality, we know that the game of politics—

See this speech in context