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

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

The Government’s failure over ten long years to act and deliver the long-term investment in education required for Australia’s future economic prosperity.

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—

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The subject of the MPI today is:

The Government’s failure over ten long years to act and deliver the long-term investment in education required for Australia’s future economic prosperity.

What this country needs is a government that is absolutely committed to long-term investment in Australia’s education at every level, whether that is pre-primary or early education; primary, secondary or tertiary education; vocational education and training; universities; or on-the-job ongoing professional development and training. What we need is a long-term commitment to these things and not what we can expect from this government in the next six months: a short-term political fix. A short-term political fix is what we always see from the government when it comes to education in the run-up to an election. The Prime Minister and the government, the Liberal Party and the National Party, are threatening our future because they are squandering the proceeds of economic growth and of the resources boom to China by refusing to properly invest—that is, with both quantity and quality—in our education system at every level.

We are the beneficiaries of 16 years of continuous economic growth and, in more recent years, a minerals and petroleum resources boom to China. The government has complacently and neglectfully failed to make investments at every level of our education system to ensure that our future prosperity is guaranteed. What do all of the statistics show? All of the statistics show that our productivity is now falling behind in international comparative terms. The growth in our productivity is now falling away. The single most important thing we can do to guarantee our future prosperity and to guarantee our ongoing international competitiveness is to invest in the education, training and skills of our people and our workforce. That is why Labor says it is time for an education revolution. That is why Labor says it is time for an investment in human capital. That is why Labor says it is time to stop the blame game. It is time to stop saying, ‘This has nothing to do with the national government.’ It is time to start making the investments required to guarantee our ongoing and future prosperity. That is the shameful and neglectful approach that this government has taken. If Australia is to have a future as a modern, dynamic economy—

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 has already been warned and is in dangerous territory.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

investment in human capital is absolutely essential. In the course of question time and the sotto voce interjections from across the table by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, one thing is clear: they just don’t get it. They just do not get the fact that, in education, skills and training, as in so many other areas, we are now in an international competition. We are now in an international competition where how we perform is not judged on the old basis of how a state might perform against a state or a territory might perform against a territory; it is judged on how we as a nation-state perform against other nation-states in our region and in the world.

Across the board in our region we now find that the emerging economies of India and China, and the other smaller Asia-Pacific economies, are making far greater investments in education, skills and training than we are. That is why we now find our productivity falling behind. That is why we now find the OECD, in report after report, saying that when it comes to the international comparators we are falling behind—and that occurs at our risk and at our peril. That occurs at the long-term risk to our economic prosperity. That occurs at the long-term risk of our nation’s future.

That is why Labor made the point, at the beginning of this year, that education is not just a social policy issue. However important this point is, education is not just about individual Australians having the opportunity to maximise their potential and having the chance to get ahead. Education is not just about that; it is also about the economic approach to ensuring our nation’s ongoing prosperity. This is not just a social issue; it is an economic issue. This is not just a comparison between a state and a state, or a state and a territory; it is now a comparison between us, as a nation-state, and our international competitors.

Let us just have a look at some of the areas where we are falling behind when it comes to our productivity. Average annual multifactor productivity growth has more than halved, from 1.6 per cent last decade to just 0.7 per cent this decade, while labour productivity growth fell to 2.2 per cent in the five years to 2003-04 from an average annual 3.2 per cent in the previous five-year period. Benchmarked against the United States economy, Australia’s labour productivity fell back from a peak of 85 per cent to just 79 per cent between 1998 and 2005—almost completely losing the relative productivity gains of the 1990s.

Australia’s overall investment in education is 5.8 per cent of GDP. That is behind 17 OECD economies including Poland, Hungary and New Zealand. According to OECD calculations, in terms of GDP we spend on preschool education one-fifth of the average for OECD countries. OECD figures contained in the Education at a glance 2006 report show that our investment in tertiary education has gone backwards by seven per cent while other OECD countries have, on average, increased their funding by 48 per cent. That very same report concluded that a one-year increase in the average level of education of the workforce would boost economic growth by one per cent. All these things show the complacency and neglect of the Howard government, and that is why we are falling behind.

At the beginning of this year, when the Leader of the Opposition released the education revolution document, it made that point: education is about productivity and future economic prosperity. Since that time we have released three positive policy approaches which all go to this area. The first one was on early childhood learning; the second one was on encouraging young Australians to study and teach maths; and the third one, today, is our commitment and our plan for a national curriculum, particularly in the core discipline areas so important to our future economic prosperity: maths and the sciences, and English and history.

