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

I very much appreciate the support and protection of the member for Brisbane. The member for Kingston is becoming ever more brutish as her margin increases and she believes that she does not need to pay any attention to the voters in her electorate of Kingston.

Last week it was reported that Education Union members in South Australia have asked the state government for a 12-month delay until 2014. I have been advocating for a long time that there needs to be a clear national plan for teacher professional development and specific resources allocated by the government for this. The government's National Partnership for Teacher Quality, which provides funding for teacher support, is not explicit that funding is set aside for the purpose of supporting teachers with respect to the national curriculum.

The coalition's second amendment seeks to include clear representation of the non-government school sector with respect to decision-making processes for future time lines for the national curriculum. That would read:

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 11), after subsection 22(1), insert:

(1A) The national curriculum must not be prescribed unless the non-government school sector has had input into its development through membership and/or observer status on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee.

[national curriculum—non-government school sector Input]

I have written to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth previously asking that he give consideration to representation on the standing council or on its advisory officials committee, the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. I believe that having representation at this level would be beneficial to add an extra layer of consultation on a range of issues affecting the sector and this representation would be a valuable source of strategic advice for any government in the future. This would provide a formal mechanism by which the non-government schools sector could be adequately and appropriately consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time frames for the national curriculum.

You will note that in its submission to the House standing committee inquiry into this bill, the National Catholic Education Commission's submission notes:

…that a significant number—one in three—students in Australia attend non-government schools, and that neither national non-government school peak body has any representation on the Ministerial Council of Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, the body that governs the work of ACARA and thus the work on the Australian Curriculum.

Having improved representation on the standing council's senior officials committee would add a safeguard that non-government schools would be adequately and appropriately consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time frames.

It seems unthinkable to me that with the number of parents who have chosen to send their children to non-government schools—namely, one in three—they are not represented on the appropriate bodies that make the decisions in relation to education in Australia. The member for Bass comes from the state where there has recently been a crisis of confidence in the education minister. The Greens leader tried to close dozens of schools until I made a trip through Tasmania highlighting the issue and drawing attention to the failures of the state education minister. He then, within days of my leaving Tasmania, reversed his position. I am glad to see that it is still possible to put political pressure on any kind of government to ensure that they reverse a bad decision. I am glad that the minister there, Nick McKim, listened to the concerns I highlighted during my trip through Tasmania by holding public rallies and backed down from a very bad decision. I went to the member for Bass's electorate in Launceston and spoke to non-government schools there. You would think it was an important enough issue for him to lobby the minister for school education in relation to the representation of non-government schools on a national body such as this.

I do realise that 'improved representation' could also mean something as straightforward as receiving agenda papers and draft minutes from either the standing council or the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee. Nevertheless, my amendment, if adopted, would enable improved representation of non-government sector authorities on this body. If I were minister for school education, I would certainly take up the opportunity and be grateful to have representation by the non-government sector at this level. These two modest amendments would go a long way in alleviating some of the reoccurring concerns about the curriculum process and have been endorsed by non-government sector authorities, both the NCEC and the ISCA. The government need to act to address the concerns being raised over the curriculum processes. They need to act now and take action to prevent further delays to the curriculum.

Defence families across Australia are frustrated that there is still no national consistency of curriculum between the states after four years of Labor. And I know the member for Fadden has a particular interest in the defence families in his electorate and, as a former of the defence services, he knows full well the pressures that defence families are already under because of the strenuous lifestyle that they lead and the pressures and stresses under which they are placed. As the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has pointed out there are 80,000 students that cross state borders through the period of a year. These students are depending on the minister for schools to start addressing some of the practical issues that are leading to the delay of a national curriculum in schools.

I also read the House standing committee's report on the inquiry into this bill. I noted the committee's comment that this bill is uncontroversial. While I agree with this statement in part, in that non-government schools cannot possibly be expected to implement a curriculum in a mere six months time, the events that have led to this are most certainly not uncontroversial. Unless the minister for school education starts taking some serious remedial action to save the national curriculum, many people in the sector are beginning to doubt whether it is ever going to eventuate.

I hope the crossbenchers take some time to deliberate on the coalition's suggestions for improvement and consult with the non-government sectors, who have indicated to me that they support these simple and modest improvements. I have written to the crossbenchers on two occasions outlining my amendments and seeking their support. I would remind the crossbenchers that my previous amendment on the earlier bill, which did not receive majority support, would have removed the deadline from the legislation, alleviating the need for this new change.

My amendments today are necessary as well and I hope they will receive support. I would remind the crossbenchers that, if I had been listened to previously by the government and by the crossbenchers, we would not be here listening to my speech today. Some members of the chamber might regard that as a silver lining. However, unfortunately, because of the ineptness of the minister for school education, we are here and I am needing to once again point out the inadequacies of a very weak minister, a minister who is like a pane of glass at cabinet meetings—you could look straight through him and nobody would even know he was there. Education is far too important to be in the hands of a minister who is a pane of glass and who has no influence at all on the decision-making process.

I would also point out that even though in July he was putting out press releases attacking me as the shadow minister and claiming that the Computers in Schools program was on track for delivery this year—even though we had pointed out that the government would deliver 45 per cent of the program in six months, having delivered 55 per cent in three years—the decision had already been made by the government in June that they would not be able to meet the deadline. But nobody told the minister for school education. In June the government had already decided—as shown in leaked documents that were in the Australian Financial Review last Thursday—that they would not meet the deadline for Computers in Schools this year and yet a month later the poor, old minister for school education was putting out a press release saying that it was on track and on schedule.

The problem is that nobody tells him what is going on. That was his defence when he was the minister for pink batts program. He always used to have excuses—the tram got a flat tyre or 'The dog ate my homework'. The reality is that he is not up to being the minister for school education, and it is far too important. There are 3.6 million students in schools across Australia. They are relying on the minister for school education to get it right. God help them!

See this speech in context