Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 is the primary funding instrument for non-government primary and secondary education in Australia for the 2009 to 2012 period, appropriating $28 billion for that purpose. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is a complementary piece of legislation focused on simplifying the legislative arrangements for Commonwealth funding of schools with a high proportion of Indigenous students. It appropriates more than $640.5 million for non-Abstudy payments and anticipates Abstudy payments of an estimated $102.1 million, an amount that will be adjusted as per demand.

The coalition is committed to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous Australians and will be supporting the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The coalition is committed to ensuring that the non-government sector remains a real option for parents who wish to make the sacrifices necessary to exercise choice in relation to their children’s education. The Schools Assistance Bill is the vehicle through which the government says that they are fulfilling their election commitment to continue the previous government’s funding level for non-government schools.

One thing we are learning about the Kevin07 new Labor government is that the key is to note what they do, not what they say. The Prime Minister spent much of 2007 reinventing himself as a new style of Labor leader, a faux economic conservative, a supposed safe pair of hands. The rhetoric has continued into government, but now we have the opportunity to judge the quality of their conduct in government. We find that the rhetoric only rarely matches the reality. Unfortunately, the Schools Assistance Bill is one such example.

We have heard that Labor is no longer the party of class warfare and the politics of envy. They claim that the Latham-Gillard resource index and the hated private schools hit list of 2004 have been consigned to history. At the last election we saw a pledge of support to continue the SES funding model for non-government schools. The SES or socioeconomic status funding model is, of course, the fairest method yet suggested for providing government support to school students. The model incorporates census data of the average socioeconomic status, based on occupation, education and income, of the census collector districts of the parents of students at a school. In this way the school is given an SES score. Schools are then funded per student at a level commensurate to that score.

Many parents from struggling working families make significant sacrifices to be able to send their children to schools that reflect the values they hold or specialise in programs in which their children excel. The SES model reflects government’s appropriate role in enabling those parents to make the choices that are best for their family and best for their child.

The SES model replaced the discredited education resource index or ERI. The ERI model was not concerned with fairness according to what parents were able to afford. Rather, it was open to political manipulation and arbitrary judgement of the wealth of the school. Meanwhile, schools could achieve more or less advantageous ERI ratings, depending on their familiarity with the calculations involved. In its later years it was found that the schools were increasingly using the services of financial advisers or accounting firms with ERI specialists so they could maximise their government support. During the debate in this House in September 2000, when the SES model was introduced, former Minister Kemp explained the inadequacies of the ERI model using the example of the eight non-government schools in Launceston—which should interest the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs at the dispatch box. The schools were classed in categories 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 under the ERI model, suggesting that the school communities might represent all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. The truth is those school communities drew students from a very narrow socioeconomic range, which was reflected in their SES scores all rating between 101 and 104, a small band in a much broader index. As then Minister Kemp said, there was ‘very little differentiation in the communities served by these schools which are attracting vastly different rates of funding’.

In the eight years since, the SES model has served us well, so well in the fact that its maintenance became official ALP election policy last year. It is interesting to follow what happens when we observe a party’s political contortions as they adopt a position of political expediency that they do not believe in. So it is with the SES model. When the Prime Minister and the member for Perth announced on 9 October last year that a Rudd Labor government is committed to adopt the existing socioeconomic status funding model for the next funding quadrennium, you can be sure that one member of the Labor frontbench who would have been gnashing her teeth in response was the member for Lalor. It is important to consider what the member for Lalor thinks of the SES funding model as it is now she in her part-time capacity as Minister for Education who has framed this legislation that will implement the election commitment. One might look for evidence of her commitment to the Labor election policy of supporting the SES model in some of the 605 media releases, speeches, released transcripts or contributions in this House that she has made since becoming education minister, but you would have to look very hard. It seems that prior to introducing this bill she has only managed to mention the SES funding model seven times, each time couched in the explanation that it was an election commitment, as if that is the only reason she can bring herself to maintain it. It is usually quickly followed by a reassurance that the whole model will be reviewed in 2010.

The fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister let the cat out of the bag in September 2000 when she described her objections to the introduction of the SES funding model in this place. She said:

The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of the equipment available, wealth in terms of alumni funding raising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like.

…            …            …

… it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw …

The fact is that in reading the detail of the Schools Assistance Bill 2008, we find that Labor’s politics of envy, their private schools hit list, has not been abandoned at all. It has just been partially deferred, and partially hidden in the devilish detail of this bill.

There are some serious areas that need redressing before the opposition can give its support to this bill, and I foreshadow that we will be moving substantive amendments in the consideration in detail stage to sections 15, 22 and 24 of the bill. I hope that the government will take these amendments seriously, and by accepting them demonstrate that their election commitments reflected a wholehearted philosophical expression of support for choice in education for Australian parents.

The realist in me fears that the Deputy Prime Minister is all too aware of the implications of the clauses in question, as their implementation could clearly foreshadow an end to fairness in school funding and a return to class struggle and the discredited envy-based funding arrangements of days gone by. First, section 15 of the bill specifies grounds upon which the minister may refuse to authorise or delay a payment to a non-government school. These grounds include: if the school is being wound up—section 15(a)—or is unable to pay its debts—section 15(b). Section 15(c) of the bill provides for new reasons for such refusal or delay in the case that:

(c)

if a law of the Commonwealth or a State requires the body or authority to be audited—the relevant audit:

(i)

is expressed to be qualified; or

(ii)

expresses concern about the financial viability of the 7 body or authority.

The opposition is happy to support this clause to the extent that it requires that an audit confirm the financial viability of the school, but subsection (c)(i) presumes that if an audit statement is qualified, then it necessarily signals that a school’s financial situation is precarious enough to warrant the minister refusing or delaying payment. There may be grounds for an auditor to qualify an audit that do not go to financial viability but instead to a hesitation about a school model, whether a financial hesitation or otherwise. Audits can be qualified for all manner of reasons that have nothing to do with the school’s financial viability—indeed they could be qualified simply on the basis that an auditor was reluctant to completely endorse an educational model used in the school with which they might be unfamiliar. The change would allow the minister to delay or refuse funding in spite of absolute financial viability. This subsection would be procedural gold for a minister who was looking for excuses to suspend funding to a private school, for whatever reason.

Secondly, section 22 of the bill deals with the national curriculum. It mandates that any school receiving funding from the Commonwealth comply with the national curriculum. At this stage we have very little idea what the national curriculum in maths, science and history will look like—all we have are very broad framing documents. For the English curriculum we are yet to even see the framing document, although we know that the gentleman drafting it believes that: ‘Literacy education is not about skill development, not about deep competence.’

There is much to be concerned about in relation to where Labor is taking the national curriculum. The final documents will not be presented until some time in 2009, yet this bill seeks to tie school funding to that curriculum’s acceptance. Even were there no concern about the framing documents of the national curriculum, this clause would still elicit concern. Section 31 of the previous legislation required schools to commit to curriculum related activities, such as statements of learning in five areas—English, mathematics, science, civics and citizenship education, and information and communications technology—but not specific curriculum.

Comparable state legislation demanding adherence to a specified curriculum will usually include a qualifying statement, for example that a school implement the curriculum, or other curricula deemed as broadly equivalent. If this clause is to remain in the legislation, despite the fact that we are still in the dark as to what the new national curriculum being developed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s team of academics will actually look like, then at a very minimum it should include an additional subsection allowing for equivalent curricula to be practised within a school.

This is particularly important to schools using those alternative curricula that are already well accepted and in demand in Australia and have also been deemed appropriate by relevant state bodies, despite the fact that I do not see how they could comply with the national curriculum being proposed. For a start, the national curriculum will cover four discipline areas. It is unclear how prescriptive the curriculum for these four discipline areas will be in terms of content and materials. Schools offering alternative curricula, such as the international baccalaureate or the University of Cambridge international examinations, may face problems because they will be forced to comply with the national curriculum in the four specified areas while continuing to teach other subject areas within their chosen curriculum. Students cannot qualify for an IB diploma without, for example, completing all components of the diploma including IB specified curriculum in the four disciplines covered by the national curriculum.

Similarly, schools offering alternative educational philosophies, such as Steiner or Montessori schools, will face great difficulties in meeting the requirements of this clause. These schools offer specific curricula to meet the particular needs of their student cohort, and to place restrictions on these curricula is to restrict parental choice in making decisions that may be in the best interests of their children. Of particular concern to me is that even individual education programs at special schools could be affected under a strict interpretation of this clause. This clause must be improved to allow for these curricula to continue operating as they currently successfully do, or it should be removed.

Our third serious concern is in relation to section 24(1) of the bill, which reads as follows:

24  Funding agreements—reports on programs and financial operations

(1)  A funding agreement must require the relevant authority for the non-government school, or other non-government body, to ensure that a report (or reports), of a kind (or kinds) required by the Minister, is given to the Minister in relation to each of the following:

(a)

programs of financial assistance provided under this Act, so far as they relate to the relevant authority;

(b)

the financial operations (including the financial viability and funding sources) of:

(i)

in any case—the school or other body; and

(ii)

in the case of an approved school system—the schools (including each particular school) in the system.

In a briefing arranged by the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, I was told that this clause simply followed the form set out in the previous legislation. However, this is not true. ‘Funding sources’, for example, is a new concept in this context and could give the minister substantial new powers to demand information about the internal financial affairs of a school community. This section requires schools to publish information about all of their sources of funding. Such information might specifically include details of scholarship funds, bequests and other sources of funding, including community fundraising activities undertaken by associated bodies such as parents and friends associations. This could include money raised by the dunking machine or the cake table at the community school fete—events many members of this House would have attended over the years. Some data relating to school income is currently collected by government surveys of schools, but it is protected and not published.

This is a key change introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister in this legislation. The data is completely superfluous to the calculations of the socioeconomic status of a school and it is completely superfluous to the requirements of the SES model. Why does this clause exist then? It is because the government’s real plan is to abolish the SES model and revert to an ERI model? Earlier I quoted the Deputy Prime Minister’s philosophical objections to the model. To this we can add the thoughts of the Assistant Treasurer, who spoke about school funding in this place on 1 December 2004. He said:

… the SES index …is a fundamentally flawed index. It replaces the Education Resources Index, which was much more based on the needs of the school and the capacity of the school to reach educational standards.

More recently, last year, the member for Eden-Monaro was reported as referring to the SES as a ‘ridiculous postcode system’ and promised that the Labor Party would ‘get down eventually to a proper needs based approach’. The detail of this bill shows that the member for Eden-Monaro was telling the truth about Labor’s real plans, to punish schools that receive support from their community above and beyond the basic school fees.

This clause exists in order to lay the groundwork to build up a case to radically alter the SES funding system in the next funding period to one where those schools who are the beneficiaries of acts of philanthropy by parents or old scholars are to be penalised through reduced or abolished Commonwealth support. We should be encouraging parents to make contributions to their children’s educations, not penalising the schools when they do. The reference to the new criterion of ‘funding sources’ should be excised from section 24 of this bill.

Some stakeholders have raised other concerns in relation to which we would be satisfied if the minister will commit to providing solution through suitable regulations. The cooperative organisation that is managed in some states for funding for Indigenous student programs could be put under threat by this bill. For example, some 40 independent schools in South Australia, each with a small Indigenous student enrolment, currently use the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia to cluster that funding to deliver support across the sector. Provision should be made in the regulations for the Indigenous education funds included in the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 to be managed by the current approved authority. Section 11(4)(c) indicates:

The State must pay amounts of assistance to the relevant authority of the school … as soon as practicable …

There are currently considerable differences across Australia in the timing of the release of Commonwealth funds from state government to non-government school authorities and schools, even though the funds are released at the same time by the Commonwealth. State governments should be required to distribute the Commonwealth funds within a reasonable time—say, five working days—of receiving the funds. This matter can be clarified in the regulations and in the Commonwealth funding agreements with the states and territories—and again we seek the Deputy Prime Minister’s assurance that this will be taken care of.

Finally, the opposition’s last major concern with the Schools Assistance Bill is with the abolition of the new non-government schools establishment grants. The previous government saw merit in increasing the viability of the non-government sector and encouraging new schools where community demand and private sector interest warranted the same—an aspiration supported through this grants program. I know that in my state, in the electorate of the new member for Mayo, one such example is the Encounter Lutheran Primary School at Victor Harbor, established in 2001. In the years since, the local community has demonstrated its support for the school, with enrolments more than doubling to 250. Parents saw an educational alternative develop in their area that they wanted for their children. Section 100 of this bill puts the final nail in the coffin of Labor’s decision to end these grants, ensuring that success stories like the Encounter school will not be supported in this government’s post-revolution Australia. Rather, the Labor Party seems to prefer the old Hawke government policy, with the astonishingly Orwellian title ‘New Schools’, a policy which ensured that no new schools were able to be established under that government. And you can check that.

Finally, I use this opportunity to foreshadow that, when we have come to the end of the cognate debate on these bills and we have dealt with the second reading of the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I will move as a second reading amendment to the Schools Assistance Bill 2008:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

reaffirms its commitment to providing genuine choice in education opportunities for parents and students through both government and non-government schooling;

(2)

notes that the Government is committed to continuing the Socio Economic Status model of funding for non-government schools until 2012 and that, while this Bill fulfils that commitment, it contains a hidden agenda evidenced by:

(a)

granting greater power to the Minister to delay or end funding to non-government schools because of an audit qualified for non-financial reasons;

(b)

requiring adherence to a national curriculum without flexibility that puts at risk the uniqueness of Steiner, Montessori, International Baccalaureate, University of Cambridge International Examinations and special needs schools;

(c)

forcing non-government schools to comply with a requirement to inform the Minister of every funding source to a school or an associated body that can be published—information which is both superfluous to the operation of the SES model, and is the Trojan Horse from which opponents of the SES model will head a campaign to remove it through the 2010 review; and

(3)

condemns the Government for ceasing funding for new non-government schools establishment grants, and urges the Government to reconsider this Budget decision to ensure that parents, particularly in new communities, across Australia will be able to access choice in their children’s education”.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The bill will provide funding for non-government schools from 2009 to 2012. The schooling debate has often focused on the competitive relationship between government and non-government schools that exists in Australia. The truth, however, is that there are schools that struggle with limited resources as they try to serve disadvantaged communities in both sectors.

The $28 billion in this bill is part of the government’s overall $42-billion minimum commitment for schools funding during 2009-12. In this legislation the Commonwealth is honouring its election commitments. Those commitments are to use the existing funding formula, based on socioeconomic status and the existing indexation formula, and to set funding levels and maintain or guarantee the current funding levels of all non-government schools during 2009-12 to ensure that no school loses a dollar and no school is worse off. State schools will not be worse off as a result of this bill. The Australian government is working through COAG on a new education agreement, which will deliver the funds promised to public schools. The federal government is committed to funding state schools and supporting state governments in running state schools in Australia. This bill is a major building block in building a fair, transparent national framework for schooling in Australia. It will meet Labor’s election commitments. It will help create a basis for reporting and accountability which is consistent across all schools in all sectors.

