Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to take the opportunity to respond briefly to some of the contributions that we have heard from the coalition and to clarify some matters for them, as it is clear that they have not been paying attention closely. That is a pity, because this is a very important piece of legislation which is an expression of the desire of this government to see students funded on the basis of need across our schooling sectors.

Very quickly, I say to the member for Bradfield, who raised the question about the legal capacity that we might have to understand those matters that are in front of us: I assure you that we do. It is a great pity that the member for Bradfield did not take more time to read these amendments carefully before he started producing spurious and slightly dubious legalistic arguments from the other side of the House. But I just take him to amendment (12) on page 21 of the amendments that have been delivered to him, where the omission of clause 10, the 'not legally enforceable clause', is provided for. I am sorry to point this out in such a basic way to the member, but if he is going to stand up in the federal parliament and start playing bush lawyer then he had better be across those matters to which he is referring. He clearly was not in this case.

In relation to the questions that were put by the member for Macquarie and others, on the issue of ministerial discretion and direction under the bill, I just make the point that, firstly, similar to the Schools Assistance Act, the Australian Education Bill does give the minister power to make decisions and determinations and give direction, and they are necessary powers to give full effect to the legislation. But as a safeguard, where the minister has these powers, decisions are not made without regard to what is defined in the bill as relevant arrangements. The point is that that is defined in the bill. It is a written arrangement between the Commonwealth and an authority. It relates to the grants of financial assistance provided in accordance with the act. For a participating government school, it is the National Education Reform Agreement, and that is absolutely straightforward. For non-participating governments, it is the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. For the Catholic sector, for example, it would be a memorandum of understanding agreed with the state-based Catholic education commission. Remember that states and the non-government sector are afforded added protection through the appeals and review process in the legislation. It is considerably more robust than existing arrangements, so you actually have more safeguards in this bill.

So I really query the point that is being made by those opposite. It may be that we have a bunch of political cliches searching for a solution here, but you have to read the amendments to understand that and look at it closely.

Leave not granted.

I want to finally respond to some of the additional misplaced and incorrect contributions that we have heard from the coalition, and in particular from a very heated member for Sturt.

The first thing to say is that the preamble expressly identifies, recognises and acknowledges non-government school systems. So those views that have been put by members opposite on that matter are incorrect. The fact is that, if there is any risk or threat to funding for government and non-government schools, it lies in a continuation with the current broken funding model that would see $16.2 billion less going to schools over time. That was recognised by Minister Piccoli when he said specifically—and after all he is a National Party education minister—that the status quo would see New South Wales worse off.

In the absence of any real policy for the future, what we have now is very clearly in front of us a bill that enshrines what we have been talking about and working on with state governments, territory governments and the non-government school sector for a considerable period of time. The fact is that the community has moved on from sectoral debates; it has moved on from the kind of half-hearted scare campaign about alleged means-testing in the model—which is not there at all. The community has moved on, and this bill enshrines what we have been talking about as a government; making sure that every student gets the support in their education that they need and deserve. And we have been prepared to back it in the budget with over $9 billion of investment. If you add that to the states, who want to see this National Plan for School Improvement, we would see $14.5 billion in investment going to schools in the future.

I note that even today Mr Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group is reported as recommending the principles of the National Plan for School Improvement, the Gonski recommendations. He said that they are fundamentally sound and he wants to see governments deliver them. That is a rational response; not like the constant cavilling, carry-on and caterwauling that we have heard from those opposite.

This bill is about better schools for all Australians. That is what we want to see happen right now. That is what the parliament will vote on, and that is what the parliament will deliver.

See this speech in context