Let us look, very briefly, at the early childhood proposal. As I indicated when I referred to those OECD figures, we get the wooden spoon when it comes to investment in early childhood education. Why is this so worrying and why is it so important to make that early intervention? All of the economic research, all of the education research and all common sense tells you that the earlier you make an investment or an intervention in education the more chance you have of an ultimate positive, quality educational outcome. That is why you cannot just say, ‘Let’s get the kids when they’re going to university.’ You also have to say, ‘Let’s get the kids when they’re going to primary school and to pre-primary school.’ You have to make those early investments. Otherwise, for some individuals the prospect that they have for their ultimate educational outcome is not university, a TAFE or completion of secondary school; it is getting out of school before completion of secondary school and then running the risk in later years of ending up with no job, or a low-skilled or no-skilled job.

Labor’s positive plan in early education says that we will give all Australian four-year-olds the right to early childhood education. We will make that right to early learning a reality by enshrining it in a new Commonwealth early childhood education act. We will implement those reforms over a five-year period following the passage of that legislation, and our investment will be $450 million, giving all four-year-olds an entitlement to 15 hours of preschool or early learning per week for a minimum of 40 weeks per year, delivered by a quality teacher. To assist in that program we will fully fund 1,500 new university places in early childhood education at a cost of $34 million per year when fully implemented. We will also provide 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need at a cost of $12 million a year. These new commitments show our absolute commitment to early education intervention and early childhood.

When the Prime Minister was asked about early childhood education during question time today, he was asked a question which reminded him that in 2003 a prime ministerial cabinet submission on work and the family recommended models for future directions of child care and early childhood education sectors. What have we seen from the government since then? Nothing! And that first example goes to the heart of the MPI: the government’s failure, over 10 long years, firstly to act and secondly to make the investments required.

A second area where we have put out a positive proposal is to encourage young Australians to study and teach maths and science. We released this because, when you look at how we lag behind in this very important area, the statistics are, frankly, alarming and appalling. A recent World Economic Forum annual report on global competitiveness ranked our maths and science education 29th in the world. Australia graduates less than half the OECD average number of students with a maths or statistics qualification. The national report on schooling found that between the year 2000 and 2005 there were 40,000 fewer year 12 students studying science and 17,000 fewer year 12 students studying maths subjects. Around a quarter of our science teachers do not have a science qualification and 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths.

I put the question to the Prime Minister today: after years and years of talk and no action, what has the government done and what is the government proposing to do about the appalling state of science and maths teachers? He referred the question to the minister at the table. The minister said that our positive proposal was just a bandaid solution. This response was actually better than the remark she made on the first occasion we had an MPI on education in this place this year, on 8 February. When I went through those same stats—25 per cent of science teachers do not have a science qualification, 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths and one in 12 maths teachers studied no maths at all—Minister Bishop said, ‘It has nothing to do with us.’

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! The minister will have the right of reply.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing could better sum up the attitude of this government than when they say, ‘If there is a problem in education, it is nothing to do with us.’ The government are saying: ‘It is someone else’s fault. We just happen to have been the government of the Commonwealth of Australia for over a decade. All of these appalling statistics have nothing to do with us.’

What was Labor’s positive policy proposal? Labor’s positive policy proposal was to say to young Australians: ‘We encourage you to study maths and to teach maths. We will give you a reduction in your up-front HECS contribution when you are a student, and when you emerge as a graduate in maths and science if you teach maths or science then we will give you a 50 per cent remission.’ The minister at the table said this was a bandaid. Unlike the minister at the table—who normally so warmly embraces the remarks, policies and views of her predecessor, Dr Nelson—this is not what Minister Nelson then had to say about a similar approach that the government made in 2003-04 to encourage people to teach. When the government jacked up the HECS contribution by 25 per cent, it kept nursing and teaching, teaching in particular, at the bottom rung. That is where Labor proposed to put maths and science. What did Minister Nelson say on 26 August 2004? He said:

... part of the Higher Education reform package is a measure which quarantines teaching from any HECS increases, but allowing HECS to be lowered. The deliberate aim of this measure is to make teaching more attractive relative to other courses.

On 13 November 2003 he said:

Our goal as a society should be that the best and brightest school-leavers seek a career in teaching. Initiatives from the first agenda item, as well as the quarantining of teaching courses from rises in HECS fees will assist this.

So that was not the view of the previous minister, and it is not our view. We want to encourage young Australians to both study and teach maths. The state of those statistics that I have referred to the House is appalling.

The third measure we came up with was announced today: a national plan through a national curriculum board to ensure that in our core disciplines of maths, science, English and history we actually—after 20 years of talk generally and 10 years of talk by this government, whether it was Minister Kemp, Minister Nelson or this minister echoing Minister Nelson—make real progress. You can only make that real progress by being collaborative with the states and the territories and independent and religious education authorities. That will not be done by engaging in the blame game or by saying it is all someone else’s fault but rather by having an absolute commitment to act and to invest in ways which will ensure that the educational outcomes for our primary and secondary school students, for our TAFE students and for our university students are higher. Unless we raise all those things to better states on international comparators, our future prosperity is at risk. That is due to the appalling neglect of this government. After 16 years of continuous economic growth, and now with the benefit of a resources boom to China, it just does not get it. The single most important thing we can now do is to invest in the education, skills and training of our people and our workforce.

