Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 consideration in detail. We have just heard from the shadow minister about process. There is no process in this particular bill, as we have seen since it was first brought to the chamber back in late 2012. Since then we have been preparing speeches, and I finally got to speak on it on Monday. I am seriously concerned about the shadow minister's health. I know he has been running around trying to deal with this bill, deal with the minister and deal with all the schools and the stakeholders involved in this, and I am seriously concerned about the process that he has had to deal with. I am sure he will be up to it and I am sure he will make sure that he takes the argument to the government and makes sure that all the stakeholders involved in this bill are greatly represented in this chamber. I know Deputy Speaker Oakeshott is big on representation in this chamber.

The government's handling of this bill has been chaotic and shambolic—a debacle. As I said in my speech on the second reading speech, the bill had no proper detail and would have been better suited as a press release rather than a bill in this place. As we heard from the shadow minister yesterday, at five o'clock 71 pages of amendments were produced. The document is that large that we cannot even download it through ParlInfo.

Through that process, we have gone from a bill with no detail contained in it to a situation where the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill at the eleventh hour—it is probably nearly the twelfth hour. It is good that the minister took the coalition's advice on board and introduced more content into the bill. But he should have done so from the start and not at this late stage of consideration. We now have these detailed amendments in front of us that the House has had very little time to consider. This means that coalition members have had no opportunity to talk with our local communities, to schools or with state governments about the amendments moved by the government.

It is particularly disappointing that I will not have the opportunity to speak with local schools in my electorate of Swan in Western Australia, about these changes because, as usual, with anything to do with this government, Western Australia comes out the worst. I know that parents and students at Lathlain Primary School will be disappointed that I have not had an opportunity to talk with them when they will lose, according to reports in the local papers, $466,316 in funding, thanks to the government's proposed changes. I hope that the minister will come to Western Australia, go to Lathlain Primary School and tell them why they are going to loss $466,316 out of their budget because of this bill.

These tactics are symptomatic of this government. It is always about politics rather than achieving well-thought through and lasting reforms to our education sector. When the minister treats the parliament like this, it is clear to schools, parents and students—like those at Lathlain Primary School—that they are the ones who lose. Parents and students at Wesley College, Penrhos College, Como Secondary College and the East Victoria Park Primary School are all reportedly under threat of losing large chunks of funding under these changes. I see the minister smiling; I am sure that they will not be happy about losing their funding under this particular system. I am sure that they would all like proper scrutiny of these changes, especially when it is their futures that are under threat. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, despite repeated requests.

There is simply no excuse for the chaos and no excuse for the government to be ramming through these changes without proper scrutiny from the parliament and all stakeholders. The only strategy here is getting through the election. There is still no notional agreement on these changes. This is important, as it is the states and territories that run our schools. But the federal government, which does not run any schools and does not employ one teacher, thinks that it is okay to ram through changes like this without the support of the states. That is farcical. The Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, said, 'Why would I want to hand over control of the schools in Western Australia to the federal government?' Victoria have allocated no money in their budget for these new measures. South Australia, a Labor state, have refused to confirm if they will allocated money in their budget today for these measures.

The budget papers give us an insight into Labor's true plans for education. What the government does not want the Australian public to work out is that most of the money being promised under this new model will not flow until two or three elections away. The new model is less transparent than the old model and, given the track record of the government when it comes to keeping their promises and telling the truth—especially when it comes to budget figures—the states and territories and the Australian public can be forgiven for being highly sceptical of the government's proposals. I repeat my invite to the minister to come to Western Australia and to Swan and talk to the schools in my electorate that are going to lose out.

See this speech in context