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

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 appropriates additional funds on behalf of the Commonwealth to increase funding for English as a second language programs for humanitarian entrants and introduces a loading in the recurrent schools funding arrangements for regional and remote non-government schools. As a matter of principle, any additional expenditure by the Commonwealth to enhance the facilities of our schools, whether to the government or non-government sector, is to be welcomed. I welcome the additional spending for education in general in the budget and am pleased to see that Labor’s continued calls for an education revolution are being heard. The Howard government is finally attempting to undo the damage of 10 long years of neglect and underinvestment in Australia’s education and training system. It is unfortunate that the Australian public have had to wait until a few months before an election for the government to finally do this, despite having had a decade to invest in our education system. Labor have put education in the spotlight through our continued education revolution policies and I am pleased to see that the government is following our lead, even if they are only doing it to crassly try and win an election.

The first measure in the bill doubles the amount of English as a second language funding available for humanitarian entrants and recognises the extreme disadvantage faced by this group. This is a welcome measure and an overdue recognition of the severe disadvantage faced by humanitarian entrants and the importance of learning English for new entrants in improving their future education and employment opportunities. This measure will assist with the cost of delivering intensive English language tuition to newly arrived migrant primary and secondary school students. Under the current program, the funding per student is set at $5,277, which will be increased to $9,708 for newly arrived migrant schoolchildren who arrive under Australia’s humanitarian migration program. Increasing the amount of intensive English language tuition for a child who arrives in Australia either as refugee or through a humanitarian program is a recognition of the special needs of these students.

The composition of Australia’s humanitarian program has changed dramatically over the years, with around half of those moving to Australia under the program now coming from Africa. Many families have spent long periods in refugee camps with little access to education, making it difficult for children to return to school or indeed to attend school for the first occasion. By increasing the amount of intensive language tuition these children can receive, this measure recognises the greater need of humanitarian entrants, and that is strongly supported by Labor.

The second measure in the bill provides loadings in the school socioeconomic status, or SES, funding formula of five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent respectively for schools classified as moderately assessable, remote or very remote. These loadings and this measure apply only to non-government schools. Labor welcomes this measure. The reality is that schools in rural, regional and remote Australia have different needs and costs to their metropolitan counterparts. Both government and non-government schools are affected by their rural, regional or remote location. So far as the cost of education is concerned, this is a disadvantage. Indeed, according to the Productivity Commission’s report on government services, nearly 24 per cent of all non-government school students attend schools in regional and remote areas. As a consequence, this budget measure will bring a welcome increase in funding to approximately 400 non-government schools and around 350,000 primary and secondary school students.

The budget papers outlining this measure also refer to a requirement that state and territory governments provide a similar loading for government schools in the next four-year funding agreement, which takes effect from 1 January 2009 and concludes on 31 December 2012. This is despite the fact that until now the Commonwealth has not recognised regional and remote factors in its SES school funding formula, while a number of state and territory governments already include this in different ways. In Victoria, for example, the state government’s funding formula for government schools recognises the special need faced by students in regional and remote areas and includes a rural school size adjustment factor. This measure accounts for the greater costs these schools face outside the metropolitan area and the difficulties rural, regional and remote schools often face in attracting and maintaining staff.

In other jurisdictions where large numbers of students study in remote or very remote areas, funding is provided at a higher rate to account for these factors. In the Northern Territory, for example, the average expenditure per primary school student is around $13,000 compared to the national average of $8,000. Again, for secondary school the average funding per student in the Northern Territory is more than $16,000 compared to the national average of $11,000.

There is, in my view, clearly a need for additional resources for schools in rural, regional and remote Australia. This is one of Labor’s funding priorities for schools. The particular need of students in rural, regional and remote areas is clear. Schools in rural, regional and remote areas have persistent difficulties attracting and retaining teachers. They have limited and restricted access to facilities that their metropolitan counterparts often take for granted. It is often more difficult to get regular access to things such as libraries, museums, galleries and other educational attractions in rural, regional and remote locations than it is for city or town based schools. And with that comes the additional cost and burden of school trips and excursions, whether they be to Sydney to visit the foundation of European settlement, to Melbourne to visit the Scienceworks Museum or indeed to Canberra to visit this parliament and the War Memorial. For many schoolchildren, visiting them is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and it is often expensive for both parents and the schools to organise. These are invaluable experiences in a school career no matter where that school may be, but the obvious cost, travel and time burden on those schools and students who come from rural, regional and remote Australia is particularly acute.

In addition, in the absence of having ready access to these sorts of facilities on their doorstep, school excursions are the sorts of things that take on an additional level of importance in schools outside the major population centres. In the area of educational attainment, schools in rural and regional locations also fall behind their metropolitan counterparts in the literacy and numeracy achievements of students. The 2005 National report on schooling in Australia, for example, highlights the need for greater support for students in remote areas.

For year 3 students undertaking the literacy and numeracy benchmarks in 2005, 93.7 per cent of students in metropolitan areas passed the writing benchmark—which fell to 82.5 per cent of students in remote areas and further dropped to only 62 per cent of students passing the benchmarks in very remote areas. The results are even more alarming in numeracy, especially in later years, with 83 per cent of year 7 students in metropolitan areas passing numeracy benchmarks in 2005, while only 72 per cent in remote areas and fewer than 50 per cent of students in very remote areas passed the numeracy benchmarks. The story is much the same for the number of students who stay at school until year 12. In metropolitan Australia, the Productivity Commission estimates that 70 per cent of students in metropolitan areas complete year 12, with this dropping to 63 per cent in remote areas and plummeting to only 37 per cent in very remote areas. Clearly, there is an acute need to address these issues and improve the educational outcomes of students outside our metropolitan areas.

While this measure will bring a welcome increase to needy non-government schools facing difficulty because of their rural, regional or remote locations, it focuses on the need for further government funding to government rural, regional and remote schools in the next four-year funding arrangement. In my view, this is a government responsibility which falls on both the Commonwealth and the states and territories.

A greater proportion of government schools are in rural and regional locations. The Productivity Commission’s Report on government services 2007 found that nearly 29 per cent of all government students are studying in so-called provincial locations—essentially schools located in rural or regional locations—while three per cent of all government students are either in remote or very remote locations. Twenty-nine per cent of government students in so-called provincial locations and three per cent of government students in remote or very remote locations—that is 32 per cent—compares with 24 per cent of students in non-government schools, which I referred to earlier. This makes the point reflected by the second reading amendment, which I will formally move at the conclusion of my remarks:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.