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

The performance of the member for Perth underscores why Labor can never be trusted to be in government: because they have a track record of failure. They have a track record of failed economic management and they have a track record of failed education policies. Today’s so-called policy announcement by the member for Perth is just further evidence that Labor do not have an original thought at present, particularly with respect to the important area of education. They do not have an original thought.

The announcement of the development of a national curriculum is a direct copy of Howard government policy. It is a Howard government proposal that is already on the agenda for the education ministers meeting in April. Sorry, boys, you are four months late. The announcement of the development of a national curriculum is Howard government policy copied directly. What is now patently obvious is that Labor’s education statements are just a mishmash of recycled failed Labor policies.

Let us remember the great hoopla that surrounded the last attempt they made at dealing with education. Do we remember ‘noodle nation’? That was Labor’s great attempt at an education policy. I recall how embarrassed they all were when it unravelled. The member for Grayndler had to confess, ‘Well, I know some of you were disappointed with the Knowledge Nation package.’ Disappointed would have to be an understatement. The member for Melbourne said, ‘Well, it was an example of what not to do next time.’ Alan Ramsey, from the Sydney Morning Herald, put it quite succinctly. He said:

In one mad moment, with his incomprehensible bird’s nest sketch of 23 circles and 40 train lines—

remember that, Member for Melbourne?—

Barry Jones made Kim Beazley’s Knowledge Nation an instant national joke ...

Now I think that was unfair to Barry Jones and to the member for Brand. They took the rap for it. In fact we now know that the authors of noodle nation, the disgraced, discredited Labor policy—and I am reading from the front page of the noodle nation document—were none other than the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith, and the member for Perth.

We know that they have even stolen their current slogan from the disgraced, discredited former leader. There is no love lost, I understand, between the member for Griffith and the former member for Werriwa. Nevertheless, that did not stop them, in one of the most apparent pieces of plagiarism I have seen for a while, from adopting Mark Latham’s slogan from his book What did you learn today? Creating an education revolution. They do not even have an original idea when it comes to a slogan. Relying on Mark Latham for educational inspiration is a rather interesting occurrence within the current Labor Party. This is the man Labor offered up as the alternative Prime Minister but who is most famous for his schools hit list. Remember the next Labor policy that failed in ignominy—the schools hit list, where he wanted to rip funding out of schools. What was the schools’ only crime? They happened to be non-government schools. These schools were targeted by Labor because they were non-government schools, and the ugly politics of envy still reside within the Labor Party. Don’t worry: they still have a schools hit list; they are just not hitting them directly. They are going to strangle the schools and freeze their funding so that, over time, the schools will lose money from their budgets. So Labor has a schools hit list, and they have noodle nation. So what do they now come up with? They come up with Mark Latham’s education revolution. All this has revealed that their policy development continues to be sloppy. Labor do not do their homework on policy development.

The announcement in relation to maths and science reveals how lazy they are in their approach to policy development. There is no research to support their claims. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. They come up with a policy to fiddle with the integrity of the HECS system—a system that federal Labor introduced in 1989—and that policy has the potential to seriously undermine it. Don’t just take it from me; the architect of the HECS system, Professor Bruce Chapman, a man employed by the Labor Party to design HECS, said, in relation to the member for Perth’s new policy, that cutting HECS was very unlikely to have any effect at all and that it is a bad idea in general to be cutting or changing HECS. This is the architect of the HECS system. Not only is Bruce Chapman against this policy; Australian and international research has shown repeatedly that reducing HECS does not impact on student choice. That is not how you get students to study maths and science at university. The evidence shows that some universities cut HECS in maths and science to zero but there was no increase in student demand. This is all recorded; it is all on the public record. This is all evidence that the member for Perth could have accessed, if he were not so lazy when it came to policy development and if he had bothered to do his homework. Students are influenced by likely career prospects and what they perceive to be the status of jobs and careers. But, in the unkindest cut of all, the Queensland education union wrote off Labor’s policy by saying that reducing HECS would not work. So they even have the Queensland education union against them. This policy of Labor’s will not work, and it is designed to undermine HECS.

