David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s placement of its political interests and agendas ahead of solving the real problems facing Australia’s schools, TAFEs and universities.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had the most extraordinary outbursts from the Minister for Education, Science and Training over the last few days. Just last Thursday night, the minister for education circulated a speech calling for a common national curriculum. She justified this with the following quite incredible remark. She said:

Some of the themes emerging in school curriculum are straight from Chairman Mao.

She went on to say:

We are talking serious ideology here.

It is not the teachers that she is hopping into this time—although we know those on that side of the parliament like to blame the teachers for most things. On this occasion, the minister for education is blaming the state boards of education.

Today in question time the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister for education which Maoist was actually present on the New South Wales Board of Education. The Leader of the Opposition asked whether it was the president, Professor Gordon Stanley; whether it was any of the parents from the state schools or the Catholic schools; whether it was Dr Brian Croke, Executive Director of the Catholic Education Commission of New South Wales; whether it was Mr Phillip Heath, Headmaster of St Andrew’s Cathedral School; or whether it was Brother Kelvin Canavan, Director of the Catholic Education Office. The Leader of the Opposition asked which of these people this minister for education in the Howard government would identify as a Maoist. Of course, she could not do any such thing.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills has been warned and will be removed if he does not desist from interjecting.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Her whole point last Thursday was just so out of touch and so steeped in politics. It had nothing to do with the standard of education that is being delivered—for example, by the New South Wales Board of Education—and everything to do with politics. That is all the government are interested in these days. They are interested in politics and they are interested in making ridiculous statements like: ‘Themes in school curriculum coming from Chairman Mao.’ This minister for education has yet again been shown up today as being completely out of touch.

Following her extraordinary remarks, we had quite a lot of comment in the media about whether or not her criticisms bore any relationship to reality—is she so out of touch that she had no support from those who do understand what is happening to the standards of education in our schools? Unlike the minister for education, Professor Barry McGaw, architect of the New South Wales Higher School Certificate and former head of education in the OECD—that is, somebody who does actually know about standards in education—dismissed out of hand the education minister’s claims that literacy and numeracy standards are falling. In fact, he is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:

“There has been a substantial attention to particularly literacy but also numeracy in recent years with state and national assessment programs and curriculum reform,” he said.

“The international comparison shows we are not doing too badly at all in those domains.”

So it is cheap politics—the only politics that this minister is interested in—just to get her a front page. Of course, she did get plenty of front pages that went to the issue: ‘Minister to seek federal curriculum takeover’, ‘Bishop wants same classes in all states’, ‘Demand for same classes nationwide’, ‘Canberra to seize syllabus’. All of these headlines came out of her search for Maoists on our Board of Studies. What she said in her speech that she distributed on Thursday night—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Jagajaga not to use the personal pronoun, please.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister said in her speech that she distributed on Thursday night—of course the ‘Maoist’ reference had gone by Friday, because she could not find any of them:

We need to take school curriculum out of the hands of ideologues—

which of the ideologues in the New South Wales Board of Studies, of course, she has not been able to identify—

in the State and Territory education bureaucracies and give it to … a national board of studies …

That was Thursday night, and on Friday she said that the minister for education in the Howard government will decide what is taught in our classrooms. That is the position that we have from the minister for education: the minister for education in the Howard government will decide what is taught in our classrooms and the context in which it is taught.

Of course, her tough stance did not last very long. The minister for education realised that this was a bit over the top, so by Sunday she had done a complete backflip. By Sunday she was saying:

I am not talking about a Commonwealth takeover.

Hang on a minute. What were those headlines again? What were those headlines that said, ‘Canberra to seize syllabus’, ‘Canberra takeover’? By Sunday the minister was saying:

I am not talking about a Commonwealth takeover. My concern is raising standards, about greater national consistency in schooling …

Let us go a little bit further into this to see what this minister is really on about and see if we can discover what it is that this minister really believes. I thank the member for Fremantle for this. Back in 1998, when the minister first came into the parliament, in her first speech she said:

Our democracy depends upon the dispersal of power that state parliaments inherently provide as a counterweight to the federal parliament.