In addition to those cost and location disadvantages, it is also the case that Indigenous people are much more likely to live and to attend school in remote and very remote Australia than the non-Indigenous population. The vast majority of Indigenous students attend government schools. In 2004, 87 per cent of Indigenous students attended government schools—schools which will not receive any additional funding through this new measure. It is quite clear that as a nation we must make greater investments in Indigenous education and work to close the gap in educational outcomes between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.

The Labor leader, Mr Rudd, spoke only a few days ago, on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, of the need to set new national, bipartisan goals to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians—goals that are achievable and measurable and which fulfil the spirit of the referendum. Mr Rudd proposed that as a nation we commit to the following goals: to eliminate the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation, to at least halve the rate of Indigenous infant mortality among babies within a decade, to at least halve the mortality rate of Indigenous children under the age of five within a decade, and to at least halve the difference in the rate of Indigenous students at years 3, 5 and 7 who fail to meet reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks within 10 years.

Labor is committed to meeting these goals, and, along with a range of health and family initiatives, education is a key plank in achieving this. Under Labor, all Indigenous four-year-olds will be eligible to receive 15 hours of government funded early-learning programs per week for a minimum of 40 weeks a year. Labor will provide $16.9 million over four years to support the rollout of the Australian Early Development Index in every Australian primary school. This will be adapted to establish a culturally appropriate and nationally consistent means of addressing key aspects of Indigenous children’s early development which are central to their readiness for learning at school. Labor will ensure that every Indigenous child has an individual learning plan based on each child’s needs and Labor will expand intensive literacy programs and develop a new intensive numeracy program to assist underachieving students to catch up with the rest of their class.

Along with the strong commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, our aspiration and our intention is to improve the educational outcomes of all young Australians. While this particular measure deals only with non-government schools in remote and regional Australia, Labor have made a commitment about schools funding along the following lines. We believe that a greater investment should be made at all levels of education, including schools and schooling. Labor will fund all schools on the basis of need and fairness, Labor will not cut funding to any schools and Labor will not disturb the current average government school recurrent costs indexation arrangements for schools funding.

A Rudd Labor government will fund all schools, whether they are government, non-government, religious or secular, based on need and fairness. Labor has made it clear, through its continued education revolution policies, that it will make a greater investment in education at every level. In the context of this bill, that will include schools and schooling in rural, regional and remote Australia.

There are a number of funding priorities for Australian schools. I see a particular need not only for rural, regional and remote education and Indigenous education but also for more funding for primary schools, special education and early childhood education. We have to make a greater investment in schools in rural, regional and remote Australia, in our primary schools, in special education and in early childhood education. It is in these areas that I think the greatest need currently exists so far as our schools and schooling are concerned. I now formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-Government schools but notes the failure to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote Government schools”.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to the Labor Party and it would seem as though all purity, all godliness, is on their side. But what is missing from any of the arguments they put forward on anything to do with education is the awkwardness at best, and the downright corruption at worst, that exists in the education system in this country when it comes to the priorities set by state government bureaucracies. I listened to the member for Perth, who represents a very small electorate in the centre of Perth—and there is nothing wrong with that—but the member for Parkes, who I see here, will understand the point I make when I say that the sparse horizons of real Australia, outside of the tree-lined suburbs of central Perth, are a different reality. What is worse, the Western Australian government tell everyone in country Western Australia: ‘Come to Perth.’ They actually defund and denude education opportunities for people in Western Australia and demand that people come to Perth.

I know that the member for Mackellar comes from New South Wales, and there is an equally poor record there in New South Wales. The further away from Sydney you get, the better the education system works, because the priority for the New South Wales government—just as it is for the governments in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and even here in the ACT—is to take the Commonwealth funds and make sure that the people in the bureaucracy are well furnished with all they need, that the quarter-of-a-million-dollar-a-year men and women are paid and that their services are made available before anything actually filters through to the schools.

If there is one fundamental flaw in the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, a bill I support as it stands, it is that it puts more money into the hands of state and territory governments, and that is where the problem is. The member for Perth talks about all the great things that would occur if Labor were in power. Thirty-three billion dollars worth of expenditure over the 2005-08 funding quadrennium represents something in the order of an 80 per cent increase in expenditure by the Australian government on schools and education compared to when Labor were last in power. That is way beyond the inflation rate. So, if there has ever been an education government in Australia’s history, it has to be this government—the Liberal Party government, the National Party government, the coalition government, the Howard government; however you want to describe it, this government has actually gone beyond the rhetoric and delivered real dividends.

This bill is about a vote of further support. It is about recognising vulnerable people in various parts of Australia, and that has an impact on all of us. In those remote, very remote, regional and moderately accessible areas—as the bill defines them—the additional vote of money that will go to non-government schools will address some of the real needs and the parlous circumstances of those schools. This is in the face of a failure by state governments around this country to realise that the most important thing they should do with their education funding is to start in the classroom and work out. They should not start in the big towers in Phillip Street in Sydney or in Mary Street in Brisbane or wherever they happen to be. This is not about wall panelling for those offices, not about flash cars and not about long lunches for people in education head offices; it is about the teachers and the students. I put it very plainly to the House tonight that something in the order of one dollar out of every four that goes from the Australian government to the various state and territory governments is lost in administration of the other three dollars. One dollar out of every four, instead of going straight to the classrooms, goes into the big towers.

If those opposite would join with me and this side of the chamber and demand greater accountability and greater prioritisation by state governments on the business of education, more money would actually be delivered to the classroom. The schools assistance bill that we are debating tonight reflects additional moneys from the Commonwealth government budget delivered a few weeks ago, continuing this government’s track record of trying to target need where it exists the most. The Investing in Our Schools Program has produced a direct investment that has gone into the hands of principals and P&C presidents. It means money can go directly from Canberra to local schools, because we trust those schools to best know what they want.

The first thing state governments have sought is management fees for projects. The New South Wales government is probably the worst, but the Queensland government is not far behind. They demand, ‘If you are going to touch anything in our schools, we want a slice of that money off the top.’ In fact, some states demand that their public works departments do the work—or else! The Department of Public Works in Queensland has a reputation for featherbedding 40 per cent on top of any commercial rate for work that normal contractors do. Whilst I know that the Labor Party are going to pass this bill, I call their amendment for what it is—a stunt. It is an attempt to look pure and godlike in their attitude towards education. But, in practice, state Labor governments have failed the classroom teachers and students in their care for far too long.