As I said, Labor introduced HECS. It is regarded internationally as one of the fairest student contribution schemes in the world. We should not be undermining it; we should be supporting it. Students pay no up-front fees. They contribute 25 per cent, and the taxpayer picks up the balance of 75 per cent. Students repay their interest-free contribution through the tax system only when their income exceeds $38,000. HECS is not like a bank debt with set repayments and so on. Payments commence only when students have the money to afford it. It is income contingent—when students are reaping the benefits, the rewards of their studies. So the ALP policy in trying to cut HECS has missed the point entirely.

The Howard government is focusing on increasing student participation in science and maths in primary schools and secondary schools. Arguably one of our greatest living scientists, the astronaut Andy Thomas, said recently that we need to engage children at a young age to spark their curiosity and interest in science, and that is where we must focus our efforts. And that is where the Australian government, the Howard government, is focusing its efforts.

What is more, the Labor policy says nothing about the state of teaching of maths and sciences in our schools. Why is that? It is because our schools are run by state Labor governments. A recent report commissioned by the Australian government revealed a disturbing picture of 27 different mathematics courses across Australia in year 12. The only thing these 27 different maths courses, created by the eight state and territory education authorities, had in common was that every single course lacked the critical elements our students needed to study maths at a higher level.

To highlight the fact that the Howard government is right in focusing on teaching maths and science in schools, in contrast to Labor’s policy, there is this example: the Queensland education minister recently decided to set up selective schools in that state which will have a much stronger focus on maths and science—and I say good on him; that is a positive effort by the Queensland education minister to do something in schooling. But the first thing he did was to exempt those schools from the official state government curriculum in maths and science. If that is not a statement that the curriculum, as it is being developed by the states, is not up to par, I do not know what is. What he is saying is that these students will study the international baccalaureate—do not let the bright students in Queensland be subjected to the Queensland curriculum, by any means, in maths and science. This reinforces my call for greater national consistency and higher standards in curriculum, which should be internationally benchmarked to ensure that we have world-class curricula in this country.

This is where the problem lies in the education system around the country. While I welcome Labor announcing today that it is going to adopt my plan for a nationally consistent school curriculum, it is astounding political naivety on the part of federal Labor to think that the state governments are all of a sudden going to roll over and adopt a national curriculum of their own free will. The member for Perth has already said that he does not want to impose anything on the states. The states have had decades to voluntarily come together to establish a national curriculum body and develop nationally consistent curricula, but to date there has been staunch opposition.

Together, the education unions in concert with state Labor governments have rejected this approach out of hand, and the member for Perth turning up on the doorstep and having a cup of tea with them is not going to do it. It is so politically naive to think that is going to happen. On issues of national importance, state Labor governments have shown little willingness to put aside parochial self-interest and the self-interest of unions. They have refused to put the interests of students and parents first on this issue. The difference between our policy and that announced by federal Labor today is that we will be able to deliver on it; we will make it a condition of funding. But federal Labor will never be able to deliver on this policy. They are beholden to the same education unions that are so powerful within the state education bureaucracies and state Labor governments.

The Commonwealth does not run state government schools, but it does invest billions of dollars. The taxpayer of Australia, through the federal government, invests billions of dollars in our schools—$33 billion under the current funding arrangement. During the next funding agreement we will be providing around $42 billion, and the Howard government are determined that we will achieve higher standards and greater national consistency through that investment. The Howard government have already implemented a bold reform agenda in education. It has delivered a remarkable dividend, but we are only halfway through that journey.

Former Howard government minister David Kemp brought a great focus on raising numeracy and literacy standards. And next year, in 2008, for the first time we will have national assessment of literacy and numeracy standards in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. It will be the first time because we made it a condition of funding. The states will be held to account for what they are teaching students in terms of literacy and numeracy in our schools. We will have comparative data for the first time. Did the states willingly come to the table and say, ‘Let’s have national testing and compare what we are doing state by state’? No. We made it a condition of funding.

Former education minister Nelson built on that great work of former minister Kemp, and he also brought a focus on values based education. It is what parents have been calling out for and the states could have delivered. It took the Commonwealth, through Minister Nelson, to take a leadership role on values based education. The Howard government is building on that agenda but over the past 10 years has focused consistently on performance, accountability and values. We are also taking a leadership role in the drive for higher standards in numeracy and literacy, national consistency in school starting ages, greater national consistency in school curricula, greater national consistency in year 12 certificates, greater national consistency in testing, principal autonomy, performance pay for teachers and improving teacher quality.

That is the agenda of the Howard government. It is already on the education minister’s agenda. In addition to providing record levels of funding in education, we are focused on what is being taught, how it is being taught, by whom, and what the results and outcomes are that are being achieved for that record level of investment. The Howard government have a clear and consistent policy platform under which we are going to take a leadership position in line with the expectations of parents across the country in the drive for improved literacy and numeracy, higher standards across the board and values.