This separate non-government schools legislation for 2009-12 is required, firstly, to ensure that funding will be appropriated in time for payments to non-government schools in January 2009. Treasury legislation appropriating funding for all Commonwealth specific purpose payments, including funding to the states for government schools, will not commence until July 2009. Secondly, it will ensure that the Commonwealth can honour its election commitment that no school will be disadvantaged. The Commonwealth could not ensure this commitment if all schools funding was paid to the states under the national education agreement. Thirdly, this bill will allow time for the arrangements between the states and non-government schools to be put in place to ensure that the states will be able to deliver on outcomes across the entire schools system. The funding for government schools will be paid through states and territories. The intergovernmental agreement that delivers the funds will be called—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Will the honourable member for Dawson resume his seat. I was going to adjourn the House while we waited for the minister to return to the table. However, the minister is now here. I welcome him back. I call the honourable member for Dawson.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The intergovernmental agreement that delivers the funds will be called the national education agreement. The government has committed a minimum of $42 million over the next four years to fund schools in Australia. In the 2008 budget the government delivered many of its election commitments to progress its education revolution. In schools, this includes funding for the trade training centres and digital education revolution programs, which are already underway. I am passionate about education. I am a believer in life-long learning. I have completed both an apprenticeship in the print trade and university studies as an adult. I firmly believe that education is truly the key to success. When I am invited to schools in my electorate—great, vibrant schools, like Mercy College in Mackay, Ayr State School and Slade Point State School—I speak to the students, teachers and parents. They tell me about their schools and their communities, and I am always impressed by the calibre of the young people that our schools produce, the professionalism of the teaching staff and the dedication of the parents of the students.

The Rudd Labor government together with the Queensland government in my electorate of Dawson are doing great things for our schools. Only last week I visited St Patrick’s College in Mackay and, together with Principal Eamon Hannon, we powered up 187 of the computers the school received as part of the computers in schools program, which is integral to our plan for an education revolution. I also visited Mackay North State High School and Burdekin Special School, who have received funding from the federal government for a science lab and specialised playground equipment—essential tools for delivering 21st century education to our young people.

Since the beginning of 2008, the Rudd Labor government has been working, through the Council of Australian Governments—COAG—to develop a new framework for investment and reform in Australian schools. This will result in a national education agreement, to be finalised through COAG by the end of this year. The COAG reform framework means that, for the first time, all governments in Australia will agree to a single set of objectives, outcomes and outputs, and hence educational priorities and reform directions, for the education system.

This bill gives funding certainty to schools in Dawson, with a focus on quality, and applies transparency and accountability requirements that are consistent with government schools and with Labor’s election commitments on transparency. As well as meeting these commitments, the bill will make important changes to funding for Indigenous students in non-government schools.

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will provide for: recurrent and capital funding for non-government schools; continuation of current indexation arrangements, with indexation of recurrent and targeted funding based on average government schools recurrent costs and capital grants indexed by the building price index; maximum recurrent funding for non-government schools with a very high proportion of Indigenous enrolments; and Indigenous Supplementary Assistance for Indigenous students, generally comprising the non-government recurrent funding component for Indigenous school students provided under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. Four existing programs have been streamlined, with funding under this element allocated on a per-Indigenous-enrolment basis, with a higher per capita rate for secondary students and schools in remote and very remote areas.

The ISA funding indexation rates and remoteness classifications have been aligned with those that apply to mainstream programs under the bill, improving the capacity of schools to ensure this assistance can keep pace with the costs of delivering education. This is complemented by an Indigenous funding guarantee to ensure schools are not worse off under the new arrangements. Finally, the bill will provide funding for non-government schools for most of the targeted programs which currently operate under the schools legislation, other than the non-government rural student hostels program, establishment assistance for schools and the national projects program.

Under previous agreements, Commonwealth funding came with a wide range of conditions and strings attached. For example, the legislation for the previous quadrennium imposed over 20 commitments and accountability requirements spanning a range of policy areas, necessitating a high degree of regulation, monitoring and micro-management, both by the Commonwealth and by systems and schools. This new framework will reduce the number of different funding agreements, remove many of the input controls and forms of compliance that the Commonwealth previously imposed on states and school systems, and focus payments and accountability on the achievement of agreed outputs and outcomes. For example, the bill will require, as a condition of funding, the implementation of the national curriculum—being developed by the National Curriculum Board—by 2012. This national curriculum will apply to all Australian schools.

This bill provides funding certainty for schools. The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 fulfils yet another election commitment made in 2007 and is certainly worthy of the support of the whole House.

Now I wish to talk about the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The government is working with government and non-government education and training providers to achieve the very important goals of halving the gaps in literacy and numeracy achievement, halving the gaps in year-12-or-equivalent attainment and halving the gaps in employment outcomes for Indigenous Australians. The Rudd Labor government is committed to an education revolution where no Australian is left behind. The Rudd Labor government is committed to improve education outcomes of Indigenous Australians.

Current forward estimates of Commonwealth funding for Indigenous education over 2009 to 2012 total some $2.3 billion dollars. This compares with the estimated $2.1 billion for Indigenous education announced by the former government prior to the commencement of the 2005 to 2008 quadrennium. The government’s arrangements through this bill will see more funding flow to Indigenous students. The government wants to reduce red tape and improve flexibility for education providers to focus on achieving the target of closing the gap in the education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The changed arrangements for schools and, in time, preschools and VET will give them greater flexibility in how they support Indigenous education to achieve agreed outcomes. The new arrangements will also recognise Indigenous education as a mainstream education issue.

The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 has three main purposes. Firstly, it provides for the continuation of appropriations for 2009-12 for a range of targeted programs and projects under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to support improvements in Indigenous education outcomes and assist in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Secondly, it provides appropriations for supplementary assistance to preschools and vocational education and training—VET—providers with Indigenous students from 1 January 2009 as a transitional arrangement until alternative legislation associated with early childhood and vocational education and training specific-purpose payments and national partnerships payments become operational in 2009. Thirdly, this bill makes a number of technical and consequential amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005 and the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 and repeals the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000.

The bill will provide the government with capacity to work with Indigenous communities, parents and families to improve their engagement with education providers so that they can be supported in becoming informed consumers of educational services. Indigenous parental involvement in decision making is an essential element to improving educational outcomes. Transitional arrangements for preschools and VET providers will ensure this supplementary assistance can continue to be provided to Indigenous students from 1 January 2009 until it can be facilitated through new arrangements. This ensures the continuation of services to Indigenous families. Education initiatives generally build the capacity of families. Good educational outcomes are a strong influencing factor in higher socioeconomic status.

The bill will appropriate funding for a number of initiatives that give Indigenous people from regional and remote areas greater choice and assist them to access and participate in education. These programs include the government’s election commitment to additional boarding facilities in the Northern Territory implemented through the 2008-09 budget, the Indigenous Youth Mobility Program and the Away from Base program. Funding in this bill will appropriate $505.9 million for 2009-12 so that the Commonwealth can fund targeted and strategic projects to improve education outcomes of Indigenous Australians; continue appropriations for Away from Base for a ‘mixed-mode’ delivery program at an estimated cost of $109.3 million; and appropriate $163.3 million as a transitional provision to provide funding certainty for eligible preschools and vocational education and training  providers with Indigenous students from 1 January 2009 until the introduction of relevant funding mechanisms in support of reforms to specific-purpose payments. This funding will also allow us to continue to work with Indigenous communities, philanthropic organisations, corporate leaders and national organisations to build the partnerships that are so critical to improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

While new arrangements for supplementary recurrent funding will provide greater flexibility to states and other education providers in how they use Commonwealth funding to address the needs of their Indigenous students under the revised arrangements, this bill will allow the Commonwealth to retain its capacity to take a national leadership role in Indigenous education through the retention of targeted initiatives as Commonwealth own purpose expenses.

The changes to reporting under the bill are a consequence of the transfer of funding as part of the reforms to specific-purpose payments, including the collection and reporting of relevant Indigenous data under new performance and accountability frameworks. The new arrangements into which some Indigenous education funding will be transferred will have their own performance and accountability requirements. It has been agreed that all progress measures under the new SPP arrangements relating to early childhood, schools and VET will be disaggregated by Indigenous status. This will provide a clearer picture of the extent of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in these sectors. We are committed to an education revolution. This government believes that improving education outcomes for all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, is very important for the long-term benefit and productivity of this nation.

The member for Sturt, who spoke previously, brought up past, old histories and made really outdated and outmoded political comments. He brought up the old stuff but he does not realise that this is a new Australian Labor Party, which is full of very successful small business people. We are caring capitalists, and there are a lot of us in this new government. The old ways are no longer in this party. We are a party of pragmatism—and that is something the other side just do not understand. When we see that something is good and that it works, we acknowledge that it is good. We do not throw out the things that work. We are pragmatic and we are realistic and we believe in transparency and accountability. There are many people in this party who have a very good, firm grip on business procedures, transparency and accountability, and these have been applied successfully. I commend this bill to the House. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. I say from the outset that this bill puts into place measures which, according to Labor, are designed to bring about better education for our future leaders, but I have serious doubts about many of the key points in this legislation. In theory the idea of an education revolution is an inspiring state of play; but, as we have seen time and time again since the Rudd Labor government came to power, their ability to implement such a revolution has been repeatedly replaced by an embarrassing display of acts which showcase their utter incompetence and absolute inefficiency. I stand before you today to represent the constituents of the Paterson electorate, in which there are over 60 public and private primary and secondary schools. The Rudd Labor government came to office promising an education revolution, yet I am still waiting to see evidence of such a historic event of epic proportions taking place. I am yet to see a mere ripple of such strategic and well-placed activities being implemented, and I know that this feeling is unfortunately not isolated to my electorate.

On entering government, the listed priorities of the Rudd Labor government were improving the quality of teaching, raising outcomes in disadvantaged schools and communities, and delivering a new era of transparency to guide parents, teachers and policymakers in making the best decisions possible, all of which are admirable aspirations. However, having listened to the cries of the constituents in the Paterson electorate and the voices of the Teachers Federation and the Independent Education Union of Australia, the reality is much starker. Instead this list of priorities has been replaced with a list of consistent inadequacies and embarrassing blunders for the Rudd Labor government. Let us take, for example, the so-called digital education revolution. We all heard the shallow promises and cheap publicity stunts resorted to by the Rudd Labor government in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. ‘Every child shall have their own computer,’ we repeatedly heard Rudd claim. Eleven months on, this promise has been replaced—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Paterson ought to refer to the Prime Minister by his title.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We repeatedly heard the Rudd government claim. Eleven months on, this promise has been replaced with a much watered down approach: a promise to provide every child from years 9 to 12 with access to the latest technology. In basic English he has already failed; ‘their own computer’ does not mean ‘access to’.

It is beyond me how the Rudd Labor government can be confident and assured in their approach to this matter and continually proclaim but not fulfil promises to the future leaders of our nation. Not only that but the schools and state governments have now been told that they will have to come up with their own ways of funding teacher training, new buildings, power points to house extra computers, insurance, electricity and broadband connections. Way to go, Prime Minister! You have effectively given a car to someone who has no licence and does not comprehend road rules. I reckon I would give you an ‘F’ on your report card for that attempt. My constituents in Paterson feel the same way. Kevin 07 has quickly become Mistake 08.

During our 11-year term, the Howard government worked hard to restore the status of technical and trade careers so that young Australians would see the trades as an avenue to rewarding and satisfying careers. As just one of the measures designed to lift the status of trades, the Howard coalition government established 28 Australian technical colleges around Australia. These colleges allow students to complete their final years of high school and at the same time start an apprenticeship in their chosen trade so that when they finish school they are well on their way to a successful career. In a blow to local secondary schools, the Rudd Labor government has also deflated the hopes of many school students in the Paterson electorate by breaking its electoral promise to open a trade centre in every Australian secondary school. In the limited examples where the Rudd Labor government has installed the so-called trade centres, all the government has effectively done is provide funding to rename the metalwork room the ‘Metalwork Centre’.

The Rudd Labor government needs to get more serious about the current trade shortage and tackle the problem head-on. As such, I want to see the Rudd Labor government provide proper trades funding as originally promised. The Paterson electorate needs dedicated, properly funded facilities like the Australian technical colleges, which have scale, local industry input and expert trade teachers. The Howard government spent an average of $24 million on each Australian technical college, while the Rudd Labor government is offering each school an average of just $900,000—and then over 10 years—to build a ‘centre’. It is becoming patently obvious that the priorities of the Rudd Labor government, whatever they may be, are definitely not with education in this country.

The alternative government believes that education is the fundamental, essential and enduring building block upon which to build opportunity for young Australians and prosperity and cohesion for Australia’s future. Parents and students must be assured that our education system is defined by choice, values and high standards. The alternative government demands that every child have access to high-quality education from a high-quality teacher in a high-quality school environment. The alternative government supports choice and believes that every parent, having paid their taxes, deserves some level of public assistance to support the education of their child.

The Rudd Labor government has, in an absurd and destructive move, scrapped the successful Investing in Our Schools Program. The IOSP will lapse on 31 December 2008, but this has not stopped a raft of Labor senators turning up to coalition held seats to claim credit for projects at their openings. If you want an example of an education revolution that was well thought out, implemented and budgeted, then the IOSP is a classic example. This program created by the former coalition government provided money directly to schools to spend on infrastructure that the school actually wanted. An example of how vital and effective the IOSP has been was when this year I had the pleasure of officially opening the new play equipment and shade sail areas at the Mount Kanwary Public School in the Paterson electorate. The school was fortunate to receive not one but two Investing in Our Schools grants under the Howard government. These enabled it to fund the works that the parent body was busy saving for.

Another terrific example of the IOSP in action was when in November of 2007 I had the pleasure of opening new and refurbished facilities worth $48,977 at Coolongolook Public School. I personally fought for $42,905 for the construction of covered walkways, play equipment and shade cover over play areas at the school. I also fought for $6,072 for the upgrade of the file server for the computer network in the school. The file server services 20 computers and two notebooks. In October of 2007 I had the honour of presenting Clarence Town Public School with a significant contribution of $73,792 from the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools Program. This grant enabled staff and students at the school to purchase new library resources, ICT and computer equipment, and an outdoor learning area. The grant proved an invaluable asset to the educational opportunities of the school. The Howard government’s IOSP initiative was able to assist Stroud Road Public School with an $11,907 grant, so that staff and students at the school could purchase new ICT and computer equipment. These are but a few examples of how the IOSP was able to revolutionise the Australian education system. In 2007 alone, schools in my electorate received close to $2 million to fix everything from run-down toilets and classrooms to fund upgrades of playgrounds and IT equipment.

Since the Rudd Labor government came to power, school communities in the Paterson electorate have, disappointingly, had to continually make up for state government shortfalls, which is detracting from their ability to focus 100 per cent of their energies on providing superior education opportunities. The Rudd Labor government’s decision to axe this well-received and revolutionary program is a testament to the Rudd Labor government being out of touch with reality and out of tune with Australian educational necessities. I foresee four main areas where the non-government education sector will be impacted by the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 and the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. These areas include: changes to the grounds on which the minister can elect to refuse or delay payment, which makes it easier for the minister to do so, contained in section 15; the new requirement in school funding agreements to comply with the national curriculum by 2012 as specified in regulations, in section 22; alterations to the reporting requirements for schools, particularly new requirements relating to information about financial viability and funding sources, contained in section 24; and, the removal of the previous government’s new non-government schools establishment grants, in section 100.

I would like to express my concerns in relation to the new requirement that schools comply with the national curriculum. The Rudd Labor government has not outlined what the national maths, science, history and English curriculum will look like, yet this bill seeks to tie school funding to that curriculum’s acceptance. Some of the details surrounding the national curriculum’s development have been released, and I share the concerns of my colleague the shadow minister for education, Christopher Pyne, when I say that I am anxious about the prospect of the national curriculum being hijacked by ideologues. As I am sure many of you are aware, in September former member of the communist party Stuart Macintyre was appointed to write the national history curriculum. I share the shadow minister’s concerns when I say that we can only hope that the required reading for our Year 12 students will not include Professor Macintyre’s own works on the history of the Australian Communist Party or the history of Marxism in early 20th century Britain. However, my concerns do not end there. It also caused me great unease to hear that the English curriculum is being drafted by Professor Peter Freebody of Sydney University.