We are going to see non-government schools in moderately accessible, remote and very remote regions finding ways to keep the good teachers. One of the problems that exists in a lot of those schools in the very productive areas of rural and regional Australia is that the second a good teacher arrives they are snared and taken away somewhere else. I remember going to Mildura a few years ago, and the problem there was simple: the kids—and these were not even schoolkids—were just being minded in childcare facilities while their parents were off earning money picking fruit. They were losing teachers hand over fist to the fruit-picking industry, because it was paying more than teaching paid. So you can imagine that, as a result of the general recurrent grants—the remoteness per capita loading for non-government schools—we are going to start to see non-government schools in remote, very remote and moderately accessible regions of Australia offering AWAs to teachers. That is going to give teachers an opportunity to earn more and stay in the classroom. They will always earn more. They trade their skills and experience, but they also give some guarantee of tenure—that they will stay there—because the wage rates in various parts of remote, very remote and moderately accessible Australia are competing with the wage rates in industries outside the education sector.

So that is one of the good things that is going to come. I must say that, regardless of which part of Australia any of us happens to represent, that may stem the tide of people leaving those rural and regional areas to come to cities to place their kids in schools in city areas. Those rural and regional areas will be able to get good teachers and keep them there. They will be able to resource the education equation in those regional centres, so parents will not be tempted to send their kids to the cities for better opportunities. So the roll-on effect of what the government is doing here, whilst it does not directly impact upon a seat like mine in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, does actually have a beneficial impact for schools and teachers in my area. It means that schools and students in regional and rural Australia are going to be able to see a vote from the Australian government of additional funds to improve educational opportunities in those areas, attract quality teachers, increase staff retention and improve teacher access to professional development.

The National Catholic Education Commission has raised the issue of the high cost of regional and remote Australian schools in comparison to schools in other areas. We have seen examples where statistically they have not had education outcomes as good as those of some of the city based or large town based schools. This measure will assist 400 regional and remote non-government schools from 1 January next year, with increased funding that is going to make a difference.

I want to turn my attention to something that directly impacts on the electorate of Moreton. We have the most culturally diverse electorate in Queensland. In the southern suburbs of Brisbane we have people who have come to Australia as refugees and humanitarian entrants—people who have come to do better for themselves and their families. They may be the first generation that have come here, and they are willing to sacrifice things so that their kids are given opportunities to grow and have things that they themselves would never have imagined having—and one of the key things, of course, is education. Schools in my district are playing an enormous role—doing the heavy liftng of early investment in people to make a difference. This sort of early investment in people, through the English as a second language new arrivals, ESLNA, program, and the increased funding that the budget has delivered—and the bill is all about the formal delivery of that funding—will reap an enormous dividend for Australia in years to come.

I think Queensland has, by comparison with all other states, the best system for high-school-age students in that it has an intensive delivery of English programs, getting kids geared up at a high-school level through Milperra State High School at Chelmer, in my electorate. I pay tribute to Adele Rice, the principal, and her hardworking, dedicated staff. I was there on Friday night watching the Burundi dancers celebrate students who had been at that school in years past and students who are still at that school. They were celebrating the receipt of $108,000 in Investing in Our Schools funding which went to refurbishing the canteen. The canteen is the centre of the school social activities. The canteen is the place for food and drink and for the good times that seem to revolve around it, as well as for teaching kids about food hygiene and food preparation skills. So that $108,000, which has gone directly from the Australian government to that school where its P&C and principal can be trusted, has made a difference there.

Adele Rice, the principal of Milperra, can be very brave given the way the Queensland Labor government operates. Very bravely for a public servant, she actually came out and said how appreciative she was that we have an Australian government that understands—through the doubling of this increased funding, the doubling of the per capita amount of support, for eligible humanitarian entrants—the difference that it is going to make. I say to Adele Rice: thank you for your courage in applauding this positive effort. I know of the difference that is made at Milperra State High School. I know of the intensive work that is done over, say, six months. The kids often start from nothing and go to something. Then they go on and, particularly at high schools like Yeronga high school and Sunnybank high school, we see the success of those students that passed through Milperra. We see the success of the students who pass through this ESLNA program that we fund. We are doubling the funding through this bill tonight. We see the success of those students exemplified by the fact that school captains of both Sunnybank and Yeronga high schools have passed through Milperra and have come here with no English skills but have gained confidence because they have the skills, which we fund—and a difference is made.

Last Friday the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, was in the electorate of Moreton. I took her to a number of places. I did not take her to Milperra but I was there later in the day representing her and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Pat Farmer, at the opening of that canteen. I took her and sat her down with ESL teachers making a difference at Moorooka Primary School. Moorooka Primary School is just down the road from where the department of immigration’s on-arrival accommodation in that part of Brisbane is located. Milperra does the work for the high school students but Moorooka, amongst other schools, really does the heavy lifting for the primary school age students. I gave the teachers an opportunity to tell Minister Bishop exactly the way forward, from their point of view, on how to further invest in their areas.

Schools like Moorooka make a difference because they have teachers dedicated to the task of English as a second language, the funding for which has been doubled through this budget measure. But schools like Moorooka do not see anything like the $5,277 for eligible students that is provided, on the initial 2006-07 price basis, by the Australian government, which assisted some 13,000 students in 2006, including more than 5,000 who entered Australia as part of the humanitarian program. Schools like Moorooka Primary School, Sunnybank Primary School, Runcorn Heights Primary School, Warrigal Road Primary School and Kuraby Primary School—these state government schools that are doing the heavy lifting work on ESL, as are St Brendan’s Catholic parish school at Moorooka and St Pius X at Salisbury—do not see this $5,277 per student, because it goes to the Queensland government first. The highly paid bureaucrats get paid first and what is left over trickles out to these schools.

I simply say to the House tonight that if there were fairness and focus and if there were decency and honour in the ambitions of the Australian Labor Party members in this place—and indeed where they actually have control and an ability to deliver on a program, that being in the state bureaucracies—they would take that $5,277 per student that is being offered by the Australian government each year—13,000 students in 2006-07—and they would make it available to the schools where the teaching is done. They would actually put a classroom focus first, rather than following the tradition of Yes, Minister and seeing that the most efficient school offering English as a second language programs is the one with no students. They would actually fund the classroom relationship between the teachers and students. Moorooka Primary School, we were told last Friday, has two and a bit ESL teachers allocated with a case load of something equivalent to 27 per cent of the student body. In round figures, that is about 120 students out of 500. Moorooka state school does not need two and a bit teachers; it needs six or eight teachers. It is quite obvious to me that there is a desperate need in a school community like that to have the additional resources.