…     …         …

… federalism … ensures diversity and flexibility.

Extraordinary, isn’t it? She went on:

It is more responsive to local communities and allows for a greater sense of involvement and participation.

That was back in 1998, when the minister first came into the parliament. In July 2006 the minister told Meet the Press, after she had met with the state ministers:

I wasn’t pushing a national curriculum, I was pushing nationally consistent, high standards.

But by last week it was a national curriculum. So it was a national curriculum on Friday, back in July it was not a national curriculum and by Sunday it was not a national curriculum again. What does this minister believe in? What does she believe in? There are so many different positions just on this one issue. What we have had is an outburst of ideological language attacking the state boards of education, calling them Maoist one minute and then using that to justify a centralised takeover of curriculum by the Howard government. This is a very, very confused minister for education—a heck of a lot of politics, but nothing to do with what it should really be all about, and that is the standard of education for children in our schools.

I thought Maralyn Parker in the Daily Telegraph really pinged it today. Maralyn Parker actually follows these issues, and she said:

Be surprised we already have nationally agreed statements for English and maths.

Did that get mentioned last week? No, that did not get mentioned last week. Maralyn Parker went on to say:

This is where the Minister should be focusing—on what has already been agreed to and working on further agreements, not reviving Mao to terrorise us all.

However, it is the spectre of a national board set up and run by people such as Kevin Donnelly, who has the nickname among some academics of the court jester (based on a perceived penchant for pleasing the Howard Government) that is stirring everyone up.

Just recently he accused Australia of having dumbed-down and politically correct curriculums—

I seem to have heard that from the minister for education—

but then exhorted us to follow US-style curriculum development.

No doubt we will get that from the minister for education too. The article went on:

Meanwhile, Australian students beat the socks off US students in every subject in all national comparisons and consistently produce much higher academic standards.

Once again, the minister for education is extraordinarily out of touch.

Now we see the minister copping some pretty hefty incoming from her own side. I thought there were some pretty to-the-point criticisms in the West Australian newspaper today. The West Australian today quoted Peter Collier, the Western Australian Liberal education spokesman and, until today, I understand, a staunch ally of the minister:

“To suggest that the Federal Government has the panacea for success in education is naive in the extreme. If the Federal Government wants to have a fight over State issues, I’ll just say bring it on.”

So we are going to have a good fight between a Western Australian federal minister for education and her state opposition counterpart.

Another senior Liberal from Western Australia, Norman Moore, also hit out at the education minister’s plan for a national curriculum, labelling it—and I think this guy got it right—an exercise in ‘greed and power’. On Monday, Jeff Kennett warned that we could end up with the ‘lowest common denominator’ if we have a single national curriculum. Former National Party senator John Stone said he was against this thing being centralised in Canberra. He said, ‘I think that would be an absolute bloody disaster.’ So we have had some extraordinary incoming from the minister’s own side.

It does not seem that it is only in this area of national curriculum, though, that this minister for education is confused. In fact, there was a comment from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, in today’s Sydney Morning Herald. It was buried a bit, but I thought I would draw it to people’s attention in this matter of public importance debate. It really does, once again, humiliate the minister for education. The minister for health said:

... the (history) summit’s recommendation that students should develop their understanding of Australian society “by pursuing a series of open-ended questions” sounds like more of the fact-free “thematic stew” that has so dismayed narrative historians.

That was the minister for health on the minister for education’s history summit. The core of this humiliation from the health minister is his very deliberate use of the Prime Minister’s primary insult—thematic stew—in describing the outcomes of her summit.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s a bit ugly!

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Another area where the education minister seems to be all over the place is when it comes to who controls what goes on in universities. Back in July 2006—so not that long ago—the minister for education proposed that the Commonwealth seize control of universities from the states. She said:

My suggestion is that we have one body, one accreditation agency.