Professor Freebody has been publicly documented as saying:

Literacy education is not about skill development, not about deep competence. It is about the institutional shaping of social practices and cultural resources, about inducting successive generations into particular cultural, normative ways of handling texts, and about access to technologies and artifacts (e.g., writing, the Internet) and to the social institutions where these tools and artifacts are used …

I would hope that I am not alone in my reasonable views that, although these principles that Professor Freebody speaks of may be of use and relevance to our school students, learning should always relate back to the cornerstone of education—which is, of course, skills development.

I would now like to address how additional reporting requirements for schools, particularly in relation to funding services, will potentially impact on the non-government education sector. Section 24 of the bill refers to funding agreements and reports on programs and financial operations. Departmental briefs reported that this clause simply followed the form set out in the previous legislation. However, this is not true. Funding sources, for example, is a new concept in this context, and could give the minister substantial new powers to demand information about internal financial affairs of a school community. Effectively, this will mean that non-governmental schools in the Paterson electorate will have to report publicly and in much greater detail about their sources of funding. Under the new plans, for example, if an active P&F in the Paterson electorate showed great initiative and raised $30,000 for new play equipment at their school then they would have to provide a transparent account of events that allowed them to accumulate such funds. Although this notion on its own is not absurd or unjust, one can only draw the conclusion that this clause exists in order to lay the groundwork to build a case to radically alter the SES funding system in the next funding period.

Unfortunately, it would appear that those schools who are the beneficiaries of acts of philanthropy by parents may be penalised through reduced or abolished Commonwealth support. If this were to become the normalised state of play—that is, to reduce government funding to schools that show initiative and are proactive in their approach to enhance their school environment through fundraising activities—then I would be very disenchanted to support this clause. It would appear that this is a foreshadowing of the ‘Latham schools hit lists’ which are yet to come.

I now move to speak on the removal of the new non-government schools establishment grants. The Howard coalition government always believed in choice and recognised that non-government schools save taxpayers money, and proudly encouraged the development of Catholic and independent schools. The Howard coalition government saw the merit in increasing the viability of the non-government school sector and encouraging new schools where the community demanded it. I know of no better example in my electorate of this grant benefiting the community than the Medowie Christian School.

Medowie is a growing town in the Port Stephens local government area but, until the development of the Medowie Christian School, it had no high school. Hundreds of children are bussed daily to Raymond Terrace public high schools or to Catholic, independent and selective high schools in Newcastle some 60 kilometres away. Thanks to the vision of the community behind the Medowie Christian School, the town has its first high school, providing an option for parents who do not want to risk their children’s lives travelling twice a day on overcrowded buses with no seatbelts.

The removal of this grant would make it increasingly difficult for new non-government schools, such as Medowie Christian School, to be set up. As I mentioned before, the Rudd Labor government has noted the key priorities which they think are critical to the future performance of our education system. Their priorities include improving the quality of teaching, raising outcomes in disadvantaged school communities and delivering a new era of transparency to guide parents, teachers and policymakers to make the best possible decisions.

It is the Rudd Labor government’s belief that this bill will provide for five activities that are essential to achieve transparency in education: national testing, national outcome reporting, the provision and publication of individual school information and reporting to parents. The Rudd Labor government has said that the non-government schools will be obliged to participate in these activities in a way that is consistent with the wider transparency framework applied to all sectors. However, I ask the Rudd Labor government: have they even bothered to listen to what the key stakeholders have had to say about this overhaul? The Independent Education Union of Australia agrees unequivocally that schools should be more accountable and transparent. However, representatives from the Independent Education Union are up in arms about the government’s plans to source data about schools’ performance as they fear that this will lead to simplistic league-table reporting. Such reporting styles, they believe—and I agree—will lead to media manipulation of the necessarily complex data collected into a single figure so that schools can be ranked. These sorts of ranking systems will provide no genuine information that parents and teachers can constructively use, are devoid of any real purpose and will only work to bring about greater competition between schools and teacher sackings where schools are not performing as well. The voices of the Independent Education Union of Australia and the Teachers Federation should be given more validity in negotiations between the federal, state and territory governments if we are to create a more holistic and encompassing education system within Australia.

As a parent of three children myself, I wholeheartedly agree that parents should have access to timely and meaningful information about their children’s progress and school community. The idea of an open, transparent and accountable education system is ideal and achievable. However, such a system must be the result of open dialogue between teachers, teachers unions, parents, and state and federal governments. If the Rudd Labor government creates an education system that is ill informed from its outset and does not reflect the views of current education providers then creating such a bill will only work against creating an ‘education revolution’. The education of our children is perhaps the most critical issue that we face as a nation. Therefore, it is time the Prime Minister appointed a full-time education minister and a full-time workplace relations minister; the Deputy Prime Minister should not be responsible for both. Today I have listed but a few of the Rudd Labor government’s downfalls, including their inability to listen to what key stakeholders really want, but the list continues.

Finally, perhaps the Rudd Labor government should, instead of referring to their plans as an ‘education revolution’, admit their defeats and announce what has ultimately been an ‘education dissolution’. The future of our children’s education is at stake, and I will not rest until the Rudd Labor government plays the fair and accountable game. The aim of the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 may be to implement the government’s commitment to providing stability in Commonwealth funding for nongovernment schools for 2009-12, but, as we have heard today, this commitment needs a serious shake-up.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 in the House today. These two bills before us allow the government to begin tackling the big challenges on Australia’s horizon by providing long-term plans, not short-term bandaids. I have taken a deep interest in education, probably stemming from the fact that I am a parent and, as a consequence, have a very clear view of how my children, and now how my grandchildren, are accessing education throughout the system. I am genuinely committed to improving the educational outcomes for all Australians.

I would like to start off by saying that the government came to office with the promise of new leadership. In addition to industrial relations and, particularly, our position with respect to Work Choices, there were two fundamental issues that stand out in my mind and that the people of my electorate in Werriwa were very much enlivened by leading up to the last election. One was the education revolution for all Australians; the other was the apology to the stolen generations. As promised by the Rudd government, the apology to the stolen generations was the first order of business of the Rudd Labor government in this parliament. The new relationship with Indigenous Australia was exemplified through the first national welcome to country, something, as I say, that had never occurred in this place. With the knowledge of the past, respect for the people and a commitment to the future, the apology is the basis for a change in attitudes for all Australians and the basis to move forward. It was an opportunity to formally recognise the past injustices and to commit to the challenge of the future. It was the chance to move forward and work closely with the states and the territories to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Would the honourable member for Werriwa return to the bill.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you that I am speaking on the bill, as one of the pieces of legislation before the House actually deals with our contribution to Indigenous education and, in that manner, closing the gap of disadvantage. This commitment was not about furthering a political agenda but rather about doing what, in my opinion, was right and decent.

Labor also made it clear that Australia needs nothing less than an education revolution: a substantial and sustained increase in the quantity of our investment and the quality of education for all Australian youth. This is required at every level of education, from early childhood education through to the education of mature age students. Our commitment to education does not have timeline. This is about putting Australia in the forefront of the education revolution. Education is the platform of our economic future. Our prosperity rests on what we commit to education now.

Some time ago, I had the opportunity to visit Taiwan. You have also been there, Acting Deputy Speaker Slipper. One of the things that struck me was that here was this country of 24 million people, the same population of Australia and New Zealand put together, living on half the landmass of Tasmania. Their economy was going very well when I was there—I have not checked their balance sheet of late. One of the things that struck me was that they offer degrees at 160 institutions, they value technical and further education and they conduct their business on the basis of producing manufactured goods in various countries around the globe. What they maintain is ingenuity, intellectual property and the development—the advanced side of manufacturing. The vast majority of their economy is now based on that.

When I met with their minister for economic development, it was explained to me that a lot of this could be put down to what happened some 15 years ago when that country made a disproportionate commitment to the education of its people. Education is not something that you do just do to win an election; education is not something that you do just as you front up for the next budget. Education is the commitment that we lay down for the society that we want to become. That is why it is our education revolution. This is where the community that we wish to develop for the future will come from.

My kids are thankfully through the school system now. That means that I do not have to participate in their homework any longer. But I have grandchildren growing up and I want the best for them and this country, not simply in the next year, not simply for their 10th or 12th birthdays, but as they mature into their working lives and have their own families. That is why our commitment to the education revolution is so critical.

I am sure that it has not escaped many that the opposition, when they had the opportunity in respect to education over the past 12 years, squibbed it. They stripped $1 billion out of the education system. Obviously, they did not share our vision that education is integral to the future of our community. The Labor government is committed to lifting the quantity of education investment and the quality of education outcomes. We have a high standard of living in this country. That can only be sustained through further productivity increases. Underpinning that is our education system.

Turning to the specifics of the bills, I would like to make a few comments to the House in relation to the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The government is committed to providing quality education that is relevant and accessible to all Indigenous students and leads to further opportunities in the education, training and employment systems. We all know that there is still a large disparity between the educational achievement of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. This was highlighted in the minister’s second reading speech.

The bill will appropriate more than $500 million for another four years from 2009 to allow the government to continue working with relevant stakeholders on a range of targeted programs and projects to support improvements in Indigenous educational outcomes and to assist in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. An additional $109 million is estimated to be spent over the next four years to augment Abstudy entitlements to assist Indigenous students access tertiary education around the country. We also aim to see that every Indigenous four-year-old throughout our remote communities has access to early learning programs, as is the case with non-Indigenous children.

When we talk about education, it is not simply for the non-Indigenous population of the country. If we are serious about closing the gap, this is something that must be very much targeted at those with disadvantage. That is what we are seeking to do. We are establishing national collaborative arrangements through the Council of Australian Governments which will assist all of us working collectively towards these targets. Closing the gap can only be achieved by working together. This bill will make an important contribution to closing the gaps between the education outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The other bill before us today is the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. This bill will provide funding for non-government schools for the years 2009 through to 2012. It will appropriate $28 billion of Commonwealth funding for all non-government schools, including specific funding for schools and students in rural and regional areas under remote loading and recurrent grants and through the provision of Indigenous supplementary assistance, a way to provide additional support for schools and campuses in remote areas of the country.

Since we came to office less than a year ago with a promise to bring an education revolution to Australia, I do not think many people out there could conclude that we have not been striving to do just that. We have provided $2.5 billion over 10 years to enable secondary schools across the nation to apply for funding of between $500,000 and $1.5 million for trade training in schools. Trade training in schools is being established to help increase the population of students achieving year 12 or equivalent qualifications. It is also trying to bridge the gap that we currently have in our skills shortage across the nation. This is a direct response to dealing with the productivity issues into the future of this country by being able to have trade training delivered directly throughout our high schools.

Recently I had the opportunity to go through some figures for my electorate. With respect to the digital education revolution, which was packaged under two roll-outs so far, just in Werriwa we have had 1,481 new computers in 10 of our schools. These computers are being delivered so that students between year 9 and year 12 will all have access to computers. This is not, as some have put to me, about understanding the importance of knowledge of computers. This is not about teaching kids to be able to use computers; this is a move to actually incorporate computers into the general educational environment of children as they are progressing through the senior years of school. It is good news for all our local schools and for the students in those schools. To get an education in today’s world—I think the facts speak for themselves—you need to be learning with today’s technology. We need to be able to keep up to date and up to speed with technology in order to achieve the best results—producing not only kids who will be our leaders in research and other things through tertiary education but those who will take up and avail themselves of the opportunities to be involved in industry throughout their lives. To that extent, the education revolution is about giving local students, in my case in the south-west of Sydney, every opportunity to meet these challenges for the future.

We are doing, quite frankly, what we said we would do before the last election. We have remained focused on that and we are delivering on those outcomes. For many decades, the focus in the schooling debate has unfortunately been on the competitive relationship between government and non-government schools, but the education system cannot be broken down into two groups because, if it were, we would have a disadvantaged public sector on one side and a highly resourced non-government sector on the other. That would be an oversimplistic view which would be counter to any of the reforms that we on this side of politics would ever subscribe to. To thrive in the future, we need a schooling system which delivers high-quality education for all students regardless of their address and regardless of their schools. Funding is important, and we need a framework for funding, for accountability and for improvements that are consistent across the school sector, transparent about the needs and focused on the quality and effectiveness of education in every school. Not to do so would leave us in a position where our government schools may simply be the cheap alternative. This would, quite frankly, mitigate our school system right across the board. Quality public education must always remain the hallmark of our communities; hence the need for the Commonwealth to work closely and in collaboration with our state and territory colleagues. That is occurring through COAG to ensure that there is an equally weighted focus on the value of education not only now but into the future.

I have in my electorate of Werriwa 41 government schools, including both primary schools and secondary colleges, as well as nine Catholic systemic colleges and eight other non-government schools, all of which I know to have committed staff—because one of the staff there is my daughter Elizabeth. I get to see schools firsthand because I, as I would expect every member of this place to do, go out and visit schools. Schools are not a place for politicking. With respect, schools are where we should go and talk to those who will follow us as the community leaders of the future and where we should engage people with a view to talking not simply to kids but to people whose ideas will shape our country into the future. So schools are very important. To this end, I take the opportunity to thank the staff of all those schools across my electorate for the unselfish contributions that they make. As I say, I know, through my own daughter Elizabeth, who teaches at the Good Samaritan Catholic College at Hoxton Park, how much work she does out of hours. I know how much of a thrill she gets every time she sees positive results for her students. I also know the number of kids who have graduated from the school who stay in contact with her and talk about their selection choices at university or TAFE or about what job opportunities they are going through. It is all part of community building.

Education is not a job but a profession, and we should all regard it as such. In my daughter’s case, she chose to be a teacher in kindergarten. I think that was possibly because of the fact that her kindergarten teacher had long hair. She never sought to be anything else but a teacher, and I have to say that she gets great satisfaction out of it. With all her colleagues I get to meet and all the schools I get to visit, I see the same faces. These people are not there just to do a job. I am sure they would like to make a little bit more money, but they are there to fulfil their commitment, and they are very passionate about what they do. Invariably, when I speak at end-of-year prize-giving nights and talk to schools and their students, I ask them how many kids leaving year 12 would like to make a difference to our society. I know when I stare down onto the faces of all those young children down there that they will be doctors, electricians, builders and engineers and I ask them, ‘How many of you would genuinely like to make a real difference to the community that we represent?’

What I say to them is that if you want to make a real difference within your community, when you leave school consider education. Without the educators, the professional and dedicated teachers of all our schools, we would not have the doctors, we would not have the electricians, we would not have the builders, the carpenters or the engineers. One consistent thing that we have in developing these people to advance our community into the future and to advance our economy and our productivity, quite frankly, is our teaching profession. So to that extent I think that we need to ensure that those who participate and educate our children are accorded the respect of being the professionals that they are. I always defer to the achievements of those in the teaching profession because I realise what they are producing. They are producing the nation’s future.

All the schools in my electorate do a fine job. Sule College, for example, which is one of the local Islamic schools, does a fundamental job in terms of working with each of our other schools: our Catholic systemic schools and our other independent schools and government schools. Their principal, Mr Ahmet Yamakoglu, and the principal of Mount Carmel High School, John Barrington, who has led the charge on computers for some time, are people of absolute quality in our community. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 which represents the primary funding instrument for non-government primary and secondary education in Australia for 2009 to 2013 and involves an appropriation of $28 billion. This bill is very important for schools in my electorate of Cowan. I have 12 non-government schools in the electorate. All of the non-government schools are modest-fee schools.

When we talk about non-government schools we on this side think of choice—choice for parents who want a formal religious aspect to the education their children receive, or perhaps they want another system of learning like the Kingsley Montessori School provides. But in any case they have elected to look outside the state government system for an education for their children. It is also appropriate for the federal government to provide support for them through recurrent grants and establishment grants.

