Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including recurrent funding arrangements until the end of 2013 and grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014, for non-government schools. I begin by putting on the record what I believe is the importance of education. Education is a process of imparting skills and knowledge. It provides access to information and the opportunity to acquire deeper knowledge. It enables and extends practical experience and interacts with technology to enhance productivity. From preschool kids to adult learners, participants in education have greater opportunities to build their self-awareness and confidence. Education helps to develop resilience and to secure a stable family income. Education is a building block of innovation—it inspires creativity and enlivens passion. Education connects our community and helps us build a better world for the next generations.

The Gold Coast, where I come from, is fast becoming an education city. In my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast, we have two universities. At the southern end of the electorate we have Southern Cross University and in the north of the electorate we have Bond University. We have TAFE facilities and several training colleges, including some that are privately owned and operated. We also have over 30 schools, including the private schools and faith based schools of Somerset College, Marymount College, Marymount Primary School, St Andrews Lutheran College, St Augustine’s Parish Primary School, St Vincent’s Catholic Parish Primary School, Kings Christian College, Hillcrest Christian College, Gold Coast Christian College and All Saints Anglican School.

I consult widely with principals, teachers and parents throughout the electorate, and a couple of issues are consistently raised. Firstly, parents want a choice of schools for their children. Secondly, they want the opportunity to send their children to an independent school and not to be penalised by the government for making that choice. As I have indicated already, there is a significant number of independent and faith based schools in my electorate, and parents appreciate having the choice of sending their children to those schools. Many of the independent and faith based schools have significant waiting lists, and this demonstrates that there is a strong demand for independent and faith based education on the Gold Coast, particularly on the southern Gold Coast.

I take this opportunity to speak about one of the schools in my electorate, St Andrews Lutheran College. I recently had the opportunity to speak to the principal, Mr Tim Kotzur. Whilst our initial discussion was regarding the Ride2School program, we also spoke about funding arrangements for independent and faith based schools. Mr Kotzur subsequently wrote to me specifically about the issues that were relevant to St Andrews. By way of background, St Andrews is a prep-to-year-12 coeducational school providing Christian education in the Tallebudgera and Burleigh areas of the Gold Coast. Since its establishment in 1993, the school has grown rapidly to a stage where it now educates approximately 1,100 students. St Andrews comprises three subschools: a junior school, which is for prep to year 6; a middle school, which is for years 7 to 9; and a senior school, which is for years 10 to 12.

The junior school, using the International Baccalaureate’s Primary Years Programme—the PYP—as its framework, places a strong emphasis on developing both the fundamentals of numeracy and literacy and higher-order inquiry skills. The middle school has a diverse vertical electives programme, and year 9 students experience an extended outdoor education and service-learning program. Senior school students select a pathway that reflects their academic and vocational needs and provides what is most appropriate to their postschool aspirations. Information and communication technologies are integrated across the curriculum for all year levels.

St Andrews values a holistic approach and encourages students to develop values that enrich the intellect, nurture the spirit, develop social responsibility and create healthy lifestyles. It is a school that seeks to provide an environment where each student is valued and is challenged to discover, develop and use their unique gifts and abilities for personal growth and service to others.

St Andrews, like other faith based and independent schools, strives to keep its fees accessible to the families in the community. Ninety per cent of the St Andrews families come from the local area. To continue to provide affordable, accessible quality education, St Andrews and other non-government schools need stable and guaranteed funding to enable them to financially plan for the future. All students, regardless of where they are educated, should receive a basic funding entitlement. Providing for the education of all Australian students is a fundamental responsibility of a democratically elected government, as it ensures that all Australian students have the opportunity to be educated to recognised standards and to world’s best practice. Parents with children attending St Andrews and other independent schools maintain their effort in contributing to the education of their children, and I congratulate them for continuing to do so.

Access to capital funding to plan for new buildings and facilities and to refurbish current ones is also required if the faith based and independent schools are to continue to provide excellence in education. I commend St Andrews Lutheran College on its strong academic, sporting and extracurricular records and look forward to assisting them, along with many other schools in my electorate of McPherson, in the future.

The population of South-East Queensland has been growing rapidly in recent years, not just from births but also from former residents of the southern states relocating for the lifestyle offered, particularly by the Gold Coast. Many of those relocating are families with school-age children, some of whom who have already started school in Victoria or New South Wales. As these families assess which school would be most appropriate for their child, they deserve certainty from the government.