So it was all to be done by the Commonwealth. But we did not hear any more about this after she was comprehensively rolled by the state ministers. Not a word about it since July until last week, when I read in the Age newspaper a completely contrary view. The minister said:

Universities are creatures of our states.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a fact.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton is warned.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a fact—that is exactly right. Universities are creatures of the states.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

The member for Gorton then left the chamber.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister went on to say:

They are accredited, registered, audited, governed by the states.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But back in July it was going to be all taken over by the Commonwealth. Once again, one just cannot figure it out.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms King interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Ballarat might follow the member for Gorton.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister says, ‘Exactly.’ So perhaps it is the case that this minister still wants to take over control of universities from the states, even though just a couple of weeks ago we had the minister pleading with the states for them to start putting more money into our universities.

We have had a few other thought bubbles from this minister. She has said that there should be compulsory preschool for four-year-olds. That was back in April. Have we heard any more about that since?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a word.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, not a word. There was a proposal for vouchers across the board for education—that got a run. We have heard nothing about it since.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Minister!

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What will be next? That is the question. What we are not getting from this minister is anything that addresses the serious problems that are facing this country because of the government’s failure to address the skills crisis—to make sure we have enough apprentices, engineers, nurses, teachers and doctors. These are the issues that the education minister should be addressing. These are the issues that this country needs addressed. Without that, this country is going to go backwards, because we have a major skills crisis that is now stopping business from doing what it needs to do. (Time expired)

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government welcomes this MPI debate. We are not afraid to have the spotlight placed on our record in schools, TAFEs and universities and our call for higher standards. Indeed, it is the Howard government that wants to open the lid on what the state and territory education systems are doing in terms of education and training and place the spotlight on the failure of the state and territory governments’ education systems.

And do you know what hurts Labor? They know that the parents of Australia agree with the Howard government on this issue. It is pretty rich to hear the member for Jagajaga talk about the politicisation of curriculum—I have to get this in the Hansard. The member for Jagajaga would be the last person to suggest that there are not people in the education system trying to ensure the curriculum is politicised. There she was, at the Marx Centenary Conference, where she said, ‘What does the dismantling of capitalism and the building of socialism involve?’

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a bit late, Julie. Brendan already used that one.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly; it gets better by the telling. She went on:

It is all too clear that spontaneous uprising is not around the corner, planned insurrection is only dream in some people’s heads. We are talking about transformation. The essence of this is that it is a strategy for a war of position where we can gradually make incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No prize for second best!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Jagajaga!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga called for ‘incisive interventions into the sovereignty of capital.’ And this is the person that the Labor Party would put up as an alternative education minister. Labor is being entirely disingenuous on this issue, as with so many others. Members might not realise that it was in fact the Labor Party, when the current Leader of the Opposition was the minister for education, that called for a national curriculum and threatened states. They threatened to tie grants to a national curriculum in 1993. How extraordinary that the—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Jagajaga has been warned. I will not hesitate to put her out.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

member for Jagajaga would now raise this with such high dudgeon. Of course, last week we had the shadow shadow minister—the member for Rankin—sitting up there calling for it to be compulsory for every child to be required to complete year 12. Mind you, the member for Jagajaga is so bereft of policy ideas that the member for Rankin has taken it upon himself to become the shadow shadow minister and is publicly pitching for her job. And all the member for Jagajaga can do is sit there and watch her position as shadow minister erode before her eyes.

Let me turn to schools. Recently there was an unprecedented event in education circles: Australia’s representative on the executive of the United Nations education body, UNESCO, Professor Kenneth Wiltshire, made a significant attack—through the media—on state and territory governments for their failure to monitor the quality of teaching in their education systems. Professor Wiltshire pointed out that state Labor governments, who are under the influence of the teachers unions, are unable to achieve any significant reforms to improve educational quality. Professor Wiltshire’s criticisms underscore the reality that any government that is unwilling or incapable of standing up to the teachers unions will be unable to put students and education standards first.

The Howard government are committed to raising academic standards across the nation. We are committed to achieving greater national consistency between state and territory school systems so that students who move between states are not disadvantaged. We are committed to ensuring that state and territory curricula are more accountable so that parents have confidence that schools are focused on teaching their children the essential and fundamental skills that will allow them to be well-informed citizens of the future. Parents are concerned about failing standards in our schools, and they are turning to the Australian government to focus on literacy and numeracy and get the state and territory education ministers to raise those standards.