It is clear that since 1996 non-government schools in my electorate have developed in response to the demand of Cowan parents. In 1996 general recurrent grants stood at over $8 million. In 2001 they were over $13 million, and in 2005 over $21 million. Later I will come back to where that money goes and how useful it really is for these schools that are so much a part of our community in Cowan.

Now in consideration of the bill I would like to move to an area of concern I have with the Rudd government’s plan to remove access to the non-government schools’ establishment grants for any new schools. This of course will make it harder for new schools to be established, and it looks like the government and the Deputy Prime Minister are committed to making it harder for more non-government schools to be built.

With regard to the Rudd government plan of putting up obstacles to new non-government schools being developed, I think immediately of the parents of the Seventh Day Adventist school in Cowan that desperately wants to create a high school in Landsdale and thereby provide secondary education in the northern suburbs for those seeking it, an education guided by the Adventist faith. Similarly I worry for the establishment of new Roman Catholic high schools in the northern suburbs, as they will also not have access to these grants.

The next point of this bill that I would like to pursue is the matter of the additional reporting of funding sources. Section 24 deals with the need to provide reports on the financial operations including financial viability and funding sources. It is my view that in this context the term ‘funding sources’ will enable the minister to demand access to internal financial affairs of a school. What then would happen with scholarship funds? What about bequests and community fundraisers? What is all this about? That is the question. Will we get to the position where the SES funding system will be substantially altered? Will we get to the point where philanthropy by parents or former students will be penalised through reduced support? Will it be a system that thereby discourages effort and innovation? The SES system is fair and it should remain as it is.

Before I move on to other matters I also raise a concern I have with the national curriculum. For those schools that offer alternative curricula, such as the Montessori and the International Baccalaureate, I am concerned about them being forced to comply with this curriculum. I make this point because one of the main differences between the Montessori schools and the mainstream education is the philosophical and educational objection to competition and comparisons between students. In fact the Montessori schools carefully avoid them, instead, focusing on individual observation and the careful tailoring of offerings to each student. Even so, there is a well-recognised progression of curricula in Montessori schools worldwide which does not always match the progression in ‘mainstream’ schools.

The same can be said for the IB, although those curricula are very flexible for the very reason that they need to be acceptable in countries all over the world. It is my understanding that both Montessori and the International Baccalaureate have been acknowledged as ‘world best practice’, and we should say that here in parliament. It is therefore very important that the government takes this into account and that is why the opposition wants the removal of section 22.

I would now turn my attention to the schools that will be affected by this bill. Firstly, I will speak of the Emmanuel Christian Community School in Girrawheen under the leadership of Mr Pedro Cruz. The school is very aware of the challenges and the needs of those who live in a low socioeconomic area. For 27 years the school has been there providing stability, care and leadership. The staff are caring and committed individuals who consider their work a ‘ministry’ and staff turnover is consequently very low. The school provides opportunities for families to have an alternative education with a low-fee structure. Local families have this opportunity. In the local area there are social problems such as drugs, suicide and the breakdown of families, and in Emmanuel there is pastoral care both through the non-government schools psychology service and through the local church represented by its pastors.

One of the many good things about Emmanuel Christian Community School is its history of accepting students with learning difficulties, and with the support of parents, grandparents, government financial assistance and staff it has been able to meet the needs of students with Down syndrome, hearing impairment, myotonic dystrophy, ADHD, global developmental delay and other learning difficulties. The school works very hard to help the students strive for excellence in literacy and numeracy using strategies which include a high priority placed on human resources and a whole-school approach to literacy and numeracy. The staff are highly qualified, including those with master’s degrees. What has always impressed me about Emmanuel Christian Community School is the way they are totally committed to helping the children, the families and the local community. I consider the school a great part of the Girrawheen community and the Cowan electorate.

Not far away, Our Lady of Mercy Primary School is a Catholic primary school also in Girrawheen. The school has 380 children with a wide range of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The challenges are significant, but the staff are dedicated and highly committed people and they provide a high quality of care and educational tuition. The school is managed and supported by volunteer school board representatives and an exceptionally active parents and friends committee. These individuals freely give immense amounts of their personal time to help in the important decision making, fundraising, pastoral care and special projects within the school community. This not only benefits all students and community member but provides a very good example to the children. The P&F demonstrate its commitment in the form of monthly meetings and many hours of assistance to the drama, music, liturgy, sporting, charity, working bees and many other varied school community events and projects.

Of course, 380 children makes it a big school in Girrawheen. The principal, Drew Jago, attributes the demand for places at the school to the exceptional teachers working at Our Lady of Mercy. He tells me that they walk the extra mile to deliver comprehensive and valued spiritual, academic, social, physical and cultural learning programs to the students. We should also remember the context of the school. They have many children who commenced school with little or no English language skills, and I am greatly impressed at the way these students progress through the grades and the learning programs. I know that the parents are immensely proud of the school. I congratulate parents, staff and Drew Jago for what they have achieved in the past and continue to achieve.

Just over in Koondoola is Mercy College. The Catholic school has 1,500 students, from kindergarten to year 12. Having been to the school and spoken to the young adults there, I was impressed with their positive outlook and determination to succeed. I even had one of their senior students at my office under a structured workplace learning arrangement, and I will take this opportunity to thank Hayley Gebbie for her efforts. Hayley, who is finishing school this year, was a great asset to me and I am sure she will succeed in the future. Mercy College is a very multicultural education centre, with students originating from more than 50 countries. While the Mercy College parents are very positive about the school and proud of their ability to access a Catholic education for their children, nevertheless the surrounding suburbs contain quite modest homes. The school’s current SES is 92, and about 35 per cent of the Mercy College families are on healthcare cards or pensioner concession cards.

Mercy College commenced in Northbridge, an inner-city suburb, but the Sisters of Mercy decided to move the school in 1972 to assist with the education of many families who had moved to the then outer suburbs. The college’s first principal—and the most longstanding one—was Mr Dick Finucane, who led the college from 1976 until his retirement in 1996. The size of the school today is clearly a testament to the efforts of Mr Finucane and the Sisters of Mercy, the staff whom they employ and the thousands of students and their families who have been associated with the college since then. Mercy College has a strong culture of achieving a high-class education in a Christian, Catholic setting. The school achieves success with the assistance of a wonderfully committed school community, many of whom are recently arrived migrants or refugees who see an education for their children as a very high priority. Overcoming the challenges of a lower socioeconomic surrounding area, the school achieved a 100 per cent graduation rate in 2007. I commend the school for that, and Dr Tony Curry for the leadership he has shown as principal at Mercy College.

The next school that adds great value in Cowan is the Liwara Catholic Primary School in Greenwood, near where I live. Liwara Catholic school is renowned for its community spirit. Before I talk about their efforts in education I have to mention the annual Liwara Fair. It is something of a legend in the northern suburbs of Perth. About three years ago I was talking to some young people there who said that they had come from 10 kilometres away. That was because of the fair’s reputation over 25 years. The fair is a testament to the community spirit, as I understand that the fair committee is bigger than the P&F. I would describe it as the best fair in Perth. It is held on a Friday evening in early November and is the culmination of months of hard work by the P&F and the committee. While the fair raises around $20,000 each year and is very important to the school’s budget, the community spirit engendered by a large group of parents working together with assistance from staff and students to stage this event is simply priceless.

However much Liwara is famous for its fair, their attitude to education is also outstanding. The philosophy of Liwara is that education is best delivered in an atmosphere where parents and staff work as partners for the good of the students. To that end, the school encourages parent participation in every area of school activity, including classroom, canteen, uniform shop, library and sports. The school has an amazing parents and friends group. Of all the P&Cs and P&Fs I have been to, theirs was the greatest in number. I also like to judge a school by the attitude of its students, and the one Liwara student I know very well is Miss Deanna Tognolini. Deanna is a very well mannered young lady, always polite, and a great credit to Liwara and to her parents, my friends Gary and June.

The next school I would like to mention is the Banksia Grove Catholic Primary School in the suburb of Banksia Grove. The school was established in 2004 to meet the needs of the rapidly growing suburbs of the Wanneroo district. The school has children of 18 nationalities enrolled, often bringing a variety of needs. There are 120 children and 12 have recognised disabilities. There are children with disabilities in every class. I visited the Banksia Grove Catholic Primary School recently with the member for Warringah, the Hon. Tony Abbott, and we were impressed with the way the leadership of the school, Mrs Tricia Davis and her staff, have developed an environment which is inclusive and tolerant. A great deal of time, energy and money has gone into establishing and supporting this. This has meant employing additional staff to assist in the classrooms and also a social worker.

The school is yet another example of where federal grants are so important. As a result of the challenges, professional development has also been required and the school has instigated supplementary programs such as Rainbows, art therapy, protective behaviours, collaborative learning, reading recovery, and EMU, which is enhancing mathematical understandings. You Can Do It and Crunch & Sip have also been introduced. All the children are involved in all activities, such as performing arts. Class buddies are well established. In addition to the religious education program across the curriculum, Aboriginal studies and sustainability are also core elements. They are proudly a waterwise, a wastewise and an asthma friendly school. A healthy foods canteen is run voluntarily by parents and complements the school’s health program, which includes Crunch & Sip and the establishment of an edible garden watered from the rainwater tanks at the school. Children are supplied with meals when necessary, as well as those available for purchase from the canteen. It is clear that Banksia Grove is an area with its challenges, yet the school is rising to meet those challenges, and the children will be the winners. I congratulate principal Tricia Davis, deputy Joy Ketteringham, Father John Daly, social worker Leslie Bird and the dedicated education and admin staff at the Banksia Grove Catholic Primary School for the great work they do for the children.

At Landsdale Gardens Christian School, an Adventist school, they know each of the children very well. It is a small school that is very family oriented. The school is staffed with teachers that closely reflect the values of the families. As an Adventist school they do cater for students of varying religious, economic and ethnic backgrounds, but one common thread goes through all of their families, and that is their desire to entrust their children into the care of staff who will endeavour to model and uphold the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated yourself. I find this golden rule that they espouse very positive and I can see why parents like the school.

Pastoral care is paramount and I think that the size of the school lends itself to families who are concerned that their children will get lost in a bigger school, or fall through the cracks academically, socially or emotionally. The smaller class size allows children who are at risk for various reasons more accessibility to assistance, especially given that all of the classrooms are provided with a good level of literacy and numeracy support from qualified teacher assistants. They value academic excellence and endeavour to provide for the needs of individual children so that they are able to reach their individual potential. Smaller class sizes and dedicated teachers make this a reality, with children who are considered at risk demonstrating a level of achievement that far exceeds what assessment says they should be able to achieve.

It is right to also make mention of some of the dedicated volunteers on the management committee and the home and school committee for Landsdale Gardens Christian School. Ruth Sharp has given one day in the library each week for over 10 years and is also a member of the home and school committee. Del Dierckx, treasurer of the home and school committee for several years, has also undertaken much other volunteer work. There are the forever faithful volunteers Barb Goodnough, Lo-Anne Jenke and Narelle Duncan. Kylie Degenaar has worked in several volunteer positions over the last six years. There are also Peter and Letitia Dose. Peter volunteers his time as the management committee chairperson and Letitia is a home and school committee member.

Before concluding my comments on non-government schools, I will inform the parliament of the Montessori school in Kingsley that was founded by Mrs Duyker in 1962. It was expanded to include primary in 1965, lower secondary in 1972 and the International Baccalaureate Diploma in 1993. The Kingsley school is the longest established Montessori school in Australia. The difference in approach for Montessori is that while they are proud of all students, their philosophy is to specifically avoid ‘the glittering prizes’ and are glad that their students become well-adjusted, positive, contributing members of society. School graduates have learnt to develop a ‘can-do’ attitude and a love of learning which inform their whole lives.

The school was a recipient of a large capital grant and with a low interest loan they are constructing new buildings to replace the old ones which had passed their useful life. Kingsley Montessori’s new buildings are constructed according to passive solar principles, using materials which so far as possible are ecologically friendly. The design also incorporates the re-use of stormwater for flushing toilets and allows for the retro-fitting of solar energy panels. This has been a massive undertaking, both financially and in effort, for this very small school community and they are certainly proud of and delighted with the buildings, as they should be.

A further environmental contribution by the school community has been in the maintenance and preservation of the 2.2 hectares of remnant bushland which surrounds the school. The school has always taken great care to avoid unnecessary encroachment on the bushland. A small volunteer committee of parents takes responsibility for care of the bush, including keeping weeds down and educating the children about the bush. The school has also taken part in programs to revegetate the area around Lake Goollelal, as well as undertaking an annual tree-planting program in Gingin. I commend the co-principals, Ms Coffey and Ms Beasley, for their commitment to the children and Montessori education.

Today I have mentioned a number of schools in Cowan that undertake great work for not only the students but also the community in general. These are schools that are available for the people in the nearby suburbs and they are an option for families in lower socioeconomic suburbs. They represent choice for parents, because they represent an option for alternative education systems such as the Montessori school or education in a Christian context. There is nothing bad about this; there is nothing elite about this. This is all about parents making choices for their children, choices that the parents see as being in the child’s best interests. That is a good thing and the coalition has always supported this.

Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the House to speak to the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The measure before the House today will not only continue the education revolution but will constitute a major building block in the shared national agenda for the education sector. The $28 billion provided under this bill is part of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment of $42 billion over the next four years to investment in education in both government and non-government schools. This bill appropriates $28 billion over four years for recurrent capital and for targeted assistance for non-government schools.

One of the major election commitments given by the present government in 2007 was that no school in Australia would lose a dollar under new funding arrangements. To facilitate this commitment, the existing socioeconomic status, or SES, funding system for general recurrent funding of schools will be continued. New arrangements of the SES formula and a review of the SES scores for each school are to be completed through an open and transparent review process which will conclude in 2011. In the meantime, funding certainty for schools will be guaranteed through a continuation of the SES system.

Irrespective of potential changes in a school’s SES score over the next quadrennial period, schools will have their funding entitlements guaranteed to be at least equivalent to 2008 levels during the upcoming four-year period. The Rudd government has made it clear that it is not interested in taking money away from schools. Rather, its national education priorities lie with identifying disadvantaged school communities and focusing resources on where they can have the greatest impact in improving student outcomes.

This bill will provide certainty, stability and transparency to the funding of non-government schools in the next period from 2009 to 2012. These measures will ensure the delivery of the Rudd government’s election commitments to bring an education revolution to the schools of Australia. The bill will also uphold the government’s commitment to continuing the current socioeconomic status funding and indexation arrangements for these schools.

Among the other notable elements of this bill are provisions that will strengthen support given to remote and very remote schools and to schools with a very high proportion of Indigenous enrolments. Both of these provisions are extremely welcome and very much needed. This allocation will include additional assistance for individual Indigenous school students. The Rudd Labor government already demonstrated a commitment to revolutionising the education sector in Australia in its 2008-09 budget. Two of the most fundamental innovations in the budget were the funding for the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program and the digital education program, which is delivering computers and broadband access to secondary school students across Australia.

Working through the Council of Australian Governments, the Rudd Labor government has been developing a new framework for investment and reform in Australian schools. This initiative will result in the national education agreement, which is due to be finalised later this year. The COAG reform framework means that, for the first time, all governments in Australia will agree to work together to put in place a unitary set of nationally consistent objectives based on an agreed platform of educational priorities and reform directions for all the nation’s education systems.

The priorities for the reforms envisaged by the COAG process include raising the quality of teaching in our schools, ensuring that all students are benefiting from schooling, especially those students from disadvantaged areas, and improving transparency and accountability of schools and school systems at all levels. A framework of nationally consistent and socioeconomically equitable funding that is transparent in its needs based approach and is focused on the quality of its teaching and learning outcomes will thus form the basis of the national education agreement.