A school student’s education can well last 13 years. The attitudes of the Gillard government and the minister do not just offer uncertainty to the sector but to the parents and students. This bill extends the funding arrangements for schools based on the previous coalition government’s socioeconomic status, or SES, funding model, and I support it. The SES funding model is vastly superior, despite the Prime Minister’s previous criticism of this more equitable and fair model in comparison to the previous Labor government’s Educational Resources Index. The Prime Minister is on the record claiming this model is ‘flawed and unworkable’, which of course has partly contributed to the uncertainty surrounding in particular the non-government education sector. I note that the minister for education initially refused to confirm the SES model would be extended through to 2012, contributing to the problem.

This bill extends the arrangements until 2013. While this is only two years away, at the very least there is some element of certainty extended to the sector through this bill, despite the Gillard government’s dubious support to this approach in the long term. As this bill today only extends the funding for two years, and this is done in recognition of an election promise the Prime Minister made under pressure, parents would be asking themselves: ‘We can afford to send our children to this particular school for now, with the current fees and in acknowledgement of increases in fees vaguely in line with inflation, but will we be able to continue to send our children here until they graduate?’

A four-year funding agreement for a non-government school can be $1.3 billion. If this funding were stripped out of our schools, some would have no choice but to raise fees in order to maintain the quality of their facilities and the education they provide. This model does not take into account school resources or fees, which raises concerns regarding the government’s motivation behind the recent additions to the MySchool website. We know, historically, that the Labor Party has been critical of non-government school funding, arguing that this funding reduces the funding available for government schools while ignoring the fact that the bulk of this funding comes from the states. The small concession to parents, students and schools offered through this bill does not offer the full certainty they require. I call on the government to commit to take any alternative model they may introduce that will rip funds out of our non-government schools to an election so that the electors can make up their minds whether it deserves support.

Because the SES model distributes according to need, the schools serving our communities in most need of assistance receive the greatest assistance. In the electorate of McPherson this will be schools at the south of the electorate, including St Andrews Lutheran College. What this means in practice is that parents, irrespective of their income levels, have a realistic opportunity to decide the most appropriate schooling for their child, including independent or faith based education. In addition, it creates incentives for non-government schools to branch out and assist students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds as there will be a financial benefit.

As has already been stated, the most seemingly well-equipped schools have student populations that are not necessarily comprised of our most economically advantaged students. Many parents make enormous sacrifices to send their children to the school of their choice, and their choices in this regard can be shaped by a variety of factors. It could be that their child has a talent for music or sport and the school of their choice offers special programs in these areas that are not offered by their local state school. It could be that, due to behavioural or learning difficulties of a student, the parents select a non-government school which offers programs that they believe will make a long-lasting difference to their child. Additionally, we should support parents who wish for their child to receive a religious education at a religious school in the spirit of acknowledging the importance of choice and religious freedom. It must also be acknowledged that many of our so-called advantaged schools supply numerous scholarships and assistance for underprivileged students, and this model encourages this behaviour to continue.

Schools are not discouraged from fundraising through the SES model. Of course, school communities should be encouraged to support their own schools through fundraising. Indeed, there are not only financial benefits available in this regard. Fetes, working bees, fundraising committees and school events all add to the sense of a true school community and build relationships between parents, and all of this has a flow-on effect that is positive for the students.

I support this bill and support the SES funding model as a superior model. The SES model encourages choice, acknowledges that non-government schools deserve support and sensibly distributes Commonwealth education funding. It encourages positive behaviours by schools and parents and it ensures that those schools that nurture our most disadvantaged receive the most support. It is on that basis that I support the bill.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 provides for the existing federal funding system for non-government schools to be extended by a further one year until the end of 2013. It is the implementation of an announcement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign year. The Greens said at the time, through our education spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, that this bill adds yet another year to the growing delay in tackling inequities in Australia’s school funding system. It means that any reform to the current system will not be implemented until at least 2014, over six years since this Labor government was elected.

The current SES funding model was introduced by the Howard government in 2001. The model links the residential addresses of students enrolled at a school to census data to produce a socioeconomic profile of the school community and its ability to support the school. Under the SES model, funding is allocated according to the socioeconomic status of the community the school is located in. A school’s SES score determines its per-student general recurrent funding rates as a percentage of the average government school recurrent costs, thus ensuring increases in funding to public schools are passed on to non-government schools. The funding model incorporates a guarantee that schools will not be worse off, leading to large numbers of non-government schools receiving more funds than they would be entitled to by strictly applying the SES formula.