The member for Jagajaga says, ‘Oh, we’re not doing too badly.’ I am sorry; that is not good enough. We accept nothing less than the highest possible standards, and there are numerous examples of failure on the part of state and territory education authorities. You just have to read the recent reports in the media. The Australian Defence Force Academy will force almost half of its tertiary engineering students to sit remedial maths courses to bring them up to university standard. A Queensland university has to require more than half its first-year science and engineering students to undertake remedial maths classes. Law lecturers in a number of law schools around the country are having to give their students remedial English classes. One of Australia’s best science research institutes, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, has had to employ a lecturer from the University of Queensland to run remedial English classes for PhD students—these are meant to be our best and brightest.

Across Australia, universities are having to direct valuable resources to remedial English and maths classes for tertiary students. This is because the states and territories, who set the curricula, have failed to ensure that students are getting the basics right. You just have to talk to employers, businesses and industry across the country to realise how concerned they are about the standards in our schools. International benchmarking shows some 30 per cent of Australian students did not reach the standard of literacy that would be required to meet the demands of lifelong learning—30 per cent; that is not good enough. The Labor Party is prepared to accept that 30 per cent of students should be condemned to a low literacy standard; we are not. This is a failure of the states and territories, and the Labor Party knows it.

Parents have also got a right to know what is being taught in their children’s classrooms and that their children are getting the necessary skills to perform at university and in the workplace. There has to be greater accountability for what is being taught in our classrooms, with schools not being used to politically indoctrinate children.

There are over 80,000 young people who move between states each year—it is probably closer to 90,000—and they should not be disadvantaged by the fragmented, inconsistent approach of the states and territories to schooling. We owe it to our Defence Force families and other families who are prepared to move interstate—and their numbers will only increase with our mobile workforce—to ensure that the education of their children is not disrupted beyond that which is necessary. What the states and territories and the federal opposition have failed to recognise is that parents are calling for educational reform, they are calling for a greater focus on teacher quality and they want more accountability and transparency in the development of curricula. The shadow minister, Ms Macklin, is unable to make any contribution to the debate about lifting educational standards because she is beholden to the teachers unions.

Research both in Australia and overseas concludes that the critical factor in determining a student’s achievement at school is the quality of the teacher. That is why, to promote teacher quality, we are focusing on the need to start giving teachers performance based pay and the need to develop a nationally consistent and rigorous approach to compulsory professional development. We recognise that of course there are outstanding teachers in this country, and they need to be identified and encouraged and rewarded. We need to provide teachers with incentives to lift their standards and to aspire to delivering better results for students. We have got to improve the quality of what is being taught in our schools.

There is widespread community concern about the content of curricula being developed by state government education authorities. Just take the debacle in Western Australia with the implementation of the outcomes based education system. Who suffers from this debacle? Not the education authorities, not the state government but the students, the teachers and the parents. That system has now been junked, and the students and parents are waiting to hear what the next fad is for the Western Australian government.

The member for Jagajaga mentioned Australian history. Well, yes, there has been considerable concern expressed about the downgrading of Australian history in our schools. And, over recent weeks, we have had professional geographers calling for the strengthening of their discipline in our schools, expressing their concern about the politicisation of geography, of all subjects. There is a need for the Commonwealth to take a leadership role in a fight for a back-to-basics approach across curricula. We have to work to ensure that we have consistently high standards across the country.

The failure of state governments to protect the interests of young Australians from trendy educational fads has led to the community turning to the federal government to take action. And let us open the lid on what is being taught in our schools; let us have a debate on what can be taught in schools and how and why. We should have curricula that are not hijacked by those who want to inject their politics into courses. History, English and geography classes should not be allowed to slide into political science courses by another name. The only way to do this is to lift the lid on the development of curricula and ensure that there is public accountability for what is going on.