In implementing this framework we need to be careful to lift the quality of the states’ education systems to the best standard rather than adhering to a lesser average. With this in mind, the government has built into the Schools Assistance Bill a number of multifaceted provisions to assist disadvantaged remote area schools and schools with high Indigenous enrolments. Part of this assistance is in changes to the implementation of the SES formula in such disadvantaged school communities. Schools with 80 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments and schools located in very remote areas with 50 per cent or more Indigenous enrolments will automatically be entitled to the maximum level of general recurrent funding. This single provision will commit approximately $5.4 million over four years to the identification of, and provision of additional support to, such disadvantaged schools. An estimated 2,157 Indigenous students will receive maximum funding under this initiative.

Perhaps the most significant initiative in the bill—and one that seeks to provide enhanced support for disadvantaged school communities—is contained in two linked programs: the Indigenous Supplementary Assistance program, ISA, and the associated measure, the Indigenous funding guarantee, the IFG program. The ISA program will provide $239.1 million for four streamlined programs that provide funds for supplementary recurrent assistance schemes, homework centres, Indigenous tutorial schemes and English as a second language schemes for Indigenous language speakers. Funding is allocated on a ‘per Indigenous enrolment’ basis, with remote area loadings and indexation of funding built into the program. The IFG program is a transitional measure that will ensure non-government providers have their funding maintained at 2008 levels. This capped guarantee scheme means that providers who might otherwise lose funding under the new arrangements will not lose precious resources.

In my own electorate of Robertson, based on the Central Coast of New South Wales, measures such as the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme are vital tools that serve a real need. Although many of the programs contained in the Indigenous supplementary assistance program outlined above will go to helping schools and students in remote and very remote parts of Australia, there are approximately 1,300 Indigenous students living and learning on the Central Coast. I am therefore delighted that these Central Coast students—and thousands more like them across Australia—will have in-school tutorial programs funded to a level that supports quality learning outcomes.

These tutorial schemes help our local Indigenous students stay on track in class and assist with the completion of homework. This is something that I am very pleased to see. They form a vital support mechanism that helps close the gaps in educational outcomes that currently exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students on the Central Coast and across Australia. Closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students is one of the goals of the Schools Assistance Bill. Gaps in literacy and numeracy benchmarks between these groups are still far too wide in Australia. In year 3 reading, there is a 13 per cent gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and in year 7 numeracy there is a 32 per cent gap. This is completely unacceptable. This bill seeks serious solutions to these problems and I commend the government for continuing the support for Indigenous teaching and learning programs.

In addition to working with the states and territories to create a national education agreement, which I mentioned earlier and which will provide a new era of national cooperation on education priorities and outcomes, the Rudd Labor government is currently in discussion with the states and territories on three national partnerships in education. The first will target disadvantaged schools, the second will improve teaching quality and the third will improve literacy and numeracy.

Funds for the first two national partnership priorities will be determined by the COAG process. This will provide an opportunity for additional investment in public education. We certainly need additional investment to facilitate these improvements after 12 years of neglect. The third national priority—the literacy and numeracy partnership—already has $577 million budgeted in the forward estimates. The Schools Assistance Bill provides a range of allied programs that will push forward the education revolution over the next four years. These three programs will assist in laying the foundations for a truly national and coordinated approach to education across Australia.

Besides $26.3 billion provided by the bill for general recurrent grant assistance and $239.1 million for the ISA and IFG programs, some of these allied programs planned for the next four years include: $790 million for the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program; $557.6 million in capital grants to help build, maintain and upgrade non-government school facilities; $24 million for a country areas program to assist geographically isolated children; $48.4 million in remoteness loading attached to general recurrent grants to more than 400 regional and remote and non-government schools; $43 million under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program, which assists newly arrived students of non-English-speaking backgrounds; $56.4 million for the languages program to improve learning outcomes of students learning languages other than English; and $4.8 million for short-term emergency assistance to support the operation of schools that have been affected by unforeseen emergency circumstances.

All this is a huge contribution to the education revolution, but these bills are only part of the overall program. There has already been significant investment in schools through the National Secondary School Computer Fund, the Fibre Connections to Schools program, the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, a local schools working together to share facilities pilot program, the development of a national curriculum through the National Curriculum Board, the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Strategy, and the education tax refund for parents who have paid for the educational needs of their children.

The Schools Assistance Bill will require the implementation by 2012 of a national curriculum. This is currently being developed by the National Curriculum Board, as I have said, and it will apply to all Australian schools. Another set of initiatives focuses on enhancing the transparency of each school’s performance information and reporting framework. Transparency is needed in order to give parents the right information about how their child and their school are performing. This information will support parents with accurate and nationally comparable information when they come to make the right choice of school for their children. It is very important that the right values are being assessed and that the performance of the schools is measured not just the natural talents of the children who are attending those schools. It will also help the government guide resources and policy decision-making towards the greatest possible effectiveness and improvement.

To encourage excellence in schooling, Australia needs fair, consistent and accurate analysis of how different schools are performing. Reporting on the results of individual schools in national tests will form part of these arrangements but, as has been stressed on a number of occasions, such reporting will not take the form of simplistic league tables. The COAG process will determine, through agreement with the states and territories, the final form of this national reporting framework. This should be based on the school’s capacity to improve the skills and learning experience of the students and not just a comparison of the students’ scores, which would be an indication of the students’ original abilities and the socioeconomic backgrounds they are drawn from rather than the enhancement to their education provided by each school.

The Australian government has proposed the creation of the National Schools Assessment and Data Centre to be an independent institution for the management, analysis and publication of schools data. This new era in transparency will bring together a simpler, strengthened framework for measuring and reporting on the performance of both students and non-government schools across Australia. This will be consistent with the conditions required of the states under the national education agreement. The government is currently in discussions with the states and the independent and Catholic school systems about the next quadrennial funding agreement that will outline funding arrangements for all schools. As part of this process, the 2009-12 national education agreement currently being developed through the COAG process will provide certainty and stability for national education systems in Australia.

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 provides a new era for the funding and other relations between schools systems in Australia. It sets in place the building blocks for a truly national education system. It represents one of the most significant and fundamental revolutions in education in Australia for many decades. I commend the bills to the House.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament today on the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. These are important bills that affect the constituents of Ryan. I am very pleased to speak on these bills because it gives me the chance to go into bat for all the independent schools around the country and in my Ryan electorate and the tens of thousands of children who go to independent, non-government schools in the Ryan electorate. Some $28 billion, of some $42 billion of Commonwealth funds, are involved in this legislation, so it is important that members speak to this legislation and give their thoughts on the government’s legislation.

I spoke on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill (No. 2) 2008 the other day. The preceding speaker was the new member for Flynn. I was saying to him that when he comes into the parliament to defend government bills he should speak with a bit of passion, he should get up and make his case compelling. The way he carried on put doubts in my mind whether he believed what he was saying at all. Just listening to some of the previous speakers, particularly the backbenchers, I question whether they in fact again believe in these bills.

On the other hand, I know that some of the Labor frontbenchers have deep and solid views on these bills, and they will certainly speak with vigorous passion during the debate, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, who has carriage of the education portfolio. Her views are longstanding—we all know where she stands on independent schools. If anybody thought that the last election signalled the beginning of a fiscally conservative Prime Minister and the end of ideology, I ask them to look at this proposed legislation. And I am delighted that the Minister for Resources and Energy is in the chamber. He certainly speaks with passion when it comes to his ideologies, which I think are not too consistent with the views of the majority of Australians.

The number of students enrolled in independent or non-government schools in the Ryan electorate in 2007 was 21,002. That is a lot of students and it also means that a lot of parents value and believe in the idea of choice. These are hardworking people who sacrifice so much to be able to send their children to the school of their choice. We should be giving them the opportunity to decide which school and which form of education they wish their children to be exposed to. These bills draw a very clear distinction between the Rudd Labor government and the federal opposition in terms of what each party believes in and stands for on the issue of choice and educational values. This really is an ideological and political assault on parental choice when it comes to schooling options for children.

I know that the constituents of Ryan, who send their children to such schools as Brigidine College at Indooroopilly, Brisbane Boys College at Toowong, Our Lady of the Rosary School, St Ignatius School, St Joseph’s Nudgee Junior College, St Peter Chanel Primary School at The Gap and St Peter’s Lutheran College, my old school, where I was a boarder—it was and remains a very fine school—will take a very deep interest in my thoughts and the thoughts of the coalition compared to the thoughts of the Labor Party now in government. These bills reminds us that, despite all the very clever and deceptive campaigning of Mr Rudd during the last election, where he painted himself as a fiscal conservative and a responsible economic manager, at its core the Labor Party has deep-rooted philosophical problems with the place of independent schools in the architecture of our education system.

I am very pleased that my colleague the member for Casey is in the House. We both entered parliament in 2001. He is the former shadow minister for education and I know he would share very strongly my view that the ideological assault on independent schools in this country should be of grave concern to those who believe in choice and to those of us on this side of the chamber.

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 succeeds in part the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, which provided funding for both government and non-government schools for 2004 to 2008. The bill also provides funding for Indigenous students attending non-government schools. This funding was previously appropriated under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000. As I said earlier, the bill provides some $28 billion for non-government schools for the years 2009 to 2012. That is a very significant amount of money, nearly three per cent of Australia’s annual GDP, so we must focus on the methodology used to distribute it to the independent school sector. I am very interested in this bill because it marks a major departure in Commonwealth funding arrangements for schools. In fact, the bill represents a very significant change in how the Commonwealth will support and sustain independent schools into the future. Parents must understand the full ramifications of this bill, particularly section 24, which I will come to shortly.

Let me briefly explain the SES funding formula for parents in the Ryan electorate who send their children to independent schools. The SES approach measures the socioeconomic status of the parents whose children are enrolled in a school. Rather than asking parents intrusive and direct questions about their income and seeking very personal information, the SES model links student addresses with current ABS census data. An SES index is then applied to obtain an SES score for each school. Schools which draw students from areas of predominantly high SES status will receive lower levels of Commonwealth funding than schools which draw from areas of average or low SES status. A socioeconomic index can be made up of a number of variables representing various aspects of a person’s social position. The SES index used for non-government school funding includes only three dimensions: income, education and occupation. That is an important factor for people to understand.

This bill fulfils the government’s commitment to retain the current system of general recurrent funding for non-government schools under the SES system, but only for the next four years. Let me put that on the record, because I have a sneaking suspicion that in the years ahead the government will seek to amend this very drastically. The commitment is only for the next four years, and, in my opinion, the Rudd government’s promised review of the SES funding system in four years raises some very serious questions about the future of Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. That will be of grave concern to parents in Ryan who send their children to non-government schools—and who, I should add, make a significant contribution to education in this country, because what they are doing is freeing up places for thousands and thousands of other students to enter the public system. I mentioned earlier that some 21,000 students in the Ryan electorate go to independent schools. Let’s just think for a moment: 21,000 students in Ryan go to independent schools, so imagine for a moment those 21,000 students requiring places in the government sector. What a chaotic situation we would be in if, all of the sudden, those 21,000 students had to be found places in the state education system. So I take my hat off and pay tribute to those parents who do this country a great favour by sending their kids to non-government schools.

Let me also say for the record that, like my parents, so many of these parents are not born with silver spoons in their mouths. So many of these parents do not inherit massive wealth. So many of these parents are not the rich and mighty of this country. Many of these parents—in fact, I would suspect the overwhelming majority—who send their children to primary schools and high schools of an independent status are very hardworking people and they sacrifice so much to be able to give their children the opportunity of going to a non-government school. Maybe they own and operate a small business, like my parents, who did without holidays, fancy items and assets and put all their savings into their bank account to send me to an independent school. I want to pay tribute to the Australians the length and breadth of this great country who do that.

As I said, the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 is of deep concern to me because it introduces a number of very significant provisions. In fact, unprecedented requirements are placed on schools, and that is of grave concern. While a number of the conditions in the current act have been met, superseded or abandoned by the bill, it retains the broad thrust of the educational outcomes accountability framework of the current act.

I want to touch on the six conditions covering school performance where Commonwealth funding is linked. No. 1 is participation in national student assessments. No. 2 is participation in national reports on the outcomes of schooling. No. 3 is the provision of individual school performance reports to the minister. No. 4 is the provision of plain language student reports to parents to include an assessment of the student’s achievement against any available national standards and relative to the student’s peer group at the school. No. 5 is the provision of publicly available information about the school’s performance. And No. 6 is the implementation of a national curriculum. That is also of immense significance, but the financial accountability conditions for Commonwealth funding are really the provisions of deep concern to me.

This bill includes a new provision which empowers the minister to refuse or delay payments if a school’s audit raises questions about a school’s viability. Although non-government schools have always been required to complete a financial questionnaire, the bill contains a new requirement for schools to report funding sources. This is intended to provide the government with more flexibility as to what financial information it can collect from school authorities. The final decision about what schools will be required to report will be made after consultation with the non-government sector.

Previously, the financial information that was collected was treated as commercial-in-confidence and therefore individual schools’ financial information or profiles were not released. Now, under this piece of legislation, they are to be released; they can become public information. This is a disturbing change. This proposed section 24 in the legislation is of significant concern to schools. ‘Funding sources’, for example, is a new concept in this context and gives the minister substantial new powers to demand information about the internal financial affairs of a school community. The proposed section allows the minister to require schools to make public much greater detail or additional information about their sources of funding. Such information can include details of scholarship funds, bequests, other sources of funding such as profit-generating activities, and even community fundraising undertaken by parents and friends associations.

Let us take the example of bequests. Let us say, for example, that a bequest is made to a college and the request is that the information is confidential. Under this legislation, that request would have to be overridden. I think that is just an enormous intrusion into the funding models of certain schools. Maybe there are arrangements with businesses; maybe there are arrangements with parents. Maybe, as I said, in the case of someone who makes a bequest or, say, someone who donates funds for a scholarship would prefer to remain anonymous and be discreet about that. The school will now be compelled under this legislation to reveal benefactors and donors. I think, as I say, that must be of enormous concern to schools and colleges around the country.

Given previous statements by the Deputy Prime Minister and many of her colleagues, one can only draw the conclusion that this provision exists in order to lay the ground work to build up a case to deeply and radically alter the SES funding system in the future. I think that abolishing this funding formula will have a significant impact on future funding for the independent school sector.

Proposed section 24, which I have touched on, will require schools to publicly declare every source of funding. The former Howard government’s SES system was specifically designed to stop this kind of class warfare, which  is creeping back into public policy. It is a great shame, it is unnecessary, it does not do anything at all to value-add and enhance the status and quality of the independent school system and it is superfluous. Time and time again, we are really seeing the true colours of the Rudd government come to the fore. We are very unnecessarily seeing the politics of envy. We have seen that already via the budget, with means testing for solar panel rebates, the luxury car tax and the Medicare levy surcharge, which I spoke on earlier this week. This is a completely uncalled for intrusion into an area of public policy that is going well, that is performing, that is satisfying both the education provider and the students and delivering quality education, which must, at the end of the day, be our primary concern. This is a return to the politics of envy. A Latham hit list type of model is very regrettable indeed.

The Deputy Prime Minister and many of her colleagues have not hidden their preference for this kind of public policy. This is very much a philosophical debate about independent schools, and I think it is unnecessary that we are going down this path. It is ideological assault by stealth and very subtle language. I think it is important to let the parents who send their children to independent schools in the Ryan electorate know what the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education has actually said. I quote here from a speech that she delivered:

The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of the equipment available, wealth in terms of alumni funding raising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like … it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw…

Again, the use of the words ‘class of parents’ I think is very regrettable. The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support in the Rudd government, the member for Eden-Monaro, said that the postcode system for funding schools is ‘totally crazy’. He said it was:

…a ridiculous approach to looking at the needs of schools, and we’ll move away from that and get down eventually to a proper needs-based approach.