Here we have the Australian government playing its role, doubling the resources that go to assist English language tuition for new arrivals. But, as I said at the outset of my remarks, the big fundamental mistake in this bill is that the funding actually goes to state government bureaucracies, whom we hope will pass it on. The principals of schools in my electorate would be overwhelmed if they had a budget allocation of $5,277 per eligible student. Not only would they be overwhelmed; they would be able to provide the resources and support that would make a difference in those students’ lives. Taking the Moorooka example alone of 120 to 130 students—and anyone can do the sums—it would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars available to make a difference at the coalface. It would mean that all of the students who have come to the school with English language skills would not feel—and their parents would not feel—as though somehow or other the teachers may have to put extra effort into the ESL students. I think Moorooka has moved on from that, but I know that particularly at the time of the last federal election the Labor Party were promoting that as a whisper campaign around the suburb of Moorooka in my electorate, much to their great shame.

The simple reality is that the resources are coming from Canberra. Why are they not arriving in the classroom? Because the reality is that, no matter how pleasant their talk is, no matter how positive and on the side of God they sound in their utterances here about their aspirations, the Australian Labor Party’s priority is to put union based, union dominated officials and state bureaucracies ahead of the English language lessons being afforded to young people in this country, particularly vulnerable young people who have come from a humanitarian and refugee background. It is a disgrace. I commend this bill to the House.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not one of those members of the House who always sees actions by governments as the thin edge of the wedge. That tendency is more often found on the other side of the House. Any intervention by government is often seen by government members as a step down the slippery slope to socialism. But, as each year goes by, we see another ideologically driven change by the government in the field of education. I am becoming more and more concerned about where it will end. I think most Australians are like the frog left in the saucepan which is very slowly heated; it only realises when it is too late that it is being boiled alive. It might be a good time to test the temperature of the water to see how far things have gone. Or, to quote the words of Professor Max Angus, of Edith Cowan University, in his paper entitled Commonwealth-state relations and the funding of Australia’s schools:

The negative consequences of the current funding arrangements are a bit like concrete cancer in a large building, or changes to the ozone layer in our atmosphere. The degradation is slow and almost imperceptible. The net effect is a growing differentiation between those government and nongovernment schools that serve the families on high incomes and those who are not well off. The Australian education system, taken as a whole, is evolving into something but we don’t know what.

It is time for us to stop and consider Professor Angus’s question: what is our education system evolving into? Or are we too far down that slippery slope to regain our footing and get back on track for a fair and effective education system in Australia? The measures contained in the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 only lead us further down that slippery slope to where education is, once again, the privilege of an elite few. So it is definitely worth looking back up the hill to see how far we have fallen. If we go back to the beginning, when the Commonwealth delivered the first significant grants for school education, under the Whitlam government in 1974, 70 per cent of funding went to government schools and 27 per cent to private schools. That roughly reflected the fact that two-thirds of students went to public schools. But today we find the figures for funding are reversed.

In this year’s budget, which this bill brings into law, private schools will get 69 per cent of funding, while public schools will get only 31 per cent. There has been some increase in the proportion of students attending private schools, but two-thirds of students in public schools still only get 31 per cent of Commonwealth funding. In recent years we have seen Commonwealth funding for private schools growing at three times the rate for public schools. The Commonwealth’s per student grant for what is defined as the least needy private school is far greater than the per student grant for public schools.

Of course, we hear the government countering the advertisements of the Australian Education Union, saying that the total amount of money spent by state and federal governments is 75 per cent of total funding, while only 67 per cent of students attend public schools. In part, the Minister for Education, Science and Training answers her own question in the measures included in this bill. As the minister knows only too well, public schools must accept all students, wherever they live and whatever their disability or their disadvantage. In this bill, the minister introduces additional funding in the form of a loading linked to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions. These are defined as moderately accessible, remote and very remote. But this funding will only be provided to non-government schools. Public education systems, which have the primary responsibility to provide education for all Australian children, regardless of where they live, get absolutely nothing. The minister even has the hide to demand that state governments provide an equivalent increase in their funding for regional and remote government schools. The minister definitely wants to have her cake and eat it too.

On the one hand, the minister says that students in public schools get more funding in total, if you add together the Commonwealth and state government funding; but, on the other hand, she acknowledges that there are reasons why, because of remoteness, some schools may need extra funding. To balance the equation, she gives extra funding only to non-government schools, but demands that state governments make up for what the Commonwealth government will not provide public schools. The same could be said about the additional cost to the public education system of catering to the needs of new arrivals in Australia, yet in the same bill the minister acknowledges the need to fund both public and non-government schools. On the one hand, the minister sees the need for additional funding for remoteness but only gives additional funding to non-government schools; on the other hand, she sees the need for additional funding under the humanitarian settlement initiative. The minister, in her second reading speech, said:

For humanitarian entrants in Australian primary and secondary schools, intensive support to improve English language skills is one of the best ways to improve the educational outcomes and future employability so that they can participate more broadly in Australian society.

I could not agree more with that statement. The Fowler electorate has, until recent years, had perhaps the greatest funding need in this area. The burden of providing not only English language programs but also other school-based assimilation programs has largely been carried by schools often classified as disadvantaged. This funding is welcome, but it only serves to show how lopsided the whole issue of Commonwealth funding is. The government appreciates the additional cost of meeting the needs of students under the humanitarian settlement initiative funds for both public and non-government schools. The government also appreciates the additional cost involved in providing school education in remote areas but only funds non-government schools. This move makes a mockery of the government’s claim to be a good economic manager. As anyone who has visited schools in remote parts of Australia could tell you, these schools require more resources than city schools for much smaller class numbers.

The challenge for remote secondary schools in recent decades has been to find ways of providing face-to-face teaching while providing some degree of subject choice. This measure by the government will only serve to spread resources even more thinly. Providing greater choice in remote areas will not make for better education outcomes; it just flies in the face of good economic management. Of course, that just serves to highlight the whole issue of what the Commonwealth’s role should be in education.

What we have is a Commonwealth government following its own narrow ideological agenda at the expense of efficiency. The government has so much money to give away to private schools that it looks for ways to justify its assistance. But you cannot justify an agenda of school choice when that same agenda will in fact restrict real choice—that is, how to provide for the wide needs of a small number of students in a remote school. To put it into the reality of remote areas, the public system will be required to maintain its responsibility to provide school education in remote areas but it will only be able to do so less efficiently. This government is running around spending like a drunken sailor, throwing money at the non-government sector. Instead of looking at a cooperative model where a sharing of joint facilities and programs between public and non-government schools could improve both choice and access, this government goes down its ideologically driven path and takes us further down the slippery slope.