The community are demanding an end to fads. They want a return to a commonsense curriculum with agreed core subjects like Australian history. They want a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy. Of course the curriculum must be challenging and aim for the very highest standards, not the lowest common denominator. We must not lower the educational bar to make sure everyone gets over it; we should be raising the educational bar across Australia and striving for excellence. Why can’t we identify the highest standards across the nation, adopt them nationally, focus on best practice in each state and channel the savings back into ensuring that every student, wherever they attend school in Australia, receives a high-quality education from high-quality teachers in a high-quality environment? Think of the duplication and the waste of resources that come from eight separate education authorities each developing a separate curriculum for every subject for every year from K to 12. The states and territories collectively spend more than $180 million each year just to run their boards of studies—each developing curricula, each developing curriculum documents and, in many cases, developing the same or at least similar curricula.

Getting our schools back to the fundamentals will have a positive flow-on effect for students and parents across the nation both in government and non-government schools. It is an educational agenda worth pursuing. Labor are entirely disingenuous in their concerns. If they were so concerned about the future of schools, they would have got onto their state and territory colleagues and they would have initiated reform. But they are slaves to the teacher unions and unable to put the best interests of Australian students first. Turning to higher education, the government have invested more in higher education than any other government at any time. As a result of our reforms to higher education this sector will be $2.6 billion better off over five years and $11 billion better off over the next decade.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am interested to hear the member for Jagajaga talking about figures. What is truly remarkable is that the one person in this House needing remedial maths is the member for Jagajaga. Today we found the blooper of all bloopers. Yesterday the member for Jagajaga claimed in a media release that the Commonwealth funding for research and development had crashed to $1.5 million. In fact the figures that were released today show that Commonwealth funding for R&D reached an all-time high of $5.6 million—just a mere $4 million difference. Just a rounding-up error was it, Jenny? Talk about a need for remedial maths!

The total funding contribution by the Australian government to higher education in this country is now $7.8 billion this year. In actual terms our financial assistance to the sector increased 42 per cent between 1996 and 2005. This represents 98 per cent of public funding. The point that I have made is that the states and territories—that, as a matter of legislative fact, own, control and accredit universities—contribute two per cent of public funding. I do not think that is fair.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the Australian government is required to contribute to the funding of Australian schools, why shouldn’t states and territories contribute an equivalent share to universities? On the question of student enrolments at universities, the Australian government has presided over a period when there are now record numbers of students attending universities across this country. There are almost a million students at university—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a decline in the number of Australian students.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and that is because we have been funding significant numbers of places.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s rubbish!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian government funding for an additional 18,515 more places has ensured this record number of students attending university. We are committed to increasing participation in higher education for all Australians. More students than ever before are receiving a university education. There is more funding for higher education than ever before. Ten thousand additional domestic students commenced an undergraduate course.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just not true.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Ballarat!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an increase of around six per cent to over 175,000. The number of commencing domestic students increased by around 7,000. We now have 260,000, up 2.7 per cent. Unmet student demand has fallen by more than 60 per cent—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have been deterred—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Rankin should be very careful.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the lowest level for decades. I think that we should just recall what it was that the Leader of the Opposition said when he was education minister. He was looking back to the days when he had portfolio responsibility for education and training and he said:

... I had sort of finally got to accept that I would never be Defence Minister again, so I lost a lot of ambition and I stopped straining ... I thought that there was less capacity to achieve in that [education] portfolio than just about any I have had.

What an absolute disgrace! The Howard government is committed to higher standards in education. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since this is a debate about education, I am going to start out by playing teacher just for a second. Hands up all those of you who are sick and tired of being lectured by Howard government ministers about things for which they have had responsibility for the past 10 years. Hands up. It happens time and time again. All we get from John Howard and his ministers is commentary—never action, never solutions, just commentary. They spend all their time playing politics, lecturing others and usually blaming others. What they seem to forget is that they have been in government for 10 long years, so these problems that they lecture other people about have been theirs to fix for quite some time.

But of course nothing is ever their fault. The latest example of this lecturing is Joe Hockey’s comments today. He accuses Australians of being lazy. Apparently the skills shortage has nothing to do with the government’s failure to train Australians. It is not the government’s fault; it is just that people are too lazy. I suggest that before the minister starts pointing the finger at the community he should take a good hard look at his cabinet colleagues, because when it comes to dealing with the challenges facing this country this government knows all about laziness.

