Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to contribute briefly to this consideration-in-detail debate. The minister in his earlier remarks outlined a series of noble-sounding aspirations, and that is all very well. But I think it is perfectly reasonable for those of us on this side of the chamber to adopt the very sound principle that was articulated by former United States President Ronald Reagan when he said, 'Trust, but verify.' The purpose of a consideration-in-detail debate is to engage in that verification process, to see if the words and language of the bill before us give effect to the noble aspirations which have been stated by the minister and by the government. Based upon the experience of this government's performance in the time that it has been in office, you would be naive and credulous in the extreme if you took the government's representations at face value and failed to go through a detailed process of scrutiny of the actual provisions in the bill, consistent with the very purpose of a consideration-in-detail debate. So I hope the minister will not be offended if, while noting his statement of lofty aspirations, we on this side of the House insist on the opportunity to test the wording and detail of the bill so that we may understand its actual legal effect.

With that, I come first to amendment (1) on the government's list of amendments which has been circulated. That amendment would have the effect that, in the preamble on line 8, after the word 'succeed', we insert the words 'achieve his or her aspirations'. At the moment, as members would be aware, the relevant paragraph of the preamble reads:

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

The amendment which has been proposed would insert after the word 'succeed' the words 'achieve his or her aspirations'. I am interested to understand the drafting intention behind the addition of the phrase 'achieve his or her aspirations'. I am interested to understand from the minister what the difference between 'succeed' and 'achieve his or her aspirations' is. I am interested to understand the government's thinking in the extent to which the preamble as presently worded is deficient in not including the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' and the benefit which is derived by adding the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' to the preamble. I am also interested to understand from the minister: what is the legal effect of including these words? On the other hand, what would the legal effect be if these words were not included?

I am also interested to understand the minister's perspective at perhaps a deeper level. I am interested to hear from the minister whether it is his view, underpinning the approach that has been taken in the drafting, that it is possible to succeed without achieving your aspirations.

I am interested also to understand, conversely, whether it is possible to 'achieve your aspirations' without 'succeeding', because I think it will assist the House in its assessment of the minister's drafting intentions in adding in the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' if we can understand the minister's view as to the difference between succeeding and achieving your aspirations.

I am also interested to understand from the minister the extent to which the present legislative and regulatory framework in the area of school education impedes students from, on the one hand, succeeding and, on the other hand, achieving their aspirations. I am also interested to understand from the minister—given that he is clearly a believer in legislation through the use of noble statements of intent—why he has not chosen to include such adverbs as, for example, 'fully succeeding' or 'comprehensively succeeding' or 'comprehensively achieving your aspirations' or, indeed, 'spectacularly'. Why has the minister not considered using the word 'spectacularly'?

Finally, I am interested to know why the minister thinks it makes sense to include these lofty aspirations in a bill. (Time expired)

See this speech in context