It might now be a good time to ask, as Professor Angus suggests: just what is our school system evolving into? Certainly it is nothing like anything you will see in any other developed country. No other national government has as great a bias in favour of non-government schools. No other national government provides a whopping 73 per cent of recurrent funding grants to non-government schools, which have only one-third of all students, while public schools, with the remaining two-thirds of students, get only nine per cent of recurrent funding from the Commonwealth. That distribution is not evenly balanced among non-government schools. According to one study, 27 per cent of students in independent schools attended schools where the fees paid exceeded the average level of resources in public schools. Looking at the total numbers of students attending non-government schools, 55 per cent are better resourced than public schools through the combination of fees and government grants. So that leaves 45 per cent of schools with lower resource levels than public schools. I know only too well what that means for the students in those schools.

In the Fowler electorate that means that the newer independent schools, both Christian and a growing number of Muslim schools, have resource levels below that of the average public school. So, while we have a Commonwealth government which prides itself on contributing the lion’s share of funding for non-government schools, 73 per cent of their recurrent expenditure, and while it wants to boast that it is the best friend that private education ever had, this government leaves 45 per cent of students at non-government schools with less than the per student recurrent funding for public schools. With a funding formula based on the socioeconomic status of the postcodes from which a school draws its students, not based on the level of resources that the school has—and given the overriding requirement that no school will have its grant reduced—we are left with a funding scheme for non-government schools which is not only unfair to students at public schools but also unfair to nearly half of the students in non-government schools.

What must really grate about many of the provisions in this bill is that, in spite of the fact that the Commonwealth only pays nine per cent of the recurrent cost of public schools, this government wants to call the tune when it comes to directing just how the states spend their money. I have already mentioned one of those demands in relation to funding for remote schools. If this government were paying the greater share of the cost of public education then we might see it as legitimate for the Commonwealth to demand that the states comply with certain requirements. But this government only contributes nine per cent. So what it is doing in demanding certain actions by the states, including contributing their own money, is nothing short of blackmail. I was pleased to see recently that the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training called it just that and threatened to refuse to comply with these demands by the Commonwealth. This lack of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states can only lead to an expensive and disastrous failure of school education in Australia.

Let us look at the other parts of this legislation. The National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program again is an ideologically driven program which fails because there is no built in cooperation between schools and students. I know that in my electorate less than half of the vouchers are taken up because parents fail to understand the program or cannot access this assistance. The program simply does not link with in-school programs, and no funding is made available for teachers to liaise with tutors. At best the program may give some poorly directed assistance, but at worst it is a costly and ineffective measure to improve literacy and numeracy standards. Just to confuse the situation even further, the budget package offers up to $50,000 to schools which improve literacy and numeracy outcomes. The government allocates money to private tutors by way of vouchers, but holds schools responsible for the results. That is not just bad government, it is plain stupid.

The package also aims to develop common core curricula for schools. This government has had 11 long years to follow on from Labor’s progress in common curriculum development but it has not even got to first base. While this minister, the one before her and the one before him complained about the difficulty faced by students moving from one state to another, we still have not begun to address the issue of common school starting ages. Eleven years after Labor did the groundwork, a five-year-old can still start school in New South Wales, move to Queensland and not be accepted into a school. I can remember the shock that a friend of mine had when her family moved to Queensland. Her daughter had started high school in year 7 in New South Wales only to be put back to primary school three quarters of the way through the year. These things need to be fixed before we start thinking about setting standardised curricula.

But when we come to the requirements that this government wants to impose on the states from 2009, we can see its real agenda. If it thinks it can mandate performance based pay and school principal autonomy in teacher employment, it will need a lot more than just its ideological desire to see it through. These are not simple reforms. When put into practice they would overturn a raft of existing conditions and entitlements without any Commonwealth funding to compensate for their removal. Think of what New South Wales teachers have invested in the transfer points system and the incentives this has provided in staffing remote schools. Disadvantaged schools have staff turnover rates averaging 35 per cent a year, but this government thinks it can just click its fingers and its plans will come into effect. In New South Wales there is already a degree of performance based pay in the promotions system, and the selection for promotion positions includes the involvement of school principals. Our state education systems are among the largest employers in the country, yet for some dubious ideological goal this government wants to place the important issue of school staffing in jeopardy.

The Commonwealth has no responsibility whatsoever for the staffing of public schools, yet it wants to interfere in the states’ responsibilities, and it will accept no blame if it leads to staff shortages. This government thinks it can change whatever it likes to the teaching workforce of this country and it will have no consequences. It is very wrong if it assumes that it will have a compliant workforce ready to go along with whatever changes this government wants to see. Teachers possess skills much in demand in other parts of the workforce and any changes which make a teaching career less attractive will only lead to an exodus of highly trained professionals and the early retirement of some of our best and most experienced teachers. It is no wonder the New South Wales minister for education has signalled that he will not go along with many of these proposed changes. This government would be better served if it adopted a much more cooperative approach in dealing with these issues.

To come back to the question posed by Professor Angus: just what is the education system under this government evolving into? It is certainly a far cry from the free, secular and compulsory motto of the founders of public education in this country, and we are already well on our way down the slippery slope from where we were when this government came to power. From the emphasis on funding disadvantaged schools to give every child in our schools the best opportunity, we now have a system which is very heavy on compliance, with everything from flying the flag to prescribing precisely what is taught, how it is taught and who teaches it. While the government talks about improving the quality of our schools it is fast removing the equality from our schools.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I strongly support this bill, particularly the investment that this government has made over the last 11 years into all education sectors, including early learning, primary, secondary, vocational training and higher education. It has made significant investments over the years, and I think it is important at the outset just to correct some of the assertions made by the Education Union and by the member for Fowler, who has just left the chamber.

Federal funding for state schools has increased by some 70 per cent in real terms since 1996, while enrolments in state schools have increased by a mere 1.2 per cent over that time. The result is that, while some 67 per cent of students are in state government schools, they receive around 75 per cent of total taxpayer funding. What the Labor Party and the Education Union consistently fail to recognise is that taxpayers’ money is funded not only directly from the Commonwealth government but also through the state governments, which, at the end of the day, own the state schools. The funding that schools receive is a combination of money that comes directly from the federal government as well as via state governments.

We have seen federal funding, which goes directly to government schools, increase from $0.9 billion back in 1996 to $1.9 billion in this year’s budget—a substantial increase given that the actual number of enrolments has only increased by 1.2 per cent. The Australian government’s recurrent funding for public schools—and that is only one source of our funding—is actually linked to state government funding, and has been, by the same formula, since 1985. So the more state governments increase funding for their schools, the more the Commonwealth automatically increases its own funding.