Let us have a quick look. We now know, thanks to the Cole inquiry, that members of the government were too lazy to read the many cables coming into their offices raising concerns that an Australian company was funnelling $300 million to Saddam Hussein. Five years after the terrorist attacks on the United States the government still has not addressed the gaping holes in Australia’s transport security regime. The government’s policy laziness and fixation on the privatisation of Telstra has left Australia stranded on an information goat track while our competitors have access to broadband internet speeds that families and businesses in Australia can only dream of. And of course there is the subject of today’s MPI—education and training—where the government’s laziness and obsession with ideological agendas for the past 10 long years has left Australia falling behind the rest of the developed world—and not just the developed world but the other parts of the world as well—in its investment in training and education. This is happening at a time when this country is crying out for highly skilled and qualified people so that we can make the most of our opportunities and remain competitive.

For the Labor Party, at least, education is seen as a crucial portfolio and one that brings with it an enormous responsibility to develop policies to ensure that our education system gives everyone the opportunity to reach their full potential. Education creates opportunities for individuals and secures our future as a nation. So the education portfolio can be seen and should be seen as an opportunity to change lives and build the nation.

But, sadly, like every other portfolio in this government, education is seen as nothing more than another opportunity for grandstanding and cheap political point scoring. We all know the usual targets from this government. First are the states—they always try and shift blame onto the states for everything. There are the education unions, and the cheapest shot of them all: teachers—those professional and dedicated people who do no more to aggravate the government than just get out into schools every day and teach our kids.

After 10 long years of this government, there is no shortage of failures for a new education minister to get in and fix. Perhaps you could start with the chronic skills shortage. The Reserve Bank thinks that might be a good idea. Earlier this year it identified the shortage of skilled workers as one of the significant constraints in our economy that is putting pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates.

Perhaps you could look into the reasons behind the decline in domestic enrolments at our universities. This is particularly a problem for regional unis like CQU in my electorate. You have to ask: where will we get the engineers, nurses and ag scientists that we need in our regions if people are being discouraged from higher education? Perhaps the minister could do something about the numbers of apprentices who do not complete their trades—a big contributor to the skills shortage. Figures for the March quarter this year showed apprenticeship cancellations and withdrawals reached 36,000—up 13 per cent from 2005.

It is clear that there is plenty to do if you were part of a government that actually cared about the future of this country. But, sadly, for this minister it is all about playing politics. The minister’s performance has shown she does not want to get serious about the portfolio or fix any of the problems this government has presided over. She is much too busy dreaming up her next headline to worry about substantial policy—the substantial policy on education that this country needs.

The education minister has not developed much in the way of education policy but she has mastered the art of grandstanding. One could say that she learnt from the master who was her predecessor in this portfolio. The grandstanding pattern goes something like this: first of all, float a thought bubble—and the shadow minister has run through a few of those. First there were vouchers and then there was the threat to withhold funding from the states over teaching history as a stand-alone subject. We heard about universal preschool education for four-year-olds and then there was last week’s idea about the national curriculum. So you float the thought bubble, bask in the headlines for a day and then nothing.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And backflip.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe there is a backflip; there is often a backflip or nothing—no follow-up, no substantial policy development, no implementation of initiatives that might make a difference. It is a shameful performance from a minister who has responsibility for such a crucial area of public policy. How dare she play politics with the education of our children and the future of this country while there are such serious issues to be dealt with in her portfolio area.

There has been a great deal of attention given to the minister’s ridiculous accusation last week that school curricula in the states have been hijacked by Maoists—those crazy Maoists—like the New South Wales board of education that we heard about today. The minister’s suggestion of a national uniform curriculum has been soundly rejected by the states and many other bodies with actual experience of and expertise in education. One of my favourite quotes was in the Weekend Australian from the Australian Secondary Principals Association president, Andrew Blair, who said:

... Ms Bishop was taking a populist position and rejected the idea that left-wing ideologues were controlling curricula. ‘It is a ... cheap political shot,’ he said.

While Mr Blair welcomed a debate on the need for a national curriculum and the association supported a national framework, he said imposing uniformity was not the answer. ‘We must not just adhere to this back-to-basics claptrap that is going on,’ he said.