If people recall, he was slapped down very quickly in the campaign by the then opposition leader because the member for Eden-Monaro was giving away the philosophical direction of this Labor government. I recall well the phone calls during the campaign when he made those comments that were aired, unfortunately very briefly, by the media. It very much exposed him. That is an indication of where this government is going, and I know it will be a big concern to the parents in the Ryan electorate who send their children to the likes of Brigidine College and Brisbane Boys College.

This morning, I had the opportunity of speaking to some significant education administrators at one of the independent schools in my electorate, and they certainly expressed great reservations but urged me not to mention who they were. They said, ‘We are happy to have a conversation with you, Michael, but please, when you’re giving your speech in the parliament today, do not disclose our names, don’t say which school we come from, because we are very anxious that this could have ramifications for our school and for our college community.’ In the 21st century—in 2008, 2009 and in the years ahead—I suspect we are going to see more of this regrettable policy development. I say to the government and I say to my colleagues: please let us not have any more class warfare when it comes to education; let us put the interests of our kids first. On this side of the parliament, let us be firm, resolute and vigilant against this kind of class warfare. That is a thing of the past. (Time expired)

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are all aware that in the lead-up to the last election our Prime Minister made education a key feature of our election commitments. It was heartening for all who see education as providing the life opportunities for children of our nation to have education at the forefront of the government’s concerns. It is through education that people realise their potential in life, and I am certainly very proud of the background that I had in the public education system, which has provided me with opportunities later in life. Of course, in an increasingly international environment, where productivity and competitiveness will determine our future economic outcomes, we all understand the importance of investment in human capital and an investment which also goes to the goals outlined in our social inclusion policies.

The Prime Minister talked about an education revolution, and he talked about a revolution that was going to grow the pie of funding allocations for education. He outlined a series of initiatives that we would deliver in government. It was heartening that in our first budget more than $19 billion in new education funding was announced. Already some of those initiatives are being felt in my schools in a positive way. For example, our digital education revolution, which ultimately will provide access for all year 9 to year 12 students to a school computer, is very well deserved and welcomed in my electorate. In the first round of funding, eight schools in Throsby, across the sectors, were allocated funds for the purchase of 1,685 computers. Schools in Throsby were still languishing with access of students to a computer being less than one to eight. So, in that first round, we brought those schools up to the standard of at least one computer per two students. We are also very heartened by the commitment made to the trade training centres in secondary schools, particularly in an area like the Illawarra, where we have incredibly high rates of youth unemployment at a time when we have glaring skills shortages.

I note also our commitment to deliver universal access to early childhood education as being a critical component of our social inclusion agenda. Early intervention, particularly for more disadvantaged communities, does provide the bedrock on which future opportunities grow. Only this week, the commitment was made to bring forward some of the projects earmarked under our $11 billion Education Investment Fund to kick-start investment in a range of higher education and TAFE institutions.

The government is also in the process of delivering a new four-year national education agreement, which I know will deliver more Commonwealth resources to all schools. The government has committed to providing a minimum of $42 billion to schools over the next four years. It is in that context that funding arrangements for non-government schools for the years 2009-12 are now before us for debate.

The passage of this legislation will appropriate $28 billion for the 2009-12 period and, as I understand, this legislation needs to be passed before the end of the year so that payments can begin to flow from January 2009. In that context, I accept the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education to the non-government school sector that for those years we would continue the funding and indexation arrangements inherited from the Howard government pending a comprehensive review, which will be open and transparent and which, it is anticipated, will conclude in 2011.

I would like to now make some personal comments and observations that are relevant to this debate and relevant to the future review, although no-one can anticipate the outcomes of that review because, in the minister’s words, it will be open and transparent and all stakeholders across the sectors will be given the opportunity to make an input into it. My election to this parliament back in 2001 coincided with the Howard government’s decision to introduce a new funding scheme for non-government schools, commonly referred to as the SES funding scheme, and we have heard a lot about that this morning. At the time, as a young teacher, I was concerned that we were moving away from a well-established formula instituted in the Whitlam era following the recommendations of the Karmel report that schools across the sectors should be funded on the fundamental principle of need as a measure of ensuring fairness and equity.

What we had was an SES scheme that removed the previous link between the level of a school’s resources and the level of the public grant to which the school would be entitled. The previous education resource index known as the ERI was replaced by an indirect measure of the socioeconomic status of schoolchildren’s parents as the basis for entitlement to public funding. When one looks back on the debates on that State Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, before I was in parliament, rightly members on the opposition side did point to the obvious flaws that were inherent in such a model. I think it is appropriate that people do have the opportunity to look at the limitations of any formula for the allocation of public funding. It is in that regard that comments were made about the limitations of that formula. At the time, as I recall, that new formula, the SES scheme, despite its obvious limitations, was applied only to those schools that received a financial benefit while maintaining the level of funding that previously applied if schools were to have their grant reduced—commonly referred to as the funding maintained schools.

It is not an issue of alleged class warfare as I just heard expressed by the speaker before me. One only needs to look at the non-biased opinions of an internal departmental document prepared under the Howard government when they were still in power. That document noted as follows.

The consistency and equity of the SES funding arrangements is undermined by the fact that almost half of the non government school sector is funded outside the ‘straight’ SES model

In other words, under the Howard government we saw around half of all the non-government schools receiving funds above the levels that should have applied if the Commonwealth’s own criteria in the SES model had been fairly applied. As well we know the Howard government maintained the link between increases in state funding of government schools and Commonwealth funding of the non-government school sector through the application of the average government school recurrent cost measure or the AGSRC. But this automatic formula did not and does not take into account the increasing proportion of non-government schools that operate at resource levels well above those of the average government school. Let me give you an example. The government school sector caters for about 80 per cent of children with disabilities. So in the event that a state government decides to inject more funds to address the needs of children with disabilities the automatic indexation formula applies those additional expenditures into an automatic indexation factor for all non-government schools regardless of the resource levels at which they operate

These funding measures have entrenched a resource gap between schools, one that I cannot understand how anyone could justify on the grounds of the principle of educational need. I think it is reasonable for legislators to look at the existing arrangements and the formula which currently determine how public funds are expended in the non-government school sector. I do not think any sector should be immune from accountability for the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds. If there are existing flaws and anomalies along the lines that I have indicated then surely an open and transparent review that will listen to the voices of all stakeholders would have the opportunity to examine that as part of the review process.

In my personal view, backed up by the evidence provided by an internal bureaucratic departmental document, the current scheme lacks integrity in a number of aspects and certainly has moved far away from the original notion of funding on the basis of need. However, I understand and accept that the arrangements for the non-government school sector will continue until 2012. That is reflected in this bill which delivers on the Rudd Labor government’s election commitment taken to the whole of the Australian community in the lead-up to the election.

One thing which is very clear in my view, from the legacy of the Howard years, is that the resource gap between the government and non-government school sectors taken as a whole has grown and needs to be addressed on the basis of fairness and equity. Back in 2004 our then shadow minister for education pointed to this fact when she argued that no-one could really say that the SES formula was in any way a formula that defined funding on the basis of need; otherwise we would not have seen the massive increases to the wealthier schools in this country that we have seen under the legacy of the Howard regime.

The share of total Commonwealth school funding to government schools, which continue to educate around 2.2 million students—that is, nearly 67 per cent of enrolments—declined from 43 per cent of allocations to 35 per cent under the Howard government. The real increases in Commonwealth funding for non-government schools since 1996 have been substantial, about twice the rate of increase for government schools, which continue today to educate about twice the number of students. So the legacy of the Howard era is that we saw government schools getting an increase of around $2 billion, a 146 per cent increase, and the non-government school sector getting an increase of $4.76 billion, a 247 per cent increase. Naturally, I think it is very appropriate that in the coming review that these factors are given proper and considered attention. And while no-one knows what the outcome of the review will be, these are factors that need to be addressed in that review, as do the anomalies that are contained in the automatic indexation factor through the average government school recurrent costs—the AGSRC.

In the latest AGSRC figures that I could find, the Commonwealth commitment is around $8,000 per primary student and $10,000 for a secondary student. Under this formula, Commonwealth funding for government schools provides 8.9 per cent of the primary schools’ AGSRC and 10 per cent of the secondary AGSRC. In both cases that is significantly lower than the minimum grant of 13.7 per cent, which is applied to non-government schools with the highest SES scores. In fact, in my examination I could find only one private school that gets funded on that minimum 13.7 per cent, although I found a lot of highly resourced and well-known non-government schools getting the allocations on the 17.5 per cent level—schools like Ascham, Cranbrook, Knox Grammar, Melbourne Grammar and Geelong Grammar. What I am arguing for is the current AGSRC indexation mechanisms to automatically transfer the benefits of increased state expenditure to government school students—whether they are students with a disability, Indigenous students, students of refugees or recently arrived migrants—any time that the government or territory expends more of its state funds that automatically apply to all non-government schools, including those with the highest resources whose students could, arguably, under a needs based system, have no need for a share of this additional support.

A recent comprehensive analysis by Dr Jim McMorrow shows that if the Commonwealth general recurrent per capita grants for government schools were to be increased to the minimum grant available to the independent schools—namely the 13.7 per cent of AGSRC—this would increase outlays to the public school system by some $825 million by 2011-12. He then goes on to cite facts which show that to restore funding of government schools to their share of total funding back in 1996-97 would require an additional $1.5 billion in outlays. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are certainly committed to an education revolution, we are certainly committed to growing the pie and the resources available to ensure that all our kids have the best opportunities in life, but it is not something that we can address overnight. It needs to be noted that there is an inherent legacy left by the previous government by the application of the recurrent indexation formula and the SES funding scheme. I am pleased, as a product of the public education system, that my government and the Prime Minister of the nation continue to understand the importance of adequately and appropriately funding the system that continues to cater for large numbers of students.

While this bill deals specifically with the funding of non-government schools for 2009 to 2012 in the context of promises we made and took to the election, as a parliament we are yet to see the outcomes for the government school sector. I understand these will be finalised through the COAG process by year’s end and delivered as part of our national education agreement. It is fair to say that the expectations of the government sector are high given its obvious underfunding and the legacy that has been left by the Howard government. I understand the new agreement for the government school sector does not need to be legislated in order to deliver funding. However, the COAG process will also result in three important new national partnership agreements for schools: one to improve teacher quality, one to improve literacy and numeracy, and one, very importantly, to better assist disadvantaged schools and disadvantaged communities.

The minister has clearly indicated the government’s interest in identifying disadvantaged schools across the sectors so that resources can properly be focused on where they can have the greatest impact in improving outcomes for all Australian students. In conclusion, I trust that by year’s end, following the progress of the negotiations of COAG, we will see significant recurrent funding allocations for the 2.2 million students in government schools so that we can begin, in a tangible way, to correct what I see as obvious funding imbalances that occurred during the years of the Howard government.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is that this bill be now read a second time. I call the member for—

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maranoa.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not Mount Margaret! Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams. I know you have spent some time in Maranoa.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did; it is true.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have often talked about it. And you are welcome to come out there any time to see some of the wonderful schools, including independent non-government schools out there, and the magnificent job that they are doing, particularly under the funding models of the previous coalition government. But I do not want to reflect on you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We often have quite amicable discussions about your days out in the back of Maranoa and I know they are very happy memories for you.

I rise today to express some concerns I have with the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. While I certainly welcome the continued commitment to provide funding for non-government schools, this bill has introduced a number of changes which in the future may not be beneficial to the non-government education sector. I recognise that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Labor government are fulfilling their election commitment to continue funding for non-government schools. But it appears that commitment had a caveat to it which was not mentioned during the election campaign.

I also acknowledge that this bill will provide additional funding for non-government schools that have a significant number of Indigenous students. I particularly welcome the fact that maximum recurrent funding will automatically apply to non-government schools in remote and very remote areas that have Indigenous enrolments of 50 per cent or more. I guess I would ask why 50 per cent is a magical figure. I can think of a very small non-government school—a Catholic school—in a town which I am sure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be aware of: Quilpie. St Finbarr’s is out there in that very remote part of Queensland doing a magnificent job and providing a choice in education for the people of the Quilpie region. I also have a number of Indigenous communities in my electorate. I guess, providing that more than 50 per cent of students at those schools are Indigenous, they may benefit from the automatic application of funding.

However, I have a major concern with this bill, and that is the removal of the new non-government schools establishment grants. The former coalition government was a strong advocate for supporting the viability of the non-government sector and encouraging the establishment of new schools where the need was identified within the community. And just as a matter of interest, the 153 schools in my electorate are not all non-government; the majority would be public. A significant number—I think it is something like a third—of the schools in Maranoa are non-government schools, including some boarding schools.

The new non-government schools establishment grant initiative was an effective way under a coalition government to increase the educational opportunities for communities and towns. However, with a stroke of the pen, it seems that the Labor government has decided to axe this successful program, only making provision for those schools that have approval in this calendar year—2008—to receive grants for next year. It seems Labor wants to discourage the expansion of the non-government sector and deny those communities who are looking to widen the educational opportunities and, importantly, choice for their children’s education. In fact, the Labor government seems to discourage aspiration in all of its policies and all of the direction that it wants to take this economy.

This legislation will require schools to provide a great deal of information about their sources of funding. This might include details of a scholarship fund, bequests, donations and fundraising by the local P&C. One cannot help but be suspicious that, by forcing schools to provide the details of where these additional funds come from, these additional funding sources, this Labor government may use this information to penalise them by reducing the financial support coming from the Commonwealth just because they may have received donations from past students or have a very active and devoted P&C, who at the end of the day are, obviously, raising extra funds for the benefit of their children’s education. In fact, they might find that working hard through the P&C is actually a hindrance to receiving additional funds from the Commonwealth. They are discouraging aspiration. They will be discouraging that if this bill passes the upper house—obviously, we do not have the numbers in the lower house. I have real concerns about the direction that this government is taking non-government schools funding support.

It would be a tragedy if this were the case, particularly for the schools and the parents in my electorate of Maranoa. As I said earlier, there are 153 schools in Maranoa and a third of them are non-government. Many families in my electorate—as I said, the electorate covers 30 per cent of Queensland—send their children to boarding schools in the regional towns. They do this not out of choice but out of necessity. Many of these parents are facing the terrible drought and, of course, the impact of drought is not felt just by people on the land; it is felt by the businesses and the community as a whole. They save hard to send their children away to school. They send them away because it is the only option. Many of the schools, in both sectors, go to the high top of 10. Some of the schools in towns in my electorate only go to primary level. Those parents who have to send their children away to complete a secondary education—and many of them will be in remote communities—are council workers, police workers and small business people.

Just imagine how these parents must feel. They live in remote parts of Australia, they make a major contribution to our economy and they are an important part of our nation. They scrimp and save to send their children to a boarding school. Sometimes they send them away to flat with someone to gain access to and to complete a secondary education. And they, through this bill, may find themselves being punished, because the passage of this bill will mean that any additional money raised through bequests, donations or even the value of the assets of the school that may have been provided by past students or hard work of those fundraising efforts will penalise those schools.

So they will feel, ‘Why should former students, who have gone on to become successful in their endeavours and who feel proud of their education and proud of the school they attended, be discouraged from paying tribute to their education and, importantly, to their teachers? Why couldn’t they make a donation or a bequest to the school?’ Apparently, that donation is going to be considered part of the assets of the school and part of the sources of funding for non-government schools. This, surely, is the highest level of discouragement of aspiration, and it is certainly going to be a further blow to the dedicated members who work in P&Cs across the length and breadth of Australia. I have a lot of respect for the parents and friends associations and the parents and citizens associations of the schools because all of the parents who work in those schools are dedicated to supporting the schools because they have an interest in the schools and an interest in the educational outcomes of their children.