In addition, however, the Commonwealth also provides funding for specific purposes, such as the $1.2 billion that has gone through the Investing in Our Schools program, and the $1.8 billion that has gone into the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. So, in the 2006 budget, which is the one with which we can compare at the moment because we have the state figures, the Howard government increased total funding to state government schools by 11 per cent, while state governments only increased their funding by 4.9 per cent on average. If all the states had matched the federal rate of increase in funding to state government schools, there would have been an additional $1.4 billion for state government schools.

The last point is brought out very passionately by the independent and Catholic school sector. They note that the very fact that parents are prepared to contribute a large amount—in fact, generally the majority of funding—to support independent schools saves state and territory governments more than $9 billion each year. I believe it is important that, rather than have people try to recreate a class war in Australia, or spread lies and misinformation about funding to create discontent, we should recognise that parents do have a choice as to where they would like to send their children to school. As taxpayers they are also entitled to government assistance. And, as the figures clearly show, the majority of assistance from taxpayers goes to children who are in state schools. A lesser amount goes to children who are in private schools, where parents also make a considerable contribution to their education.

Over the period 2005 to 2008, a record $33 billion will be provided by the Australian government for schools across Australia. This significant investment has been made because we recognise the value of education. But it is also important to recognise that we have only been able to make this significant contribution because of the good economic management of this government, which has paid down the $96 billion debt which was left by the previous Labor government. That debt absorbed some $8½ billion every year in interest, and that was money which could not be spent on things like health or aged care or education.

In addition, the Howard government is boosting this funding by the Realising Our Potential package, which is some $843 million over four years, as announced in this year’s budget. This package provides a number of measures, but I particularly welcome the $121.1 million for regional and remote non-government schools. This means that students in more than 400 regional and remote schools will be supported to achieve better outcomes.

Some of those schools are in the north of my electorate of Wakefield, and I welcome this additional funding for them. I do note, however, that other schools—government schools—in country areas in South Australia have recently been bemoaning the fact that their funding formula has changed. They face issues because, with smaller student numbers, it is difficult—particularly at the high school level—to provide a range of curriculum areas for students to study. I think it is very poor that the state government has now adopted a unitary funding model that puts country schools on the same basis as city schools. But that probably adds even more value to things like the Country Areas Program that the Commonwealth government provides to these schools, both state and non-government schools. It recognises that these children can be educationally disadvantaged, and so it provides this funding so that there are a wide range of projects and options available—excursions, or support subjects like other languages, or musical or sporting events. Even things like vocational training are supported through the Country Areas Program.

This is an area where, yet again, the Australian government is stepping in to meet a shortfall that has been left because of the poor spending priorities of the South Australian government. Student achievements against the national literacy and numeracy benchmarks show that students in non-metropolitan areas achieve below the level of their peers in the metro areas. So I very much welcome this funding.

The second measure in the bill looks at a humanitarian settlement initiative. Through this measure, an additional $127.8 million will be committed over the next four years to supporting newly-arrived humanitarian entrants. The previous speaker questioned why the federal government was providing this money to state as well as to non-government schools. Well, clearly it is because the whole immigration program, working with refugees and migrants, is something the federal government is heavily involved in, and we believe that the best way to integrate people into our community is for both parents and their children to have every opportunity to learn English. That is why we support the literacy and numeracy program, through the Department of Education, Science and Training, as well as the Adult Migrant English Program, to make sure that people have the opportunity to learn English, to learn the skills to engage in further study, in our community or, importantly, for those who are able to, to work within our community.

The Realising Our Potential budget package also includes a number of other things that particularly affect the schools and families in the seat of Wakefield. The National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program provides assistance to parents of students who have not achieved minimum literacy and numeracy standards in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. This scheme has received much criticism from the ideologues who oppose the concept of actually identifying how well people are doing. But I have had parents ring up and say how grateful they are that finally there is a benchmark that their child is being assessed against, and that it has validated their individual concerns about where their child is at and has provided the impetus for that child to receive additional support. This is one concrete example of the Howard government’s determination to work with parents to get better early childhood education outcomes.

I am particularly pleased to report to the House that in the city of Playford in the Wakefield electorate a regular meeting is held between the elected members from all three levels of government to come together to discuss ways to work collaboratively for the benefit of the community. At the last meeting, we discussed specifically how we could get local community groups, state schools, the council and the federal government to work together to get clearly identifiable contact paths for parents to use, particularly those from lower socioeconomic areas, to access tutors who could work in the home or the school environment to provide a targeted tutoring program to students who need support.

This package also introduces the Australian government’s summer school for teachers. This program offers teachers more professional development and upskilling in important areas such as literacy and numeracy, maths, science, English and Australian history. This is an opportunity for teachers to actually improve their skills and to receive a payment for doing that.

There has been a lot of criticism about ranking schools and identifying how well they do, but the grants of up to $50,000 for schools to reward them for improving literacy and numeracy outcomes, I think, are important. It does not say, ‘You have to compete against some other school in another part of the city.’ It says: ‘Where are you today? How much improvement have you made over a period of time, given your starting point?’ And it then rewards the school for the effort it put in to achieve that improvement. I think that is a very good incentive for schools to look for better ways—and many of them are currently doing this—and it provides schools with a very tangible reward to put into better resources for the children learning there.

One of the things I have done in my time in this parliament as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training is participate in an inquiry into the quality and scope of teacher training in Australia to identify how we could do it better and to identify why so many teachers train but then leave the profession so quickly. We interviewed a range of schools, training providers, universities as well as student teachers. A number of things came out of that inquiry, and one of the most important was the need to improve the practical component of teacher education. I am pleased to see that in this Realising Our Potential budget package there is a specific initiative to try and ensure that the experience of student teachers in the practicum is of a high quality and of sufficient length to prepare teachers for the classroom. Finally, in terms of this package, I am very pleased to see funding to develop core curricular standards in year 10 for a number of subjects and in years 11 and 12 in subjects including English, Australian history, biology, chemistry and physics, as well as funding for the development of national teacher training, registrations and standards.

Australia has an increasingly mobile population. As I look at families who work in areas such as the Defence Force, I see that they regularly move around the country. It is a real issue for their children as they move from state to state. They come across different standards and different curricula, and sometimes they are forced to drop back a year because of an incompatibility between the state systems. I am pleased to see this funding being made available for core curricular standards, and I call on each of the state and territory governments and the education ministers within those governments to work cooperatively with the federal government to achieve this outcome for the benefit of our children.