The Howard government has been able to provide record levels of funding in education. We have delivered a 160 per cent increase in schools funding since 1996. There has been a 118 per cent increase in our funding to government schools, even though the enrolments have only increased by just over one per cent. There has been a 26 per cent increase in university funding. There has been an 88 per cent increase in funding for vocational and technical education. I know Labor always trots out this selective—mischievously selective, I might say—figure from the OECD to falsify the picture of tertiary funding. But I rely on the Australian government budget papers, the official analysis of the Australian Public Service and the Department of Education, Science and Training, rather than Labor’s preference for outdated, highly selective, heavily qualified statistics from the OECD. There are so many conditions attached to the OECD funding analysis that they make it meaningless, but that does not stop the member for Perth from trotting it out as gospel. Labor knows perfectly well that the claim about a seven per cent decline in funding is false. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I rise in the House to speak on education as it confronts the nation. I have to make the observation that each time we have a debate on education in this country there is nothing more profoundly disheartening and, indeed, disappointing than to hear the government, particularly the minister, use it as an opportunity to bash state school systems, to criticise state education unions and to simply put a divisive argument before the House and the community. I do not often see that at the local level, and I am sure many people in their electorates would not either.

I do not see any dearth of government members willing to turn up at public schools to talk about how wonderfully they think that particular school is going and to participate in the activities of that school. But the government and the minister at the table, in particular, have a track record of simply saying that there is a massive failure in the state education system and state education unions. I do not think that helps to advance the argument at all. Indeed, I notice that they are particularly silent on the many emails that we have all been getting from the Independent Education Union and its views on what the government is doing in education.

The issue before us is a critically important one to the long-term prosperity of the country. It is important that our young people are prepared for the work world and, indeed, the broader social world that they will enter when they leave schools. The rhetoric of the government and, in particular, in this case the Prime Minister is that we have to in some way re-encapsulate the sort of primary school that the Prime Minister would have attended in the 1940s. There is such a focus on the minutiae of what subjects are taught in history and on the issues of whether we have a Simpson and his donkey poster and whether we have a flagpole outside the school.

As a parent who has two young people both entering the workforce, I hope fairly soon and I hope well prepared for their future, I have had direct experience of our school system, and I think it does a darn good job. I think young people—whether they go through one of our private education institutions, the Catholic education system or, indeed, the much-defiled by this government state education system—get a really good service from those schools. I think the teachers, by and large, whom I have had experience of through 23 years of having children in the education system, do their very best and sincerely intend to deliver good outcomes for the children whom they teach. I do not think any of them get any joy in being bashed consistently by this government about what they do.

However, education is one of those areas where we constantly have to review, assess and update what we do in our school system because the world into which those young people will enter is consistently changing and updating. You do not need to build an argument based on division, criticism of and attack on the system in order to put an argument for improvements and new opportunities. So I would simply ask the minister to progress her arguments on the basis that they are about improving the education system, without constantly attacking the current system.

The reality is that we are in a global environment in which we have new supereconomic powers emerging, in particular—no surprise to anybody here—China and India. At the moment we are doing quite well out of their emergence because of their heavy demand for mineral resources, and that has given us a very unique opportunity in this country. But none of us should make any mistake in thinking that somehow those new superpowers are simply developing an industrial base; at the same time that they are industrialising, they are modernising and developing their own universities at a rapid pace. They are upgrading their own education systems to deliver young people into those universities at a rapid pace. In fact, in 2004 China ranked fourth in expenditure on research and development in the world, so they very well know that they are almost doing a double reform in one go: they are industrialising and modernising at the same time.

What does this mean for our future? As a nation we have always punched above our weight. How will we continue to do that? By investing in education, skills, knowledge and training of our people—that has always been our critical point of advantage. In this place, I have talked before about my and my family’s experience of tradespeople travelling overseas. It was always the case that if you had an Australian trade and went overseas you could pick up work. In fact, they would do their darnedest not to let you go because we were a world leader in trade training. That mix of skills and knowledge combined with creative, innovative thinking has always put us at the cutting edge. That is what we need out of our education system into the future, and the policies the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been talking about are aimed at achieving that.

We do not need to have a debate about making our schools the same as when we went to school. The critical mistake that people make in any education debate is thinking that their own personal experience is what should be available for the next generation. The next generation will live and work in a different world to the one we have, and we need to look at what would be best for them. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not do that. He is of the view that his education provided well for him, and we need to bring back a lot of that for our kids. We do not.

In February 2004, Alan Greenspan made the point that ideas are the centre of productivity growth. We need young people coming out of our education system who are not only literate and numerate but also computer literate and creative thinkers. We want people who are able to develop innovative ideas, who take pride in what they do and who are valued in the workplace, not placed into the work world that the Prime Minister is creating for them where they will be competing against imported labour—indeed, under this Prime Minister, even for apprenticeships, let alone work—and running a race to the bottom on wages on the basis that, if you can afford to get a place at university or compete and get a place at TAFE and not be one of the 270,000 who have been turned away, then you simply go out and become cheap fodder.