In my electorate it is not uncommon to see a street stall or a raffle being conducted on a Saturday morning. In fact, I know that when I go and buy the Saturday paper in my electorate it will cost me more than the price of the Weekend Australian and the Courier Mail; it will quite often cost me a whole book of raffle tickets. Why do the P&Cs raise money? They do it to support their schools. I support that effort; it really is to be admired. In some parts of my electorate, P&Cs conduct a rodeo. And in just the same manner as so many communities raise money for the health of their communities in the form of health services—I am sure you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Adams, that they raise a third of the money for the Royal Flying Doctor Service—they also acknowledge the need to support, through the P&C, the schools in their community. In some parts of my electorate communities often raise money through rodeos and in other parts of my electorate someone might want to donate one tonne of grain at harvest time. To go where? To go to the school.

Those parents will be penalised under this bill. They will find that if they give, in whatever form—through a donation, a raffle, a rodeo, a sports day or in kind—that it will be considered a part of the wealth of the school. I know that this is going to hit rural Australia hard, but I also know that this Labor government does not really care about rural Australia. We hear sweet words from the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister occasionally that they have travelled out there on the jet. They do not advise people that they are coming. They get a little group around them—they do not want a big group—and then they disappear. They are there for a couple of hours and then they are gone. But if they spent a bit of time out there they would understand that parents in those areas—just like our city cousins—are very supportive of choice of education for their children, and in supporting their children they know that any extra money that they can raise will go to improve the services and facilities of their school.

That is why it was, when we returned to this side of the House after the last election, it was devastating news to learn that the Investing in Our Schools Program was to be axed by this Labor government. The Investing in Our Schools Program provided schools across the length and breadth of Australia with funding to purchase much needed equipment and materials and to construct much needed infrastructure. One of the key aspects of that funding initiative is that it had to be signed off by the P&C. So you had the P&C involved with the teachers, who identified where they could improve the educational opportunities for the children at their school.

Schools in my electorate of Maranoa received more than $12 million from the Investing in Our Schools Program. We did not discriminate on the basis of whether they were a small country school that went to primary level with 20 or 30 student, or a bigger school—like the Warwick State High School in Warwick, which has over 1,000 students—because they were all entitled to the same amount, but it had to be on an application supported by, and signed off by, the P&C of that school.

I had much pleasure in going to so many of these schools where I saw upgrades to classrooms. I remember Freestone State School, I think east of Warwick, which put on an additional classroom, and at Ballandean, south of Stanthorpe, they upgraded a classroom for their prep year. The program refurbished exercise courts—multipurpose courts for tennis, basketball and netball—constructed shade structures, built new and safer playgrounds and installed air conditioning.

One of the first things some of the schools east of my home town of Roma did—in fact, even in my own home town of Roma—was to air-condition the school. In that case it was a state public school. But we have a Labor administration in Queensland, and they think that they can live in high rises and have their offices in Brisbane fully air-conditioned but that the kids who live east of a line from about Mitchell down to St George do not need air conditioning. It is not hot there, in their determination, so they will not air-condition those classrooms, but, through the Investing in Our Schools Program under the previous coalition government, the Roma Middle School, including the administration offices, were air-conditioned because that was the priority of the P&C of the Roma Middle School. I could repeat that story for Chinchilla High School and for the Tara State School, where that was the priority.

In the summer, even on a day like today, in October, it is nothing to see temperatures above 40 degrees, day after day, with kids in their classrooms trying to learn. The teachers and parents have told me that since they put in the air conditioning, the children are able to sit there, study and concentrate in some relative comfort. But that was under the coalition government’s Investing in Our Schools Program, which was shamefully abolished by this Labor government with no regard for the impact it would have on the people from rural and remote parts of Australia—or in fact across Australia, because they were all treated equally. Some of the money from the Investing in Our Schools Program went into specialised learning rooms, such as music rooms. Music programs are important in any school today. Some schools even bought portable classrooms. In one school, east of Warwick in my electorate, they upgraded the toilet because they could not get the money out of the state Labor government in Queensland to do so. This program was abolished by this Labor government. It is an out-of-touch and heartless act that is impacting on children. That is the important point to make.

The program was so successful and beneficial in Maranoa to so many little schools that I travel to—some, as I said earlier, which have only 20 or 30 students. It was a joy to go there to see the parents, who felt that at last they could do something to improve the school and support their fundraising efforts. They had often had a raffle or a sports day to raise money for the school. But they could never get the quantum of money that was required to make a real difference, to do things like put air conditioning in the school, which could cost upwards of $100,000, or put in a new water tank or upgrade the toilet. They never had the money to upgrade the tennis, netball or basketball courts for sporting and exercise activities for their students.

I recently visited Thargomindah State School in my electorate of Maranoa, where I was absolutely blown away by the efforts of the principal, the teachers, the P&C and the students. It was really heartening for me to see the dedication shown by the principal and the teachers in giving the best opportunity and start in life to the 30-odd children in that very small community. The children of the school took me to see not only their classrooms, which are now air conditioned, and the work they do in there but also out to the back of the school, where they have a vegetable garden, which helps them understand the importance of fresh vegetables to healthy living. They also showed me their poultry, so they are learning something about animals. It might seem a bit mundane in this part of the world, but I raise that issue because it is a great school and it was great to see the teachers, the parents and the students all showing such pride in their garden and animals and to see the lessons that are learnt from looking after poultry and from growing fresh food in the garden—food which they can take home at night. They are lessons that we can all learn from.

Time does not allow me to touch on the failure of the government in relation to the technical colleges. One very quick point I do make is that, although Labor and the now Prime Minister announced before the last election that every school would have a technical college, not one of the 153 schools in Maranoa got any funds allocated under the first round. (Time expired)

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. Unlike some of the issues raised by the previous speaker, I can say that across my electorate, particularly from non-government schools, there has been a great deal of support for and acceptance of the new legislation and indeed some very positive reaction to the new framework for schools funding proposed by the Rudd Labor government. These two pieces of legislation reflect yet another step in the rollout of the education revolution promised to the Australian people by Labor during the 2007 election campaign period. I am delighted to see this legislation introduced into the House. I see it as a critical step in delivering that education revolution, not just in non-government schools but of course ultimately in all schools.

What we will see fundamentally in this legislation is that it will make performance and accountability requirements on non-government schools consistent with requirements for all schools, as indeed envisaged in the national education agreement currently being finalised through the Council of Australian Governments. In March of this year we saw the groundbreaking agreement by the state and Commonwealth governments to develop a set of strategies on some key policy directions in the schools area. Amongst those policy directions were important issues like improving teaching and school leader quality; high standards and expectations; greater accountability and better directed resources; modern, world-class teaching and learning environments, including information and communications technology; integrated strategies for low socioeconomic status schools and communities; and, very importantly, building and boosting parental engagement in our schools. I congratulate COAG on that agreement and I look forward to the development of the final national education agreement hopefully by the end of 2008, which will see all government schools in Australia agree to a single set of objectives, outcomes and outputs and hence educational priorities and reform directions for the education system. It commits all governments, not just the Commonwealth government, to working together to improve the outcomes for all our children and it works towards the reforms and improvements that will deliver a world-class schooling system across Australia.

The Rudd Labor government has established three major priorities for reform, and the Prime Minister spoke about this most recently in his National Press Club address. Those reforms were, firstly, to raise the quality of teaching in our schools; secondly, to ensure that all students are benefiting from schooling, especially in disadvantaged communities; and, finally, to improve transparency and accountability of schools and the school system at all levels. Importantly, in this legislation, consistent with the agreements reached in COAG, is a commitment to ensure that Indigenous funding is guaranteed so that no non-government education providers are worse off under the new arrangements. This is a wonderful agenda for priorities in our schools. It is very clear to me, as I visit the 60-odd schools that I have in the electorate of Hasluck, that the two most important factors in the quality of education in my schools are the quality of leadership provided by the principal and the nature and quality of the teaching staff in those schools. Irrespective of the resources of the school, the quality of the classrooms and the quality of equipment available, nothing is more important than the leadership and quality of the teaching staff in those schools.

I am pleased to see for the first time a step that will bring some consistency to funding for government and non-government schools. The funding framework is about accountability, improvement and consistency across all sectors. It is important for parents as well as policymakers to have some transparency about the needs of the school and the particular quality and effectiveness issues within each school. The principal legislation I talk to today is the Schools Assistance Bill, which gives funding certainty to non-government schools during the period 2009 to 2012 and will apply to them those transparency and accountability requirements that are consistent with government schools. The legislation needs to be dealt with by the parliament at this time to ensure we have appropriated payments in sufficient time for schools to receive them in January 2009.

Previously, Commonwealth government funding, despite the plaintive submissions of the member for Maranoa, has come with a wide range of conditions and strings attached, imposing a multiplicity of commitments and accountability requirements very often complained about by non-government schools for the associated bureaucracy and red tape. This new funding framework will reduce the number of differential and different funding agreements. It will remove many of the input controls and forms of compliance and, instead, we will see, far more productively, something that focuses on payments and accountability of achieved and agreed outputs and outcomes. I hope it will feature simpler, strengthened performance information as well as a reporting framework consistent with the conditions required of the states under the COAG agreement.

An important part of the legislation is the government’s commitment to continuing to use the average government school recurrent costs formula to ensure some equity between the government and non-government sectors. As we know, the process of negotiation with the states continues, but we are reassured that the government will deliver on its election commitment of $42 billion in funding over four years for both government and non-government schools. Each level of government contributes to school funding. The states have the majority of the responsibility for government schools, which they own and manage, and the Commonwealth has been the primary source of public funds for the Catholic and independent schools. When the government school funding from state and Commonwealth sources is combined, it is not the case, as is often suggested to us, that government schools receive less public funding than non-government schools.

Having said all of that, I would be the first to say that the current system of funding has many anomalies in it and, indeed, would argue that it has some flaws. But I think a considerable amount of time has been wasted on the debate between the respective funding of government and non-government schools, and I am really pleased that this framework provides us with an opportunity to shift the debate to where it should be, which is to maximise the resources required for disadvantaged children in disadvantaged schools—in other words, to put behind us the days of arguing over the respective funding merits of government and non-government and, instead, to focus on our kids and the outcomes that they are getting from our schooling system.

That is why I am pleased that the state and Commonwealth government discussions have talked about three new national partnerships which will benefit schools, the first a national partnership to better assist disadvantaged schools, the second a national partnership to improve teacher quality and the third a national partnership to improve literacy and numeracy. In total, some $577 million for improving literacy and numeracy is budgeted in the forward estimates. I look forward to seeing the final amounts for the other partnerships as determined through that COAG process, but I am confident that we will see, contrary to the fears raised by the member for Maranoa, an increase in funding for the education system across Australia.

There are some conditions attached to the non-government funding included in the Schools Assistance Bill. The bill will require as a condition of funding the implementation of the national curriculum in all schools by 2012. The bill will meet Labor’s election commitment to improve transparency in Australian schooling through national testing, easy to understand reporting and public reporting on the performance of schools. Transparency is important for understanding the needs and the performance of Australian schools as well as giving parents the right information about how their child and their school are performing to support them in making the right choices about their schooling. It will also be a valuable guide to government and to policymakers about resources and decision making to ensure the greatest possible effectiveness of and improvement in the system.

I hope that, through this new funding and the transparency of reporting, we will be able to more accurately identify where the greatest educational need is located and encourage excellence in every school. To achieve that we need a basis for fair, consistent and accurate analysis of how different schools are performing. This will include reporting on the results of individual schools in national tests, showing how schools are doing compared to other like schools which share the same student characteristics. Pleasingly, this transparency will apply equally to non-government and government schools.

We have heard much debate about national testing and reporting. All schools, and indeed the school system, must ensure that the national student assessments specified in the regulations are carried out. They must participate in preparing national reports on the outcomes of schooling. They have to provide individual school information covering student background characteristics, literacy and numeracy testing outcomes, year 12 attainment and attendance rates. They have to provide reports to parents, as I said, using plain language, including assessment of the child’s achievement in comparison with the child’s peer group at the school and reports which show student achievement against the national average from the national literacy and numeracy tests. As part of all this, schools have to make publicly available school information, including contextual information about the school and its teachers, parents, key student outcomes, student and teacher satisfaction, and income by funding source. The regulations will specify the required data to report according to student background characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status, Indigenous background, language background, disability and geographic location. I believe this data will help identify and address the needs of students at risk of educational disadvantage and allow us to make meaningful comparisons, properly assess strengths and weaknesses, understand different patterns of disadvantage, share best practice and innovation, and direct assistance to where it is most needed.

The legislation gives effect also to the Commonwealth government’s commitment to implement its election commitment to continue existing SES funding and also ensures that maximum recurrent funding is automatically provided for schools that are special schools or that meet the criteria for a special assistance school. The legislation does, as the member for Maranoa pointed out, remove the provision for establishment grants. This is a matter that has been discussed in some detail, particularly with Catholic schools. They were fully integrated into the SES funding arrangements in 2005, and frankly there is no longer a need for establishment grants as we have experienced them in the past. The legislation continues to provide for the approval of new non-government schools in the non-government school system, and I hope that this will facilitate reform in the schools sector and provide an improved oversight of educational accountability and financial stability of non-government schools. As I say, I think this may also encourage better reporting and consistent implementation of Commonwealth initiatives, adherence to the legislative framework, achievement of the national goals for schooling, and ensure the viability and provision of schools in poorer and remote areas.

The legislation also touches on a number of other programs and seeks to appropriate funding for those programs. In many cases this will align arrangements in the non-government school sector with those currently applying in the government sector. I am also pleased to see supplementary assistance for Indigenous students at non-government schools, which is directed at helping to ‘close the gap’ in educational outcomes, will also be available. Programs under this funding may include homework centres, tutorial assistance and English as a second language for Indigenous language speakers amongst others. As I said at the outset of my speech, these two bills represent another step in the implementation of Labor’s education revolution. I have referred already to the historic COAG agreement reached in March this year. Most members would be aware of funding commitments already made to literacy and numeracy, to national curriculum development and to improvements and strategies in the area of the quality of teaching.

We have seen the beginning of the rollout of computers in schools. We have also seen the commencement of the trade training centres in schools program, a very comprehensive implementation of substantial changes to the Australian education system. It is my firm belief that one of the reasons why the Rudd government was indeed elected in November 2007 was its strong commitment to an education revolution. Australians want better education services in our nation and they want those services to be well resourced. They know the best way to ensure real opportunities for all Australians is to start with a good education and they want every child in Australia to have the chance of a quality education. They want investment in the early years of a child’s development, and I am very pleased to see the meeting of the new early childhood round table today in Canberra. They want higher quality, affordable schools—whether those schools are community, government or private—with great teachers, good discipline and sufficient resources to get the job done.