Hear, hear! The state governments have rejected the proposal and indicated a much more mature way of working though issues with curricula and standards across Australia. Our Queensland minister for education, Ron Welford, who is the chairman of MCEETYA, pointed out to the minister that the states and territories are already working together to improve consistency across their different curricula. Mr Welford called on the federal government to show its concern for what students learned by increasing its funding and cooperation with the states. Other state ministers have said similar things—talking about cooperation with the states—not just this cheap shot at grabbing political power by the Commonwealth. So in contrast to these people who take education and their responsibilities seriously, the minister has been exposed as having no substance. She floats the thought bubbles, grabs the headlines but does not come up with any real solutions.

Another example of the minister failing to do the work after a press conference is over came to light on the Insight program on SBS on 26 September. This was a very interesting program because the minister was sharing the forum with people who actually know and care about education and who were prepared to challenge the minister to come up with more than glib statements and political spin. In one part of the program the minister was asked to explain the government’s new requirement imposed on the states for A-E report cards. The presenter asks:

So what does an A mean and what does a B mean and what does a C mean?

The minister says:

... we’ve asked for the regulations to set out 5-point scale —A to E or equivalent—in plain English ...

The presenter:

Now, does that mean a C means you’re performing to standard and anything above a C is extra, is better than the basic standard? How does it work?

The minister:

Everybody understands what A to E means.

The presenter:

I don’t know that they do. What does an A mean, and what does a C mean? Does a C mean that you’re underperforming or does it mean you’re performing to a particular level?

The minister says:

Average.

The presenter:

C means you’re average.

Then Judith Wheeldon, who is the former principal of a Sydney girls’ school, comes in and says:

Is it in the school or is it statewide or is it national?

The questions keep coming and the minister is asked for her response. She says:

C means the standard expected and B means higher than that standard and A means excellent.

JUDITH WHEELDON: Expected in the school or in the State?

JULIE BISHOP: Across that year.

And so it goes on.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s the point of it?

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point is: we have a minister who comes up with these ideas and then cannot follow through on any of them. Behind the resources boom Australia is facing real challenges. We need an education minister who will take up these challenges and treat her important portfolio seriously. When it comes to our education system, Australians deserve more than glib headline-grabbing one-liners and cheap populist politics. We need real policy and real investment. We need a Labor government.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my left!

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just loved the contribution from the member for Capricornia. It reminded me very much of the member for Jagajaga’s contribution, all of which was read from a prepared speech. There was not a hell of a lot of imagination injected into it. It was all politically contrived, yet the tail-end of it seemed to suggest that it was the government that was attempting to score petty political points and grandstanding.

It is unfortunate and it is a little difficult, perhaps even a little unsustainable, for Labor to come into the House of Representatives to lecture a minister—indeed, the government; indeed, the House—on the government’s record. As the Minister for Defence, the former minister for education, has been singled out a few times, I thought I would bring into the House a clipping of a very well-known article published in the Sunday Herald Sun in 1992, because the Minister for Defence very often quotes from it. The editorial is headed ‘A national disgrace’. It reads:

Welcome to the lucky country. University graduates are begging for unpaid jobs just to get experience in the workplace. Sacked apprentices are offering their services for nothing in return for a chance to finish their trade training. Welcome to the lucky country. Youth unemployment is an open sore on the face of Australian society, its odour touching everyone. Welcome to the lucky country. A desperate father is offering to pay an employer $100 a week for three years to give his son an apprenticeship ... Welcome to nothing ... for that is what the young have inherited from probably the worst economic managers ever to sit on the Treasury benches in Canberra. The politicians should not squabble over the youth unemployment figures; they should hang their heads in shame. They have wounded young Australia. They have helped create disasters in the western suburbs of Melbourne and in regional cities, where one in two teenagers is out of work.