Recent media articles have talked about the exploitation of young people in the work environment. This is not the world we want for our young people in the future. If we are going to compete against these emerging giants, we have to do it by creating a system that produces innovative thinkers and highly skilled workers who are able to improve the productivity of the nation.

The announcements made by the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition are directly aimed at that. The minister was all over the shop in her response to this: one minute she was saying we had stolen her policy on a national curriculum and the next minute she was saying that our policy is a mishmash of failed Labor policies. A national curriculum is absolutely critical. Working with the states, it should bring all states up to the highest standards—that is, to reform up, not to find the lowest common denominator.

I have quite a few years of experience as a history-English teacher and I know others in the chamber also have teaching experience. When I taught—that is a while ago, let alone into the future—I never wanted kids who could simply regurgitate facts or roll off Shakespeare quotes. I want kids who come out of our system to be able to analyse information, critically develop their own thinking, and who can put that to use in the workplace to make us a productive and highly skilled nation. This national curriculum proposal works towards that.

We need to start at the beginning and make sure that four-year-olds have a universal right to get play based learning—and we all know how important the early years are—as well as provide support for maths and science students at university to go into teaching. The thing the minister missed in all her comments on science and maths teachers is: the most important thing to ensure you get kids doing maths and science at school is having good-quality maths and science teachers who inspire them. If you provide that opportunity at university, you have a better chance of achieving it. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. Yesterday the member for Lilley, the supreme rooster, led with his chin on issues relating to the economy. Today we have the member for Perth—that other rooster, that other cooped crusader—out here leading with his chin on education. Why do they keep setting themselves up on these issues when their record is so disgraceful?

Yesterday the member for Lilley tried to lecture us on Labor’s economic record—that coming from an opposition which, when it was in government, delivered $96 billion of government debt, double-digit unemployment and 17 per cent housing interest rates. Labor trashed the economy and they are trying to lecture us on it. It is the same with education. The member for Cunningham said that the government is critical of the state education system. What we are critical of is the failure by state governments, right around the country, to adequately support and resource the state schools that are under their control. The schools are the states’ responsibility, but the federal government has had to step in more and more, not because of any intrinsic problem with the state schools themselves but because of the lack of support from Labor governments. They put their hands on their hearts and say, ‘We’re all into public education as long as it doesn’t cost anything—as long as we don’t have to put any more money into it.’ Only then are they right behind public education. I think it is a disgrace.

The coalition government is doing the heavy lifting on education. We have provided $33 billion for all Australian schools for the period 2005-08, which is an increase of $12.1 billion over the previous four years. Since it came to office, the coalition has increased funding for state schools by some 118 per cent. Almost 90 per cent of state schools have benefited from the $700 million that the government has invested through Investing in Our Schools. State schools are primarily a state government responsibility, but the federal government has jumped in to make up for the neglect that our state governments have inflicted on schools that are their responsibility.

So far the government have spent some $656 million on 15,000 projects, thereby assisting 6,200 schools to provide computers, to build shade sails and playground areas, to make various areas of schools safe and to provide protection for our children from the weather. These types of responsibilities should have been discharged by our state governments, but we saw nothing but neglect from them.

In my electorate of Cowper, 56 schools have benefited from Investing in Our Schools to the tune of some $5.7 million and 171 different projects. These things are supposed to be done by the state governments, but it is the federal government that has been jumping into the breach. On the wider funding front, state governments increased their funding for schools in the 2006 budgets by a measly 4.9 per cent. The federal government has increased its spending by 11 per cent. If the state governments had matched the federal government’s increase in expenditure on education, there would have been an additional $1.4 billion available for investing in our schools.

The Australian government increased its investment in New South Wales schools by 10.7 per cent. The New South Wales government increased its spending by some 3.9 per cent, at a cost to our schools of $492 million. The federal government provided 12.3 per cent extra for Victoria. The Victorian government increased its spending by 4.3 per cent, at a cost to our schools of $403 million. The federal government provided a 10.9 per cent increase for Queensland; the Queensland government provided a six per cent increase. In South Australia, the federal government increased expenditure by 11.3 per cent; whereas the South Australian government increased its expenditure by a lousy 2.1 per cent. In the Northern Territory, the federal government increased its expenditure by 12.3 per cent, but the Northern Territory government actually took 0.4 per cent of the money away—they did not increase their spending; they took money away.