All of these initiatives are building on things such as the very successful Investing in Our Schools program, which in the electorate of Wakefield has seen some 62 schools benefit from around 150 projects. Some $7.3 million has been invested in projects in Wakefield—which the schools have certainly welcomed. Angle Vale Primary will receive $34,000 in one project to upgrade their networking and IT. Balaklava Primary will receive $150,000 for similar projects. Blakeview Primary will receive $118,000 for fencing and new flooring. Elizabeth Downs Primary will receive nearly $150,000 for play equipment and other upgrades. That program has been very valuable because it has allowed school principals and parents to identify priorities within their schools to meet the needs of their children.

There is one other area I wish to touch on and it relates to students from regional areas. There are a range of measures the government has in place to support students studying at schools in regional areas, but many families feel that the only option they have for their young people to achieve the educational outcomes they desire is for them to go and study in the city. This government has put some developments in place in this regard which I welcome. For example, rural students in receipt of youth allowance will receive additional assistance by gaining access to a higher away-from-home rate of payment, rent assistance and remote area allowance and a fares allowance for up to two return trips home each year, as well as other benefits such as the low-income healthcare card and the pharmaceutical allowance. Importantly, for farmers, under the family assets test, farm assets are discounted by some 75 per cent.

I consistently hear, though, from families living in country areas that it is still a real struggle for them to afford quality education, particularly if they have been paying boarding-school fees and then move on to support their young people as they go to university. While I welcome the initiatives providing the additional loading for children in country schools, I believe we need to continue to look at ways to support families who live in rural and regional areas and seek a good educational outcome for their children.

In summary, I support this bill because, yet again, it shows that through the good economic management of this government we have been able to make a record investment in education in Australia across a range of areas, particularly in the areas we have been discussing today: the benefits to new arrivals to Australia and regional students, and the development options for young people in terms of literacy and numeracy standards and improving the quality and standards of our teachers—already some of the best in the world, but this will give them the opportunity to reach the standards of excellence they wish to achieve to support the students whom they pour so much of their lives into. I commend the bill to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. It is part of the budget measures for 2007. I particularly welcome following my colleague the member for Wakefield, who I think has drawn a very important linkage between good economic management by this government and its ability to better fund education, not just quality education but relevant education. Relevance, of course, is very important in this day and age of fast-moving technologies.

The bill gives a legislative basis for a record amount of funding to be provided by the Australian government. The funding amounts to $33 billion to implement budget measures for schools, which includes additional funding for newly arrived humanitarian entrant students under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program for 2008, and to provide a funding loading, or an additional payment, to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions, according to the degree of remoteness, for 2008.

The English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program provides intensive English language tuition for recently arrived migrant students to improve their educational outcomes. These budget measures actually double the per capita rate of funding paid to government and non-government education authorities for students in primary and secondary schools who enter Australia on a humanitarian visa. This funding is provided to the state and territory governments and non-government education authorities to assist with the provision of intensive teaching of the English language to eligible primary and secondary students—English language competence—and increase their educational opportunities. The money is utilised in a variety of ways, including the employment of specialist staff, the development of an English as a second language curriculum and teaching material.

Some 13,000 students were assisted by English as a second language programs in 2006. This included some 5,000 students who arrived in Australia as part of the humanitarian program. Under these new arrangements the funding for eligible humanitarian students will double in 2008. I understand that this decision has been universally welcomed.

It is a fact that throughout the world there are thousands of people living outside their homelands in refugee camps. Conditions are far from ideal and it has fallen to countries such as Australia to offer places to people living in these dire circumstances. Australia has a very generous humanitarian refugee resettlement program. Australia assists thousands of refugees and others in need of humanitarian assistance. Indeed, since 1996, over 10,000 people have come to Australia under this program and Australia has consistently ranked among the top three resettlement countries, alongside the United States of America and Canada, in numbers resettled each year.

Many people coming to Australia under this program have experienced life events that have left them seriously traumatised and, contrary to popular belief in some quarters, it is not easy for people to uproot themselves from their land of birth, leaving behind whatever wealth they managed to acquire, families, friends, familiar sounds, food and landscapes. Home is home, wherever one puts down one’s roots, and being forced from it must be a life-shattering experience, especially for children. It is therefore important that a high level of assistance is given to new arrivals. The Australian government is committed to the successful settlement of those chosen to come to Australia under the humanitarian program.

The Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy provides intensive settlement support to new arrivals to help them become self-sufficient as soon as possible. These services may include individual case management, referral to other support services, accommodation, orientation, emergency needs for medical attention, clothing and footwear, and basic household goods to allow people to quickly establish their household in their new country. It is especially helpful for young people to learn the language that will ensure that they have an opportunity to fully participate in their new country—to be able to find work, to fully participate in social and community life and to assist parents and possibly grandparents who may not have had the same opportunity.

There is little doubt that English language tuition promotes successful settlement and integration of newly arrived humanitarian students in Australian schools. English proficiency is one of the most effective ways to improve educational outcomes and smooth the pathway for young people for whom life has been tough and where, in some cases, they may have experienced great disruption to their regular schooling. Because of the circumstances in which they come to their new country, students entering Australia under the humanitarian program may need additional assistance to settle into school and additional language tuition in the initial phase of their course.

The English as a second language program has been very successful and this additional funding builds on earlier work. However, teaching English as a second language requires dedicated teachers, a curriculum and textbook writers, all of which need funding. As all levels of government have responsibilities to settle new humanitarian arrivals, the costs are shared, but the Commonwealth makes a significant contribution to the program. This funding adds to other programs funded by the Commonwealth, including the General Recurrent Grants Program and the targeted funding for students with a language background other than English through the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program.

The second part of this amendment bill provides additional funding for non-government regional and remote schools in recognition of the higher cost of delivering education in those regional and remote areas. Non-government school organisations have been concerned about the high cost of delivering schooling in remote and rural areas, including the higher cost of building, building maintenance, recruitment and retaining teachers in remote areas. These schools offer an important choice for many parents and students who may choose to have an education within the context of their religious beliefs. It seems reasonable for the schools prepared to invest in rural and remote schooling to be given funding consideration in line with those higher costs. The funding amounts to $121 million over a four-year period and is part of the government’s budget measures under the Realising Our Potential package of measures to improve education in Australia.

There are over 400 non-government schools throughout Australia, and this will give them considerable support to continue to offer choice to families living in rural and remote areas. These measures have the ultimate aim of improving student achievement levels. Students in rural areas do not have the same advantages as city based students, who are, for the most part, within reach of many facilities in the more populous cities and suburbs.