Too much time has been wasted in this country on debating the respective merits of and funding levels for schools based on whether they are government or non-government schools. We all know it is important to have a strong, well-resourced government school sector; but equally it is important to have a strong, well-resourced non-government school sector. This debate has not been assisted by flawed funding approaches in the past that have created unfortunate and inequitable anomalies. It is my great hope that this step, along with the introduction of the COAG national framework, will see the end of that debate and a focus instead on ensuring quality education for all our children and a schooling system that is about excellence and equity.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The Rudd government has stated that it came to office with a promise to bring an education revolution to Australia. To date, the government has announced computers in schools, but so far this has not resulted in actual computers on every desk—particularly not in my electorate—mostly because the practical aspects of actually delivering this promise had not been thought through. Photo opportunities do not deliver the hardware and capacity where it is actually needed. Of even more concern, what also had not been thought through in practical terms was the additional financial pressure the computers in schools program has placed on state governments and on the schools themselves. State governments and schools that have had to deal with the practical aspects of this decision have realised very quickly that a considerably greater amount of funding would be needed to bring the Rudd government’s plan of putting a computer on every desk to fruition. The government’s plan did not account for the significant additional costs of power points, power usage, cabling, maintenance, training, insurance and air conditioning. The list goes on and on to the point that the state governments and schools are seeking additional funding to implement the government’s promise.

I am now concerned that the present Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will need to appropriate $28 billion for continued funding for non-government, primary and secondary education in Australia for the 2009-12 period. This bill is necessary to provide continued Commonwealth funding for the next quadrennium. The previous government’s Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 provided funding from 2005 to 2008. However, this act provided funding for both government and non-government schools. My concern is that this bill marks a significant departure in Commonwealth funding arrangements for education in Australia. It has very specific issues for non-government schools, as it provides funding for only non-government schools and deliberately segregates and separates independent schools from government schools. We are told that future Commonwealth funding for government schools will be provided by the national education agreement, which is currently being negotiated with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments. However, in practical terms, this effectively means that the Rudd government will legislate for non-government schools before the finalisation of the national education agreement for government schools—a deliberate and calculated change. I note the Labor government says it has held extensive consultation with many stakeholders, but I would like to know how many independent schools associations and representative bodies in Western Australia, particularly those representing my electorate of Forrest, were consulted and exactly what their concerns and comments were.

This bill, while apparently preserving the total funding available to non-government schools, introduces a number of changes to school-funding agreements which has and will continue to generate significant concern in the non-government education sector. There appear to be four main areas where the non-government education sector will be negatively impacted, and I cannot support those clauses without amendment. Firstly, section 15 will change the grounds upon which the minister can elect to refuse or delay payment, which just makes it easier for the minister to do exactly that. Clause 15(c) provides new reasons for such refusal or payment delay. The qualified audit report requirement contained in subclause (i) appears to presume that if an audit statement is qualified then it necessarily signals that a school’s financial situation is precarious enough to warrant the minister refusing or delaying payment. The coalition believes that a qualified audit report is too broad a basis for assessing the financial viability of a school and would allow the minister to delay or refuse funding in spite of financial viability. Further to this, the last thing a school found to be struggling financially needs is to have its funding withheld or delayed. Should the auditor qualify his statement because of concerns about the school model, as opposed to financial concerns, this may also cause the funds to be withheld or delayed. Given the diversity of independent school models, clause 15(c)(i) should be deleted from the bill.

The second concern I have is that the new requirement in clause 22 that school funding agreements need to comply with the national curriculum by 2012 as specified in regulations. At this stage, there is no indication of exactly what the national curriculum will include for maths, science, history and English. We do know that the framing documents are currently being drafted, but so far the only documents that have been released are the initial advice documents on the history and the science curricula. The final documents will not be presented until sometime in 2009, yet this bill seeks to tie school funding to the acceptance of that curriculum. We therefore believe clause 22 should be removed.

Thirdly, this bill proposes new reporting requirements for schools, particularly relating to information about financial viability and funding sources, as referred to in clause 24. Funding sources is a new concept for reporting under this bill and could give the minister substantial new powers to demand information about the internal financial affairs of a school community. This is not a requirement under the current SES funding model. I wonder if there is an alternative agenda here with serious implications for non-government schools. What is the ultimate purpose of this information? Does this further funding condition foreshadow an attempt to cap or potentially decrease Commonwealth funding for independent schools?

This section allows the minister to require independent schools to disclose greater detail and additional information about their sources of funding. Such information might specifically include details of scholarship funds, bequests and other sources of funding such as profit-generating activities or community fund raising undertaken by parents and friends associations and school supporters. What level of accountability will be applied to simple fetes, stalls, raffles and volunteer fundraising activities? Will this effectively discourage support for independent schools? And what increased level of reporting will be necessary for the independent schools in my electorate of Forrest?

I can only draw the conclusion that this clause exists in order to lay the groundwork to develop a case to radically alter the SES funding system, potentially in the next funding, period, to one where those schools who are the beneficiaries of acts of philanthropy by parents or previous students and supporters are to be penalised through reduced or abolished Commonwealth support. The Labor government will be conducting a review of school funding in 2010 and the intent may well be to restructure the funding model for non-government schools along the lines of the old discredited education resources index model just in time for the next funding quadrennium of 2013 to 2016.

Considering statements made by Labor members, this is certainly feasible The member for Prospect declared in the House on 1 December 2004 that he believed the SES index was fundamentally flawed and that he thought the education resources index was a better formula to provide for the needs of schools and the capacity of the school to reach education standards. The member for Eden-Monaro was quoted in the Australian on 14 November 2007 as saying that the SES system was a ridiculous approach to looking at the needs of schools and that Labor will move away from that and get down eventually to a proper needs based approach.

What can be determined to be ‘a proper needs based approach’ based on section 24 of the legislation may ultimately punish schools that have made effective use of their funds and worked closely with their wider community and it may well be a blatant attempt to standardise well-run independent schools. Clearly, the Labor government is harvesting all income-generating and asset information of private schools to calculate their economic capacity and potentially use it to justify a reduction of funding.

The proposed reporting requirements could even lead to well-run successful independent schools decreasing their fundraising activities for extra-curricula out-of-school activities just to maintain their Commonwealth funding for day-to-day operations. Their funding could well be capped at the 2008 rate. Well-run private schools have well-proven business plans for the future that they expect to continue to be successful, knowing that the school board makes sound education and business decisions. Many parents sacrifice other areas of their lives or work additional hours to enable their children to attend an independent school of their choice that provides the type of education that they want for their children We in the coalition support the expectation of Australian parents that the government should contribute to the education of their children.

I have a range of very efficient independent schools offering a diversity of opportunity to students in my electorate of Forrest through processes which often include intellectual, physical, moral, social and creative growth, as well as vocational preparation, whilst encouraging students to achieve their potential within a caring environment. There are many small schools and many have very sound relationships with local and regional industry, the community and the environment.

Some examples of these schools are the Georgiana Molloy Anglican School in Busselton, the Kearnan Catholic College in Manjimup, the Yallingup Steiner School, Ocean Forest Lutheran College in Dalyellup and Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School. Each one of these schools provides for a specific set of needs within their communities and within the expectations of parents, families and teachers.

It is equally important that families in regional areas have access to the diversity of educational opportunities provided by independent schools. Schools such as these should not be disadvantaged for their professional or diverse approach to providing opportunities and choice for parents and students. Measures in this bill could reduce funding simply because a school is offering high-quality facilities and resources. This proposal is a major change to the formula for Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. This is not an education revolution; it is a potential budget cutback ultimately reducing funding to non-government schools.

I have a total of 29 non-government schools in my electorate of Forrest, 27 of which have SES scores. There is a difference of over $1,400 per student per year between the highest and lowest SES score. The current SES model for schools funding is a much fairer model than what is proposed in this bill. It measures the socioeconomic status of parents whose children are enrolled at a particular school. The SES model links student addresses with current ABS census data and the SES index is then applied to provide an SES score for each school. Schools drawing students from high scoring SES areas receive lower levels of Commonwealth funding than schools that draw from areas of average or low SES.

I intend to maintain my focus on looking after the interests of all schools, students and parents within my electorate and that includes independent schools and their students. I do this by also supporting my coalition colleagues in calling for the removal of section 24(1)(b).

The fourth area of concern I have is with the Labor government intention to immediately phase out the new non-government schools establishment grants. The previous government encouraged the non-government school sector and the right of parents and students to have a choice of a range of educational opportunities. However, this bill only makes provision for those schools approved in 2008 to receive grants in 2009. The Labor government is making it increasingly difficult for new non-government schools to develop.

Some measures in this bill will allow struggling schools to fail, while compromising successful independent schools. Schools should be strongly encouraged to provide both a diversity of educational opportunities as well as enhanced education by way of improving resources and assets such as new buildings, equipment, information technology and teachers, I intend to maintain my focus on supporting parents and families in my electorate to have the choice as to how and where their children are educated in a way that reflects their values by ensuring that non-government schools continue to receive an appropriate incremental increase in Commonwealth funding into the future. I believe that they should continue to excel in the provision of both educational and pastoral services as well as capital investment in facilities that will not compromise their future funding rounds. I support the shadow minister’s proposed amendments.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 and the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will appropriate $28 billion for non-government schools and non-government bodies for 2009 to 2012. This bill will also implement the Commonwealth’s commitment to providing funding certainty to non-government schools for 2009 to 2012 through the continuation of the existing socioeconomic status funding formula and indexation arrangements. This bill will appropriate funding for all non-government schools for 2009 to 2012, including specific funding for schools and students in rural and regional areas under the remoteness loading for recurrent grants and through the provision of Indigenous supplementary assistance weighted to provide additional support for schools’ campuses in remote or very remote areas; it will also fund the Country Areas program.

This bill will address the funding of non-government schools for 2009 to 2012 as part of the Rudd Labor government’s overall agenda for delivering an education revolution to all schools whether they are government or non-government schools. This bill will also meet the Rudd Labor government’s election commitment to continue the current SES funding. The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will appropriate $28 billion worth of Commonwealth funding for recurrent capital and targeted assistance for non-government schools and bodies, including supplementary assistance for Indigenous school students, as well as establishing an Indigenous funding guarantee to ensure that non-government education providers are no worse off under these arrangements. This bill will combine Indigenous-specific school education programs into a single streamlined Indigenous supplementary assistance element, align the indexation and remoteness classifications of this funding with those which apply to mainstream recurrent funding and provide for maximum recurrent funding for non-government schools with a very high proportion of Indigenous enrolments.

A positive example of this in my own electorate of Flynn is the Harmony in Between program, which was launched at the masses for the opening of the 2008 school year across the Rockhampton diocese, which takes in my electorate of Flynn. The project is focused on presenting Indigenous perspectives to all learners in our diocese. The mission statement for the project declares:

With Jesus as our guide it is our purpose to enrich the experiences of all our learners with different ways of knowing and doing, to lead them to reflect on these perspectives and to act in inclusive and socially just ways.

Indigenous perspectives are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s ways of knowing, doing, being and relating to the world. For Indigenous people, the relationships between individual, country, law and spirituality are not easily separated, as each informs the other.

For us to fully appreciate contemporary Indigenous issues, it is vital to gain an understanding of Indigenous world views and how historical events continue to impact on and live with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today. Intergenerational experiences, both positive and negative, are manifest in the behaviours and attitudes of many young Indigenous people in our care. To gain a deeper understanding of Indigenous experiences, we need to develop relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Schools are encouraged to form genuine partnerships with members of their local Indigenous community so that the most authentic of Indigenous perspectives can be presented to our students. To support these personal interactions, teachers will have access to a class page on Mysuite, our intranet service. It contains internet links which have been evaluated using criteria formulated for this project, along with other resources to support teachers within the classroom and in their own professional and personal development.

At the masses, each school received a print of the Harmony in Between artwork, which was created by local Indigenous artists Howard and Kaylene Butler. The painting tells the story of how we are honouring the past, enriching the present and shaping the future in partnership with our Indigenous communities. Schools have been asked to hang the print in a prominent place to indicate that they are places where Indigenous peoples and their cultures are valued and respected and that together we are working for harmony between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Unravelling some of the mystery surrounding the hidden history of Indigenous Australians was the focus of the Crossing Cultures workshops held in all schools across the diocese over terms 1 and 2. Indigenous education coordinator Coral Way and liaison officers Phillipa Johnson, Hazel Hill and Katie Wragge presented the in-service, which detailed the last 220 years of Australian history from an Indigenous perspective. The in-service taught that most people today have a reasonable knowledge of Aboriginal culture before 1788 and also of what is happening now but that there is a great void of knowledge surrounding the two centuries in between, that this period of history has shaped the complex and diverse issues that Indigenous Australians now experience and that open, honest dialogue and further education will pave the way forward.

Crossing Cultures aims to improve understanding of issues affecting our Indigenous students and, in doing so, our teachers and staff are in the best position to provide an education for these students specific to their needs. The Schools Assistance Bill is a major building block in that shared national agenda. It appropriates funding for non-government schools during the 2009 to 2012 period in a way that will give funding certainty, focus on quality, and apply transparency and accountability requirements that are consistent with government schools and with Labor’s election commitments on transparency.

As well as meeting these commitments, the bill will make important changes to funding for Indigenous students in non-government schools. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 has three main purposes, that is to say, continuation of appropriations for 2009 to 2012 for a range of targeted programs and projects under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to support improvements in Indigenous education outcomes and assist in closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The second purpose is to provide appropriations for supplementary assistance to preschools and vocational education and training providers with Indigenous students from 1 January 2009 as transitional arrangements until alternative legislation associated with early childhood and vocational education and training specific purpose payments and national partnership payments become operational in 2009. The purpose is making a number of amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005, the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, and the repeal of the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000.

This bill will provide the government with capacity to work with Indigenous communities, parents and families to improve their engagement with education providers so that they can be supported in becoming informed consumers of educational services. Indigenous parental involvement in decision making is an essential element to improving educational outcomes. For example, in my home town of Gladstone in Central Queensland, the Gladstone South State School has been through a holistic program we call Working Together, making a brighter future that invests in the growth and development of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and their families. A major innovation is the involvement of an Adopt-an-Elder project by the Gladstone South State School and looking at a total package for improving the education and employment outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Their main focus has been on improving the education outcomes of their students by targeted work and the monitoring of this on a weekly basis. The school has seen an improvement in the reading, spelling and writing ages of these students on average from 12 months to two years growth in a six-month period. The Gladstone South State School has, through this careful monitoring, identified a number of Indigenous students to be included in their school’s gifted program extension. This success has also resulted in improved self-esteem and self-concept for these students, creating a positive cycle that will continue to see their learning improve through regular attendance.

Another example can be found in another part of my electorate of Flynn, Biloela. Biloela State High School, a member of the Biloela Indigenous Education Advisory Group, has successfully conducted Parent School Partnership Initiatives programs over the last two years. Both projects have had a different focus and Indigenous students and their families have benefited from these programs. The major focus has always been literacy, numeracy and attendance, with a number of different strategies utilised. Engagement of the local Indigenous community has been paramount to the success of the program and has resulted in much greater communication between participating schools and home with positive results in the area of attendance. Students have been provided with opportunities through the PSPI program such as Successmaker, individualised student support in literacy and numeracy via an interactive computer package Cultural Calendar, a literacy and numeracy research activity on the local Indigenous culture.

The success of these programs can be best measured by the outcomes of the students supported. An excellent example is a year-10 male Indigenous student from Biloela State High School who was identified through the 2007 program. This student had not successfully passed either his English or maths programs at school and had no clear career direction. Through the intervention and support of the PSPI program this young man completed Access 10 studies, resulting in a pass in both year 10 English and maths and he also completed a valuable work experience. This work experience placement then led to a full-time traineeship position as a mechanic with a local employer.

The PSPI funding provides a full-time Indigenous project officer who supports students through their families and coordinates the involvement of participating schools across the state, Catholic and independent sectors in all aspects of the program. The PSPI coordinator for 2008 was also very pleased with the results of Indigenous students at Biloela high school in the year 9 national literacy and numeracy assessment program in which 75 per cent of Indigenous students were above the state mean in grammar and punctuation and 75 per cent of Indigenous students were above the school mean in spelling. Both of these areas are covered extensively by the Successmaker program.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Flynn will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.