All the time we see state governments spending more money on bloated bureaucracies—as the Minister for Health and Ageing said, they are spending like a drunken sailor on public sector wages. But what is the public getting in return? It is certainly not getting better services, and it is certainly not getting an appropriate increase in expenditure on education. I mentioned in this parliament recently that the state government was going to take two classrooms away from a very fine little school at Lowanna, in my electorate. They were going to come in the middle of night and pinch two classrooms. They were going to take a classroom and the library. I hope they were going to give the kids time to get out of the classroom before they whipped it on the back of a truck and took it down the hill to some store yard in Sydney. The Labor state government is taking classrooms away from our schools.

Narranga public school is a very fine school with very dedicated, highly talented, hardworking staff. The school wants to expand into the areas of music and the dramatic arts and to provide a range of additional curriculum subjects. However, they are impeded because they do not have a hall. Will the state government give them a hall? No, to date they will not. When the Iemma government felt their backs against the wall, they announced policies in the lead-up to the election that will give halls to some of the bigger public schools. I hope that eventuates, but there is nothing on the horizon for Narranga Primary School so far. Let me dwell on Narranga school a little longer. Over the last 10 years, the Narranga P&C has raised $161,500—and good on them!—for school projects. Over the corresponding period, the state gave $51,358—about one-third. So $51,358 was provided by the state government and $161,500 raised by the P&C.

The member for Perth waxes lyrical about making maths and science a priority for future teachers and getting people involved in maths and science. He claims that reducing HECS will somehow dramatically increase the demand for maths and science courses—everybody will flow into maths; they will get interested in those subjects all of a sudden. You would think if he were embarking on what he called a revolution he would do a bit of research. He would investigate what the experts in the field are saying about the impact of HECS fees on maths and science.

In evidence given before the teacher training inquiry, Murdoch University pointed out that, for institutions with a large proportion of student load in teaching and nursing, capping HECS represented a significant impost. They also claimed that:

The reduction in HECS-based income for Education seems likely to lead inevitably to a conclusion that less University resources ought to be devoted to it, thus paradoxically turning what is recognised as a priority into a non-priority.

The Australian Council of Deans of Education said:

Quarantining Education from the variable HECS fees has not served the purpose for which it was designed. The Council has argued elsewhere that the awarding of national priority status has resulted in Education becoming a less attractive discipline within the university, due to its inability to raise extra funds. Moreover, this status ultimately works against the students for whom it was designed. Not only is Education unable to raise the resources required to support vanguard teaching and learning, but all students suffer if the status of Education is ultimately diminished within the university.

So there is no support from Murdoch University and there is no support from the Australian Council of Deans of Education for making less HECS revenue available to support maths and science. So I hope that the member for Perth does a bit of research before he embarks on such a profound revolution in education.

This government is investing in education. This government is investing in the future of this nation. This government has introduced measures such as the Australian technical college initiative, the Skills for the Future program, retraining older workers and providing for more engineers. We are doing a vast amount in this area. What we are seeing from Labor is just another rehashed policy, just another recycling of some of their earlier efforts. They really need to do their homework. They really need to do some thorough research before they embark on what they claim is a revolution. This government has the runs on the board in education. Labor is just playing catch-up.

Kelly Hoare (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this matter of public importance motion, which condemns the government for its failure in our education system. As a nation, it is imperative that we invest strongly in education to ensure our long-term prosperity. Labor has already announced a range of policies as part of the education revolution under a Labor government. Labor in government would provide 15 hours a week of preschool education to all four-year-olds through learning at play. Labor would also establish day care centres in school grounds where this is appropriate. We have also announced our commitment to trade education and to childcare education and we will support students to study to become maths and science teachers.

Today, as we have heard, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth announced federal Labor’s plan for a national curriculum scheme for Australian schools and the setting up of a national curriculum board. The concept of a curriculum guarantee for students across Australia essentially means that all students will, at the very least, be exposed to a given set of knowledge, content, concepts, skills and understandings. To succeed as a nation in a competitive, technological 21st century economy, Australia needs an education system that reflects and supports teachers and students through current technology. This system needs to be flexible enough to take advantage of future relevant developments in technology. A federal Labor government is committing to investing in our long-term prosperity. The announcement today will ensure that students are consistently exposed to current curriculum material of the highest quality.

Teachers in Australia need and deserve the support of our nation’s governing bodies. We acknowledge that the work of teachers needs to be efficient and sustainable so that we are able to keep young and beginning teachers in our schools. We must maintain and develop our teaching intellectual capital for the benefit of both our students and our nation. Indeed, the report tabled this week from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training recommends that there be an online national clearing house for current research and resource development. This would provide teachers with up-to-date, accurate resources and access to, among other things, current research. It could also be envisaged that, under Labor’s national curriculum, lessons and modules could be posted online and shared. This would allow for best practice to be developed.