This current model has been widely acknowledged to be flawed and unfair by public school advocates, the Australian Education Union, educational academics, the government while it was in opposition and an internal report on the model commissioned by the opposition when they were in government. The fact that this government has initiated a review into funding for schooling is an acknowledgment that the current model needs reform.

The Greens have stayed consistent in our view that this current model for funding non-government schools requires fundamental change and that public education must be central to any new funding model. The government when in opposition shared the concerns of the Greens and others with the Howard government funding model—in fact, the Prime Minister was one of the most vocal critics in outlining the flaws in the model. And yet in government not only did the Labor Party keep the inequitable Howard model for another quadrennium of funding from 2008; it is now extending it for another year. It is no surprise that this bill has opposition support.

In 2008, in the debate on the legislation for the current quadrennium of funding to non-government schools, Senator Milne moved amendments to limit the funding to two years, until the end of 2011. It was the Greens’ belief that the review promised by the Labor Party prior to the 2007 election would be undertaken in the two years from 2008 and that a new funding formula would be developed by the 2010 election. Instead, it is likely that the Australian community will go through two elections before this government implements a new model for Commonwealth funding of non-government schools.

The Greens welcome the commitment to a review and we are following its progress with great interest. We look forward to an honest, constructive debate on schools funding in our community. We encourage parents, teachers, schools and the broader community to become engaged in the discussion. The education of our children is too important to ignore, and the review is critical in making sure that we utilise government resources effectively to ensure the best education system possible.

We want to see a public school system that sets the standard for education in the nation. To do this, the Greens believe, the public eduction system needs significantly more investment. We believe that a strong public education system is essential for a robust democratic society—a society that values equity and fairness, that values our children and their futures and that understands the role of education in redressing social inequalities and creating cohesive and strong communities. But we are faced with a terrible legacy of underinvestment in public education by Australian governments of all persuasions. On OECD rankings, Australia in the bottom half for public funding to public education, when you exclude tertiary, as a percentage of GDP.

Many people in my electorate send their children to non-government schools, and of course they should have the right to do that, but no-one should ever be forced into a situation where the choice is made in part because of declining public standards in public schools. We cannot continue to starve public schools and then be surprised that people are increasingly choosing to send their children elsewhere. That is a vicious circle that will simply reinforce itself and continue the process of declining proportional funding to public schools. I must admit that, when I hear the Prime Minister and others say that they intend to take the market principles that have been developed elsewhere and apply them to our education system, it sends a shiver down my spine. I have grave concerns for the future of public education in this country.

The Greens acknowledge the investments that this government has made in education in the last three years. We have not always agreed with the government on its approach—for example, we continue to have concerns with the MySchool website. However, we supported the Building the Education Revolution as part of the stimulus package bringing much-needed infrastructure investment to schools around the country. But, consistent with our previous positions, we are disappointed that the government is continuing to delay much-needed reform in public schools funding.

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

As I have said on numerous occasions in this House, education is a priority of mine and I believe that people in Australia should have access to lifetime learning, regardless of where they live. To this extent, I am supportive of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, as it provides at least short-term funding certainty to the non-government schools sector by extending the former, coalition government’s funding model for another year. This bill extends the current legislation while the Gonski review of government funding for schooling is being conducted. However, this bill, and the review, reignites the debate about the future of school funding. When announcing the review, the Prime Minister said that school funding ‘should be based on simplicity, flexibility, stability, equity, value for money, transparency and best practice’.

An article in the Australian earlier this year stated that in dollar terms, taking into account the combination of both state and federal funding, students at government schools receive approximately twice the government funding that is received by students in non-government schools. But it appears that the Labor government may well be seeking to widen this funding disparity. We do know that Labor voted against the Howard government’s socioeconomic status funding model, and we have since heard from a number of Labor members that they are opposed to equitable funding for non-government schools.

This is a stark reminder that the Labor Party is very much still the party of the private schools hit list, in spite of its rhetoric in the run to the last election. This could well turn out to be just the next election commitment given to the Australian people that the Prime Minister breaks—time will tell—just like the deliberately misleading commitment that there would be ‘no carbon tax under a government I lead’. What is irrefutable is that the Liberal Party is the party that supports families having choices in the education decisions they feel best suit the needs of their children, their location or their specific circumstances. During the time of the Howard government, many schools in my electorate were encouraged.

It is a choice. This choice includes government, independent, Catholic and other religious schools. History proves our commitment to this through the introduction of SES funding. It is a funding model designed to ensure that education funding actually gets to the right areas irrespective of whether that is a private or a public school. This model is based around the belief that excellence should be achieved and achievable in both government and non-government schools.