There is clear evidence that rural and remote students do not achieve as highly as their peers in metropolitan schools and, at least in my electorate of Pearce, there is some evidence, which came about through studies a few years ago, that the retention rate of students in rural schools is not as high as those in the city. This funding can therefore be used to great advantage in improving educational opportunities for the most disadvantaged students, with quality teachers, increased staff retention levels and improved access to ongoing professional development of teachers in rural and remote areas.

Eligibility for the extra payment will be determined under the Australian Bureau of Statistics standard geographical classification and according to the remoteness of the census collection district in which a school campus is located. Funding levels will depend on whether a school is located in moderately remote, remote or very remote areas. Drawing boundaries, of course, is always difficult because there are always those who fall just within and just outside those boundaries but, for the schools and the students who attend those schools which fall within the rural and remote program, this is a very important measure to ensure equity in education for rural and remote students.

The amendment bill addresses two important issues, each affecting relatively small groups of people, but good governance is about ensuring that all communities share in the prosperity and the benefits of living in such a prosperous and blessed country. The Howard government recognises the benefits of investing heavily in schools, including through the Investing in Our Schools progarm. I am pleased to see that the minister has just come back into the House. I would like to put on the record that I think she is doing an outstanding job and that the Investing in Our Schools program has been very well received within the electorate of Pearce. It has been an important way to improve school facilities and amenities, where the decisions about what needs funding are entrusted to school parents and friends groups and school principals. In other words, the federal government is giving school communities the ability to decide their priorities for the expenditure of funds under this program, and it has certainly been welcomed, as I said, in the electorate of Pearce. There have been many gains for education in my electorate of Pearce under the good governance of the Howard government, whether it is investment in facilities, the excellent access classes to encourage young people to continue their education or the investment in improving literacy and numeracy outcomes.

The measures in this bill, again, are part of ensuring that all students have access to the best possible educational opportunities. Once again, as my colleague the member for Wakefield said in his speech—and I think it is an important link that he drew—good economic management allows this government to provide better outcomes in education.

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

In summing up the debate on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 this evening, I thank all members of the House who have participated, particularly the member for Pearce. I know how interested and concerned she is in achieving better educational outcomes for students in her electorate. The Australian government will make a substantial investment in education, providing approximately $33 billion to government and non-government schools over the period 2005 to 2008. In that, we are delivering genuine choice for Australian parents. Our share of schools funding—for we do share responsibility with state and territory governments—has increased by over 160 per cent since 1996. Around 3.4 million students from over 9,600 schools and school communities across Australia will benefit from the more than $1.2 billion in additional funding to be provided over the next four years as part of the Australian government’s 2007-08 budget. This additional funding takes the Australian government’s total level of investment in schooling to $9.7 billion for 2007-08.

This particular bill seeks to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act of 2004 to provide increased per capita funding for newly arrived humanitarian entrant students under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program from 2008 and provide a funding loading to recurrent grants for non-government schools in rural and remote regions from 2008. This increased funding is an urgent priority designed to assist disadvantaged students living in these areas.

Firstly, I will turn to the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program. This provides funding to assist with the provision of intensive teaching of the English language to eligible students who have recently arrived in Australia. Over 2005-08, $127.8 million is being provided to ensure migrant school students newly arrived in Australia receive appropriate support in learning English. The proposed bill will implement the decision to double the per capita assistance to state and non-government education authorities to assist with the cost of intensive English tuition for humanitarian-entrant-students from 2008.

The program aims to develop migrant students’ English language competence and thereby increase their educational and future employment opportunities. Funding is available to all state and territory government and non-government education authorities to assist them with the delivery of intensive English language tuition to eligible primary and secondary school students. The funds are to be used for a range of purposes, including employing specialist staff and developing an English as a second language curriculum and teaching material. This important initiative is part of a whole-of-government strategy which focuses on promoting successful settlement through learning English, getting a job, committing to Australian values and participating in mainstream activities.

Secondly, in relation to the general recurrent grant loading for rural and remote non-government schools, I confirm that the Howard government does recognise the unique hardships that regional and remote schools face. This amendment will provide funding of $121.1 million over four years for non-government schools in regional and remote areas in recognition of the higher cost of delivering schooling in regional and remote areas of Australia. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks to improve the school outcomes for all Australian students. This measure will allow schools to direct expenditure to those areas which most seriously affect their capacity to offer a quality education. This additional funding could go towards attracting quality teachers or improving school facilities.

The additional funding will come in the form of a loading linked to the general recurrent funding provided by the Australian government. The loading will be determined using a remoteness classification as defined in the remoteness structure for census year 2001 under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Standard Geographical Classification. Non-government schools classified as moderately accessible, remote or very remote will receive an additional five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent respectively of the funding entitlement associated with their socioeconomic status score.

Howard government funding for state government schools has risen by close to 70 per cent in real terms since 1996, while enrolments at state government schools have risen by just 1.2 per cent. It remains a fact that state government schools enrol 67 per cent of all Australian students and receive 75 per cent of total public funding for schools. I point out to members and to those listening to this parliamentary broadcast that, if state governments increased their investment in their schools, according to a well-established formula, federal government funding increases automatically. So those who turn to the federal government to increase funding for state government schools should also focus on state governments. If they increase their investment, the federal government funding increases automatically.

Of course, state governments have primary responsibility for state government school education. After all, they own, operate and are the major source of funding for state government schools, and they employ the teachers, while the Australian government supplements that funding as a percentage of the state investment. State governments also accredit and regulate non-government schools, while the Australian government provides the majority of public funding. So there is a shared responsibility between the state and the federal governments for funding schools. But, again, I say: 67 per cent of students in Australia attend a state government school, and those schools receive 75 per cent of total public funding.

All governments must recognise that regional communities face unique hardships and need assistance through the provision of funding where it is most needed. Therefore, the Howard government will require, as a condition of the next schools funding agreement, that state and territory governments provide an equivalent increase in funding for regional and remote government schools from 2009. Through this amendment, the Howard government continues its commitment to invest in young Australians in regional and remote areas and to deliver stronger educational outcomes for all students, regardless of where they live in this country.

The Howard government is committed to supporting a quality school education for all Australian children. The programs and initiatives it is putting in place are helping to create an Australian education system of high national standards, greater national consistency and higher quality so that all young people are prepared to meet the future demands of life and work. This bill reinforces the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that Australian children are given the best opportunity to have a high-quality learning experience in the best possible environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.