Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt, in a moment of Billy Snedden madness, thought he was in government and that his party did not lose the election. The member for Aston, in a speech of ideological fixation and philosophical obsession, kept on attacking the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and the process. These guys, in the 12th, 13th or 14th year of their reign under Mr Howard, were yearning for some Menzies-like longevity of coalition duration. The bastions of privilege on the other side of the chamber think they have every right to be always on the governing side of the chamber, but they really did nothing.

Let me say to the member for Aston that in my electorate—which includes the municipality of Ipswich, the fastest growing area in all of Queensland—we have a RAAF base at Amberley with thousands of people working there. We also have thousands of kids who travel across states—80,000 every year—to come to Queensland and other fast-growing states such as Western Australia. And guess what? They do not get taught the same things in Torres Strait as in Tasmania or the same things in Palm Beach as in Perth, because those people opposite did not have the wit, wisdom, determination or commitment to implement a national curriculum. The coalition are now grizzling, griping, groaning and moaning about it. That is the reality.

This government is getting on with making major improvements not just in the national curriculum but also in teacher quality, partnerships and great rewards for great teachers. We are improving things by increasing funding. The member for Sturt went on and on about the BER. Let us get the money back. In my electorate, $108 million was spent in 65 local schools, so if those opposite do not want the money then give it back to me; we will use it in my electorate. I am happy to have the money if they do not want the BER in their electorates. But the BER legislation that we have put in makes a difference.

This commitment to the national curriculum, which we took to the 2007 campaign, is important. The member for Oxley adequately and appropriately outlined exactly the history of what we are doing. Indeed, the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority has made clear what is going to happen. Barry McGaw, the chair of ACARA, on 29 October 2010 said this about 2011—although those opposite do not want this rolled out next year:

So 2011 will, in the main, be a year of preparation and familiarisation, with some jurisdictions commencing a phased approach to implementation. In some states or territories, preparation may include working in classrooms with the new curriculum to test it more fully. This will help with the validation of the achievement standards specified in the curriculum and with the collection of additional samples of students’ work to illustrate different levels of achievement.

Implementation of the national curriculum is vital. We are working in partnership with the states and territories. There is a commitment to it for government schools and private schools. It is important to make sure that every child gets the same advantage in life: good quality teaching and a good curriculum to make sure they are not disadvantaged when they move from Coolangatta to Tweed Heads and that, if they decide to jump across the border between Albury and Wodonga, they get the same advantage in life.

But those opposite want to continue their opposition to making sure that young people throughout this country get access to good quality education. They do—that is the reality. They did not support the BER or digital education; in fact, they want to rip computers out of schools. That is their attitude; that is the policy they took to the last election. Here we are now and they are still complaining, still opposing and still wanting us to delay. ‘Procrastination, inertia, inaction’—that is the Liberal Party’s motto. When it comes to the national curriculum it is the same all over again. They simply want to sit on their hands—the do-nothing opposition, the negative opposition. To oppose this and to suggest we delay is nothing short of disgraceful. They should hang their heads in shame because they are the party of negativity.

See this speech in context