The Liberal Party believes in choice for parents and students, as all on the coalition side do. We believe that school communities need to have a greater say in how their schools function within their specific community and what strategic direction their schools should take. That is why, at a WA state level, a Liberal led government is expanding its Independent Public Schools program. It is a very effective program. One in four government schools have submitted expressions of interest, and there are currently 98 independent public schools in Western Australia, representing a wide range from across the socioeconomic spectrum, including primary and high schools, senior colleges, district high schools and education support centres. This initiative empowers principals, teachers and school communities to devise and drive local responses to suit the needs of their students and communities. What better outcome could you want? Clearly, the evidence shows that parents and school communities are embracing this new initiative and find that it allows them to have a greater say in how their schools are run.

When I read this legislation, I noticed the omission of the national curriculum and I was concerned how the government’s proposed national curriculum and time lines may affect independent public schools in WA. The shadow minister for education has had to lead by example by moving an amendment to fix what is unfortunately the latest flawed piece of Labor legislation. The shadow minister moved that the national curriculum be included in the legislation. Last year the government was forced to back away from its original promise to implement the national curriculum by the beginning of this year. In an unfortunate continuing example of the government’s incompetence, the delay was caused by concerns about the quality of the national curriculum and how it was being proposed by the government.

The national curriculum has to be able to demonstrate that it is better than existing state curricula and can be clearly evaluated as an improvement. Labor’s current national curriculum has been labelled in some instances as incoherent, inferior, lacking in quality and clarity, and, if you are a school, this is of particular concern. It has been labelled worse by the state government and education stakeholders. The Labor government has an awfully long way to go in delivering a national curriculum that is not detrimental or inferior to state curricula.

Given the diversity of issues in my electorate, one key aspect of the national curriculum must the be provision for local variation. One size does not fit all—this is a message across many portfolio areas that the Labor government simply cannot grasp and continues to fail to grasp. Local principals, staff, parents and communities are in the best position to identify what will and will not work for individual schools as demonstrated by those 98 WA independent public schools as well as our independent and Catholic schools.

The national curriculum must allow schools to continue to capitalise on local knowledge, experience and commitment. What works at a school in Sydney may well not work in my electorate in places like Brunswick, Donnybrook or Dunsborough. I have absolutely no doubt that principals, staff, parents and the local communities in the south-west of WA know far better what is needed in their schools than the Labor government in Canberra.

This bill is more noteworthy for what it does not address than for what it does. It ignores the fact that the current act requires that non-government schools implement the national curriculum on or before 31 January 2012. This simple administrative issue should have been rectified in the legislation.

One thing I believe should be agreed on in this House is the importance of education. At a recent address to the International Women of Courage Award ceremony in Washington, the Prime Minister said the following:

Perhaps the right of greatest ultimate importance, the right to education.

I am passionate about education.

…            …            …

Education is the key to all our opportunities.

…            …            …

Education is the one thing no one can ever take away from us.

The Prime Minister said that ‘education is the one thing that no-one can ever take away from us.’ What a slap in the face this statement is for the thousands of rural and regional students and families who are being actively discriminated against by the Prime Minister’s changes to youth allowance. If the Prime Minister has said ‘the right of greatest ultimate importance’ is ‘the right to education’, if she is genuinely concerned, if she is passionate about education and if she genuinely believes what she said in the US, then why has the Prime Minister taken away the option of a tertiary education for some regional and rural students through those changes to youth allowance? Why has the Prime Minister deliberately and repeatedly resisted this parliament and the will of the Australian people to fix the very problem the Prime Minister created?

Prime Minister, I am working for equity of access for rural and regional students and I challenge the Prime Minister to deliver here in Australia what she said she was committed to in the US: ‘the right of greatest ultimate importance, the right to education’. I challenge the Prime Minister to offer that right to students affected by changes to youth allowance—the young people in my electorate and nearly 20,000 around Australia. The Prime Minister cannot continue to say one thing and do another. The Prime Minister cannot continue to mislead the Australian public both domestically in relation to education and internationally. It is time for the Prime Minister to do what the Prime Minister has said she believes in: the right to education, the right that a lot of students who are affected by inner regional classification now cannot access.