The committee’s recommendation is absolutely contrary to the proposal by the Minister for Education, Science and Training for performance based pay, which would pit teacher against teacher. The minister’s proposal would mean that any innovation in teacher development would not be shared. This would ultimately mean that our students would not be universally exposed to the best quality resources that must be available to all our educators.

It should be noted that the concept of a curriculum guarantee is not a concept that has been designed to limit the professional autonomy of teachers, but rather is designed to enhance this autonomy by increasing the number of high-quality options available to teachers in relation to curriculum material that could be presented to students. The key to teacher professionalism is a creative implementation of curriculum, not its design and constant revision. If a child were to move, for example, from Toronto in New South Wales to Perth in Western Australia, federal Labor’s plan for the national curriculum scheme would reduce the likelihood of gaps in that child’s education—and the gaps which may be experienced in the education of the 80,000 or so students who move interstate each year. It should be further noted that the previous federal Labor government was almost successful in establishing a national curriculum more than a decade ago.

Labor is committed to ending the blame game between federal and state governments, whereas the Howard government and the education minister seem to be only committed to taking credit for any advances or extra funding of our schools and blaming the states or the education union when things go wrong. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has appointed the member for Fraser as the shadow minister for federal-state relations. It does not matter which side of politics is in government at any level or in any state or territory; there must be cooperation for the benefit of all Australians. Australia is at its best when everyone is pulling together in one direction. The Prime Minister does that from time to time for a photo opportunity but, when push comes to shove, he is quite happy to throw the hand grenade.

We need a long-term approach to how we build productivity for the country, and that is best done through a cooperative relationship with the states on real projects which count. We must lift our long-term productivity growth and we must invest in and build our future prosperity. To do this, we must invest in young people and their education. It is important that we argue a long-term vision for this country’s prosperity against a set of Labor values that says that you can have a strong economy without throwing the fair go out the back door. (Time expired)

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

It gives me great pleasure today to join in the debate raised by the Labor Party and, in particular, the member for Perth. The allegation has been made by the Labor Party that, over 10 long years, the government has failed to deliver on education. The MPI states:

The Government’s failure over ten long years to act and deliver the long-term investment in education ...

I find this statement quite breathtaking. It is fair enough that we raise issues that are important, and certainly education is an important issue to everybody on both sides of this place. So I welcome the fact that we are seeing more and more focus and more and more of the national spotlight being placed on education as a very important area of public policy and public investment.

The use of the phrase ‘10 long years’ in the wording of the MPI illustrates where the Labor Party are coming from. To correct the record, this coming Friday will mark 11 years of excellent government, good government and responsible government. This is a government that responds to the needs in the community. The MPI is reflective of the fact that the Labor Party are struggling in opposition; they are finding it a very tiresome place to be in. They have been all over the shop on education policy. I have seen during my term in this place, which is now 2½ years, the Labor Party put forward policy after policy which has come across as very contradictory.

The Howard government’s record on investment in education is very strong and one that the government can be proud of. Investment in education has never gone backwards under this government and, in fact, has outstripped growth in the economy, and by any other measure that you would like to use.

It is also important to say that this debate should not just be about a national curriculum. If we do that, we will simply debate the past. In parliament today, we may have reached consensus on the notion of having a national curriculum, a consistent curriculum across all of the states and territories, which all students can rely on to get a good, strong education—a good start in life. It will mean that whatever grade a student achieves, they will leave school with some fundamentals. They will leave school knowing the standards they will need. It is a good thing that we have agreement on this issue. If we restrict our debate to the national curriculum, we will have lost the game. There is a lot more than just that to achieve in this country.

We need to see in education not only greater consistency but higher standards and a stronger emphasis placed on the quality of teachers. We have not heard about that at all today from Labor. Education is absolutely fundamental to a person’s success in later life. Obviously it is very important to have a prosperous economy into the future and necessary that our society be a cohesive place, but the value of high-quality teachers should not be lost in this. Whenever the Howard government and its ministers promote the notion of rewarding good teachers and giving them recognition for undertaking extra development and making extra effort, the Labor Party holds us back through the states and through its industrial wing—the Australian Education Union. Every time a reform agenda is presented, it is fought against on the basis of anti-Howard-government rhetoric.

It is very important in the time that I have left in this debate to firmly put on the record the facts on funding. Over the 10, nearly 11, years of the Howard government, investment in schools across Australia has been impressive at 160 per cent growth. In the current financial year, federal government funding to Australian schools has increased by 11 per cent—that is triple the CPI. Compare that with increased investment of just 4.9 per cent by the states. If the states were to match the Commonwealth’s increase by the formula set out in the Schools Assistance Act, we would see an extra $1½ billion dollars being invested in our schools today. The MPI that we close on now is simply a reflection of sour grapes on the part of the Labor Party, trying to catch up to the Howard government.

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

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded.