Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

All of us in this place would agree that the greatest asset of our nation is our young people. The current generation and future generations deserve nothing but the best. We would all agree that their future and reaching their fullest potential will depend on many factors and one of these factors is their education. We all agree on the significance of education for their future, but it is about priorities. It is about how money is spent. The focus ought to be on teacher quality. It ought to be on pedagogy. Teachers and educators in my community in the electorate of Macquarie are telling me on a daily basis that it is how teachers are trained and mentored and how they are connected with the teaching environment once they are trained.

The minister is saying that drawing out the best of future generations—the gifts, the talents, the abilities and the strengths—is about more money. Well, all of us in this place, having looked at the budget closely, understand that that there is no additional money in the budget; in fact there is less. So how can the minister come into this place and claim that he is committed to the future education of our people? I do not think so. The current bill does not cater for the diversity in the non-government sector. We have moved an amendment to supplement the definitions in this bill, to define both systemic and non-systemic schools. We have not seen the minister respond to these issues adequately.

Looking at these amendments, there are some more questions. The 71 pages of amendments to this bill actually raise more questions than they give us answers. The minister talks today about buildings. He mentioned how significant the buildings revolution, as he called it, was. However, again let me focus on what the educators in my community are telling me. While buildings may be of assistance, they do not really bring change. It is the people inside the buildings that bring change, and that is where the investment ought to go.

What is deeply concerning about the bill here is that there are a number of sections that give power to the minister in a way that we have never seen before—power for the minister to intervene in school systems that distribute money according to the various needs of their students and their schools. The minister again says today that he is concerned about meeting the needs of students, but how can a minister in Canberra really know what is needed across a particular system? The Parramatta diocese, which looks after the students in the Catholic schools in my electorate, understands the needs of all its communities. It has new schools, large schools, smaller schools, isolated schools—the list goes on. But there are some sections about giving the minister power that are deeply concerning. Proposed section 81 in division 2 talks about variation or revocation of approval on a minister's own initiative, and this is very deeply concerning. I will just read proposed subsection (2) of that, because I think the minister needs to answer questions about what this means for individual schools and individual systems:

Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may vary an approved authority’s approval by making the approval subject to one or more conditions, and the approved authority must comply with those conditions.

Please clarify all the conditions that could be imposed or removed.

What is important here is that there needs to be a level of trust, firstly, in the government—well, there is none. With all due respect to the minister, we do not trust what you or your government say, and the people of my electorate, the electorate of Macquarie, do not either. You have broken so many promises. Dollars have not added up, and this is no different. Then you introduce a bill with no transparency, no consultation and no opportunity for us to consult with our local schools and our local communities. You expect us to read it in a brief period of time while we are standing here about to debate, and then you want to interfere in schools' autonomy and their ability to make decisions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context