This article was written at a time when Australia was being brought to its knees by the people, now diminished in number because most of them have gone, who sit across from me now—people like the member for Jagajaga, who was involved in that government; people like the—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is right. People like the opposition leader who, perhaps not at the exact date but in the same government—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you ought to listen to this. We listened to you; I think you ought to listen to this. The Leader of the Opposition at that time was a member of the government, as the minister for education—the government that was crippling Australia and bringing it to its knees, and reducing young Australians, our greatest asset of all, to begging an employer—even offering to pay them—to give them an opportunity at life. In here today, it grieves me to hear the member for Jagajaga just grandstanding, with very little to offer but a prepared speech. This comes from the woman who would be Deputy Prime Minister of the greatest country in the world.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For these reasons, as they mock and jest—that is great sport—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is—you’re right there.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we want to have a—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Macklin interjecting

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to hear the interjections. I think those interjections are terrific because they are so shallow and so hollow. The Labor Party today have nothing to offer young people of Australia. Their policies are empty. And they come in here and accuse the government of flip-flopping. I find that very ironic indeed. I note the interjections are slowing down. It is just superficial. There is no substance behind it. The Minister for Education, Science and Training has very boldly and quite properly proposed continuing reform in education in Australia. This is a difficult issue. It is difficult because not all of the problems can be solved in this room. The member for Jagajaga ought to remember that. Many of the problems facing young people in our education and vocational training system around Australia require cooperation. They require genuine political goodwill from all of the authorities around this country—that is, the states and territories.

I would suggest that it is fair to say that, despite the good offices of this government, it is people like the member for Jagajaga and the Leader of the Opposition—those who would be Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister—who may in fact have some influence on their Labor colleagues in the states and territories. The influence that there may be will never be tested. We will never know because they never pick up the phone. They do not pick up the phone and ask their education minister colleagues why they do not give priority to education in the state budgets. They do not do it. They do not go to the Minister for Education in Tasmania and ask him to abolish up-front fees for TAFE students; they lecture this minister. This minister is lectured by that woman, who would be Deputy Prime Minister, about up-front fees for TAFE students—in Tasmania, something like $1,000 for a year. That may not sound like a lot of money to people who rest their buttocks in these comfortable green chairs, but for a young person—

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There’s softer leather on that side!

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all very funny, isn’t it? And in disability services in Tasmania we have quadriplegic students being left in a room for an hour because there is nobody to take over, because the aid time is so low. It is not a funny subject. I do not think I have actually—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you do something about it then?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The honourable member will ignore the interjections and the interjectors will cease.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I welcome the contest because this is an important subject for debate in this country. This is very important. It is very critical to the future of the greatest country in the world. I could have come in here with a five- or six-page prepared speech.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Instead, you’re going to ramble with nothing!

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is more jokes.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Oxley!

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All it really is from the other side is grandstanding. The reality is that there has been no government in the history of Australia that has invested—I do not say ‘paid’; I say ‘invested’—more in education and vocational training. How has the Howard government been able to achieve great things like record spending and record investment in our primary schools, record investment in our high schools, record investment in a new initiative—the Australian Technical Colleges—and record investment in our higher education sector? How has this been achieved? It has been achieved because of the Howard government’s responsible economic management. I refer you again, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the editorial ‘A national disgrace’.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And while they continue to laugh, the evidence will stand for the rest of time. The Labor Party are the worst economic managers. It may be true that there are people in Australia who, with the passage of time, may have forgotten about Northern Tasmania having an unemployment rate of 10 per cent. There may be people who have now forgotten that, but I have not. There may be people who have forgotten about the then government’s $10 billion black hole. Every year they were in government, they were short $10 billion. Who was finance minister? It was Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition. It is little wonder that investment was simply not possible. It is little wonder that further investment in the future of our country was just not possible. If it were the case that the Howard government had reduced funds to primary schools, secondary schools or our higher education sector, I would take the lecture from you, Jenny Macklin. I would do it and I would listen to you—and I may even have agreed with you.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Bass should address members by their title.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will refer to members by their title and refer his remarks through the chair.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that that is not the case. The member for Jagajaga is a shallow, hollow and futile deputy leader of her party. She has no policies, she has no agenda and she has no leadership ability. She has no ability to take this country into the future by providing sustainable policies and good economic management, or to be part of a team that can actually achieve for this country. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.