This government has a responsibility to the education of students around Australia, and this definitely includes those in rural and regional areas like the south-west of Western Australia. This discrimination should not be allowed to continue, but unfortunately again this demonstrates the contempt with which the Labor government holds rural and regional Australia. I support the amendments and the extension of funding arrangements to non-government schools until the end of 2013, although I place on record my serious concerns about what the government will do next to the choices of parents and students following the current review.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 and against the amendment moved by the Manager of Opposition Business in the House. This bill confirms the Gillard government’s commitment to ensuring the certainty of investment in all Australian schools. As I have discussed with many teachers in my electorate—many of them former colleagues—the government’s review of funding for schooling is a-once-in-a-generation chance to build a community consensus around education needs for our community and our nation.

As the Prime Minister and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth have said on many occasions, Labor is all about ensuring that every child has the opportunity to get a great education. The Prime Minister’s words that ‘all children need to be supported in their education, regardless of where they go to school’, ring in my ears as an educator. We understand that as a government we must support all children to learn—no matter what way, shape or form that education may take. With the passage of this legislation, we will be able to continue to provide recurrent and capital funding to non-government schools while the review is conducted. This will provide certainty to Catholic and independent schools to enable them to continue to give their students a good education.

As a teacher with over three decades experience in Catholic education and as a participant in the preparation of teachers for engagement in all education settings, I can tell you how much confidence in continuity of funding is really appreciated. Labor values participation in education, and our credentials are on display for all to see in all of the education initiatives, including this amendment bill. We value participation in democracy and we celebrate diversity—and nowhere is this celebration of diversity of more fundamental importance than in the education sector.

I am mindful of the overarching goals for Australian schooling articulated in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians in December 2008. It clearly sets out for us a commitment to promoting equity and excellence, and that is at the heart of this amendment bill. The goal of the Melbourne declaration is for all young Australians to become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens. This is the work of Australian teachers, and they need certainty in order to be able to continue to do that.

It is through education that our children learn the principles of democracy and about the choices that they can face as they work and play as part of our wider community. We are a diverse community: multicultural and of many faiths. Families need to be able to choose where they send their children to school and they need to feel comfortable and confident that there is an easy match between the principles they are espousing at home, the language with which they espouse those principles, and the place in which their children take their first steps into a wider community.

We have a fantastic education system in this country. It is a system that has grown over hundreds of years and has developed into the world-class education system that our students experience today. The system itself reflects our diversity; from the very earliest days, Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian groups ran schools in the new colony. One can only imagine the much better life outcomes our first peoples would have experienced if their spirituality and knowledge had been respected and embedded in a curriculum that honoured and engaged young Aboriginal learners in ways that linked to the discourses and cultural practices of their first community, their families and their local communities.

Regardless of such values in the past, I know from personal experience that right now there are thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers out there who are committed to and excited by the prospect of awakening in students a deeper understanding of the rich world in which we live. These teachers work in a huge range of schools. I know that they teach because they are passionate people, they care about their students, they care about our society and they care about our schools—all of our schools and all of our students.

Teachers arrive at tertiary settings from all schooling sectors and they return to our varied schooling sectors—all of them. These teachers are teaching in state schools, Catholic schools, independent schools, selective schools, Jewish schools, Christian schools, Islamic schools, Steiner schools and, most importantly, schools in Indigenous communities. They are teaching the standard curriculum, which is soon to be a standardised national curriculum. They are doing it in a range of settings and in a rich range of cultural, religious and philosophical perspectives. Schooling in Australia is reflective of and embedded in a rich tapestry that is a sign of a healthy democracy.

I know that there are tens of thousands of dedicated students who are eager to learn, eager to participate and eager to engage with their community. Every day, kids around Australia get up and go to their school. They go to schools that are as diverse—perhaps even more diverse—as the range of individuals represented in this chamber. These children go to school not just to learn but to meet other kids and socialise. We have all seen just how valuable learning is, how life changing and transformative a good education can be.

Parents want to see their children educated in the best possible environment; they want them to learn in a supportive, caring, engaging and exciting atmosphere, and there needs to be a wide range of schools that offer a ‘best fit’ for unique kids. I know these parents want to see their children growing, developing and learning about themselves and about the wide and wonderful world in which we live. I know parents want to see their children grow up with aspirations and dreams. They want their children to unpack all of their talents, all of their intelligence and to rise to the talents within their minds and bodies. They want their children to engage with our society, to have a positive impact in our community and to contribute in a great way to our nation. I know this, because I want all of these things for my own children.

To clarify why this bill is so important: the bill provides the certainty and security that is so vital to the non-government education sector. By securing funding for Catholic and independent schools until 2013, we are allowing these schools to continue their work of providing a positive and valuable choice for the education of many students around Australia with certainty. As a government, we must provide this certainty, because we are committed, 100 per cent, to seeing that each and every student in our nation receives not just a good education but a great education.

We want to be a government that sees education not as a public cost burden but as a public investment and a commitment to a positive future for our youth. Indeed, education really is an investment in the future of our nation. It is an investment in the development of our communities and in the development of our families and our youth’s future careers. It is an investment in the growth of equality, tolerance, compassion and democracy.

This bill is so important because it provides consistency to the education sector in a time of critical change. There are exciting things going on in Australia’s education system, including the development and careful delivery of a national curriculum. We must do what we can to take the pressure off schools while these changes occur. Removing the ambiguity around funding is one way we can do that.

This bill is important because it provides a $3.5 million funding guarantee for Indigenous education in 2013. This Labor government has a proven track record of positive engagement with the first peoples of Australia. It is another core value of our party. We welcome opposition bipartisanship, but we are the party that made the apology and we are the architects of closing the gap. This bill continues the long road to recovery; it continues our efforts to see that we make amends for past injustices; and it continues our commitment to reducing the inequality between Aboriginal people of this country and those more fortunate.

Another important aspect of this bill is that it secures recurrent funding support for some of our most disadvantaged students in rural and remote areas. The Labor Party approach Australia’s future with optimism. We approach the office of governance with absolute positive resolve. It is through clarity and collaboration that we can further enhance our education so that it supports all students, no matter how they came to be where they are. By supporting this bill we are supporting the great work of every teacher in every child’s education. We are supporting schools that make an invaluable contribution to our great democracy.

I would characterise the proposed opposition amendment as an unproductive retreat from bipartisanship on education. The proposed amendment removes from the act the implementation date of 31 January 2012 and it replaces it with a date set by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth by legislative instrument. It also inserts a clause that requires the date set by the minister to be no earlier than the date before which he or she is satisfied that the curriculum will be implemented in government schools in each state and territory and if it appears that implementation in government schools will not occur by this date, the minister must set a later date. The current act provides that a funding agreement for non-government schools must implement the national curriculum prescribed by regulations for primary or secondary education, or both, as applicable. This requirement must be satisfied on or before 31 January 2012.

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

Mr Garrett interjecting

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The shadow minister and the minister will have their chance in the debate on the amendment.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the minister’s wise words have been very edifying. On 8 December 2010 all Australian education ministers agreed to endorse Australia’s first national curriculum and endorsed the curriculum implementation time line that the Australian curriculum in English, mathematics, history and science be substantially implemented by the end of 2013. All schools—both government and non-government—will, therefore, have in place our first Australian curriculum from foundation to year 10 in these subjects by that time.

I have been assured by the minister that the government has a process in place for resolving this issue in consultation with the sector as appropriate. A careful and respectful consultation is a far superior method to that advocated by those opposite. This rushed amendment by the opposition will not deliver anything but alarm and division. The government has no intention of treating government and non-government schools differently in relation to implementation of the Australian curriculum. We will work constructively with the non-government sector schools to implement a sustainable solution.

There was never an intention or an expectation that this matter would be dealt with as part of this bill, and neither the member for Sturt nor the non-government school sector have raised it with the minister. The only place this issue was raised was in a release by Christian Schools Australia—which, when contacted, agreed that they were happy with the government’s current process and issued a revised statement.

The amendment proposed by the member for Sturt is ambiguous and would result in unreasonable uncertainty for non-government schools, as the schools’ required implementation date will be dependent on the progress of each state and territory. The amendment could require the minister to change the implementation date for the non-government sector irrespective of the time lines agreed by the ministerial council—and that is completely unsatisfactory.

If one state or territory government is dragging its heels in meeting the deadlines set by the ministerial council to implement the curriculum, this could then jeopardise the implementation in all non-government schools across Australia. How careless, how foolish and how short-sighted. This amendment will not give our schools the certainty they need. I commend the bill to the House without amendment.

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

I rise in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011.

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

Mr Pyne interjecting

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

I was so moved by the intense and wonderful contributions of my colleagues on this side that I have come to add my contribution to this particular debate. I thank the shadow minister for being so keen to hear me that he has acknowledged my presence in the debate.

There is an important process underway instituted by this government to review the most appropriate mechanism for schools funding. Within the context of that broader consultation that is currently underway with a view to having a report through by late this year, this bill provides ongoing certainty around funding. It will amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 with the intention of extending the existing funding arrangements, which include the indexation arrangements until the end of 2013 and the grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014. This is intended to ensure funding certainty for the Catholic and independent schools sectors through the process of the broader review.

I should indicate that part of that broader review currently underway includes the conversation with all sectors, not only the organised sectors but the parents, schools and student bodies that are interested in participating in the review. Like many in this House, no doubt, I have had submissions and interest from local school communities about this most significant and important process. This bill sits within that broader context, with the intention of providing funding certainty during that process that is being undertaken. Obviously if we acknowledge that the bill sits within the funding review, as has been indicated by some of the other discussion and the nature of the amendments proposed by the opposition, it also sits within a broader educational reform agenda, which includes initiatives such as the Building the Education Revolution, the Digital Education Revolution and the development of a national curriculum. These are all excellent and important reforms in the sector. As a former teacher I think it is well overdue that we have had an opportunity to express our confidence and invest in our education system in the way that those three broad reforms intend to do. In particular for me, having been an English history teacher, it may be a bit surprising but I think the Digital Education Revolution—

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

You’re obviously grasping at straws now!

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

which the shadow minister obviously finds something unimportant and not worthy of consideration within this House, should be acknowledged as a particularly important reform. It became obvious to me that as the current generation grew up they would have to have digital literacy skills, which are as significantly important in many ways in a modern society as their broader literacy skills, and that schools would therefore need to be able to provide the sorts of technology we are now seeing roll out in schools. Whilst there is a separate, dedicated funding stream to provide that support into schools, the capacity of schools to provide that is critically important. When I chaired the Standing Committee on Education and Training in the last parliament—the member for Braddon, who is here in the chamber now, was a member of that committee—we had evidence in our inquiry about the issues that will confront young people into the future. We heard from young people that the capacity to be digitally literate and have access to those resources in schools was particularly important for them.

Since this government was elected, with our commitment to education, we have seen a dedicated range of funding streams that have been important to modernising our school system, that have provided the digital literacy skills and technology that schools needed and that have upgraded the infrastructure in schools, which is particularly important. I have been visiting several of my primary schools recently with their new hall facilities in the Building the Education Revolution. Sometimes I think what people miss about the importance of that program is the expansion of the primary school curriculum to include a range of activities that require them to have access to what we would see as fundamental spaces in a modern school area. So the physical infrastructure funding programs have been critically important to those schools, as well as, within the broader context of funding, looking at the mechanisms by which we fund schools on a recurrent basis.

That process is obviously always a fairly contentious one, with a variety of views on that. We are doing that in the most appropriate manner, as the previous speaker on our side indicated, with a full review, full consultation and everybody able to participate and have their say, which is well witnessed by the level of interaction each of us receive in our electorates through the consultation process. We will work towards getting an outcome for that by the end of this year. But within that broad reform agenda, which is significant on capital, on resourcing and on recurrent funding, there is a need for a commitment, which this particular bill does, to give some certainty to the non-government sector over the period of that review.

I also want to go to the issue that is raised in the amendment put forward by the opposition in relation to the national curriculum. Again, this is an area where there has been a call for and a need for reform to develop a national curriculum for a long time. It is always a challenging thing to do when there are various states and there are various views on what should be part of a national curriculum. There are contested arguments from academics in the field and so forth. But in a modern nation it is well worth going through that process in order to get a modern relevant curriculum that is standard across the nation so that young people, whether they move about or not, can have a common experience through the curriculum. The other reason I think that is particularly important is that—as we develop our connected classrooms and as our technology enables more and more young people to interact beyond their classroom, their school and, indeed, beyond their community into other communities across the nation or internationally—we have to have a national curriculum that allows the development of those resources and supports for schools to be put in place. I think there will be many very exciting developments as we see the technology rolled out across our schooling system and indeed, I would say, into homes so that young people are able to appropriately link into national and international resources developed for the curriculum that is a common experience across the nation. That will be a truly wonderful experience. Already I know that members in this House have been into schools and seen examples of these tremendous programs with professors from universities and specialists from places like Questacon delivering wonderful programs that, because of technology, our students can participate in and that are meaningful to them as part of their curriculum. The development of a national curriculum can only support the further expansion of those sorts of resources and opportunities.

The opportunity to participate in the debate today reflects the fact, I believe, that we do have a true, national reform agenda that is around the infrastructure, facilities and resourcing of our schools. It is about giving every young person the best possible opportunity we can to get a good grounding for their future through the schooling system. It is also a modernisation program. The funding review that is currently underway will be thorough and it will conclude later in the year. But to enable that to continue to progress in the way that has been envisaged, this bill requires passing in order to provide certainty in the meantime. I commend the bill to the House.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to follow my colleagues on this side, who, to a person, are vitally interested in the educational outcomes for our school students throughout Australia. I am very proud to be part of a government that has made record investment in our schools to benefit all our students, wherever they may be educated. We have a lot more to do; that goes without saying. But the investment that we have made is in terms of the quality programs to support the number of teachers and the quality of teaching that will follow from our current teachers and new teachers with their in-service training; in the better training and quality of training in our institutions for our educators; in programs for the development of curriculum both across the nation and within each of our states and territories; and of course in the absolutely significant contribution to capital expenditure in the form of the Building the Education Revolution.

The BER, I would like to remind my colleagues on both sides, was designed to achieve three things in particular, all associated with having good, effective, transparent outcomes. First and foremost, it was designed to improve teaching and learning facilities for our students and our teachers in all schools throughout Australia, and it is doing that in a tremendous way. I would particularly like to congratulate all the Tasmanians involved in the BER for the fantastic projects that have been rolled out. I know my colleague next to me, the member for Canberra, also has some fantastic projects in her electorate, as do you, Mr Deputy Speaker Slipper, I know, and all those opposite as well. Isn’t it sad that the exception to the rule becomes the headline in the newspaper, to be highlighted and seized upon by those opposite? But they know deep down that the provision of these BER projects would never have happened in the past and would have been very unlikely to happen in the present without our contribution to making them happen. They know it—they know it deep down, and so do their communities. Of course, it might have gone some way towards people supporting the Labor Party at the last federal election. Those opposite know what a fantastic program it has been. So, first, it is all about fantastic teaching and learning facilities for our students and teachers.

Second, of course, was allowing the community access to those new facilities. There is nothing better than having a good relationship between a school and the community itself. These facilities are specifically designed for the community to use them; that is part of the contractual arrangements for these projects.

Third but by no means unequal in significance to the two other components is the fact that the BER provided jobs—much needed jobs—at the time of the worldwide financial crisis. If you listened to the mob opposite or, indeed, if you read the Australian newspaper, you would never believe we had an economic issue in this country over the last few years; we were not part of the global financial crisis! You read the Australian newspaper to find out what the opposition will be doing in this parliament in question time! That is the silliness of all this. Anything that is associated with the BER that might not be the rule but, rather, the exception gets highlighted by the opposition. The opposition member looking after education comes in and tries to highlight this with all his normal bluster and ‘I’ve got more front than Myer’. But we know what is going on. We know exactly what has been going on: jobs have sustained our economy at a most important time in our development. I congratulate all those who designed this very, very important program.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 76, while a lot of licence is given to members of parliament with respect to subject matter, we are discussing the schools assistance SES funding bill. We are not discussing anything to do with the education revolution, and the member for Braddon is not being the least bit relevant to the subject.

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

I would refer the member for Sturt to the words ‘and for related purposes’ in the title of the bill. Regrettably, that does allow a slightly more wide ranging debate than one would normally expect. However, having said that, I would remind the member for Braddon to focus on the particular provisions of this bill.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is why you are the Deputy Speaker. I, too, interpreted the bill in that way. Indeed, I thought this bill was talking about schools assistance. That is what I was talking about. But anyway—

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

It’s about the funding model, you goose! You are a goose.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For that duck to call me a goose! Honestly. Heavens above! You have the highest pitched quack I’ve ever heard, mate!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Braddon will resume his seat. I require the member for Sturt to withdraw the term he used in the direction of the member for Braddon.

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

I withdraw.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now require the member for Braddon to do likewise.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Just for the member for Sturt, I will provide a detailed outline of the bill so he gets it firmly in his head.

The Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 will amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008, within currently agreed forward estimates, to appropriate approximately $8.2 billion for 2012-13 and $8.9 billion in 2013-14 for non-government schooling. This includes about $142.1 million for 2012-13 and $144.2 million for 2013-14 so that the government can fund capital expenditure in partnership with the non-government school sector. And I reckon that has something to do with the Building the Education Revolution, because I think that has something to do with capital expenditure, which I think has something to do with building facilities, which I think the non-government school sector does in spades. In fact, while we are at it, I would like to congratulate the non-government school sector in my electorate, particularly the Catholic sector, on two excellent projects, and I was really privileged to be able to attend—

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

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.