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

I move opposition amendment (1):

(1)    Schedule 1, after item 3, page 3 (after line 17), insert:

3A Subsection 22(2)

Omit “31 January 2012”, substitute “a date set by the Minister by legislative instrument”.

3B After subsection 22(2)

Insert:

        (3)    The Minister may not set a date for subsection (2) that is earlier than the date by which he or she is satisfied the national curriculum will be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory.

        (4)    If it appears that the national curriculum will be not be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory by the date that has been set for subsection (2), the Minister must set a later date.

I will not delay the proceedings of the House very long. I simply wish to point out to the ‘packed’ House taking such an interest in the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 that this bill contains a provision that the non-government schools sector be required to implement the proposed national curriculum in January 2012. Why is that significant? It is significant because it clearly indicates that the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and his office have completely missed the fact that the ministerial council on education has already decided that the national curriculum will not be introduced until January 2013. In other words, while government schools will not be implementing the national curriculum until January 2013, when it may be ready, the law will be requiring that non-government schools implement a national curriculum from January 2012 which will not have even been completed. It is an absurdity.

It took the opposition to pick up this error in the government’s bill and to move an amendment to fix that date—in other words, to push the date out to a time set by the minister by legislative instrument. I therefore call on the House to fix the error that occurs in this bill, rather than allow to be passed through this House a bill that absurdly requires the non-government sector to implement a national curriculum a year before the government sector and a year before the national curriculum is even ready.

I understand from the Greens that the minister has assured them that he accepts that the bill is flawed in this respect but has said to them: ‘Don’t worry about it; we’ll fix it all later.’ Quite frankly, Minister, that is not good enough. What is required of ministers is to actually understand the detail of the bills that they are taking through the House of Representatives. Without wishing to be churlish, I would have thought that, given this minister’s record on detail as the Minister for the Environment responsible for the home insulation debacle, the sustainable assessments program and the solar panels program—for which he was required to be removed from his portfolio and placed in the very important schools portfolio—the minister would have learnt his lesson about getting the detail right.

It is more in sorrow than anger that I have to stand at the dispatch box and point out that the minister for schools has brought to the schools portfolio the slipshod and sloppy approach that he brought to the environment portfolio and that it behoves the opposition to fix a technical defect in the government’s bill. I call on the House to vote in favour of the opposition’s amendment to fix the technical flaw that occurs in this bill, and I ask the crossbenchers to accept the wisdom of using common sense to ensure that the non-government schools sector is treated exactly the same way as the government schools sector—and that requires this amendment to be passed.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a core principle in relation to school policy that has been adhered to by successive governments, and that is when determining new policies that impact on schools we do not distinguish between the government and the non-government school sectors in the application of those policies. When you look through the various policies which have been enacted over the past 10 or more years you see that the application has been very consistent. The same policies apply to the government sector as do to the non-government sector. For example, the national testing regime applies equally to each sector, school starting ages apply equally to each sector, the National Safe Schools Framework applies equally to each sector, and there are the My School requirements and the literacy programs—and I could go on. The only area, of course, where we do distinguish between the sectors is in relation to school funding.

The policy of treating the schools sectors similarly is not necessarily a formally stated policy as such, but it has become a convention of successive governments and, indeed, has become an expectation of both the government schools sector and the non-government school sector. The purpose of the amendment to the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, which the Hon. Mr Pyne has just moved, is basically to ensure that we abide by this policy. Without this amendment the national curriculum will apply differently to the Catholic and independent school sector from how it applies to the government school sector. The government schools would not have to introduce the national curriculum until 2013 or beyond, while the non-government schools would have to introduce it next year at the very beginning of 2012. This amendment is quite a straightforward and simple amendment. It would simply ensure that non-government schools would have until 2013 or beyond to implement the national curriculum in the same way as the government school sector has.

This amendment is not just important in adhering to the principle which I just articulated but there are also real issues at stake here. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Ministerial Council of Education Ministers met at the end of last year and agreed to defer the implementation of the national curriculum to at least 2013 because there were so many issues which had to be addressed. It strikes me therefore as ludicrous that, if the actual national curriculum will not be completed until 2013 at the very earliest, one school sector should be required to implement an incomplete national school curriculum. And it is not just a requirement that is in legislation; it would be a requirement tied to their funding. Potentially billions of dollars are at stake in relation to this particular requirement.

Why did the education ministers decide to defer the timing of the implementation of the national curriculum? They did so for many legitimate reasons, including, as they outlined, that the draft curriculum covered too much content, it was overly prescriptive and it lacked clear achievement standards. These are very important principles which need to be looked at seriously and which need to be corrected. State ministers clearly recognised the need for more time to get the national curriculum right. We support those ministers, and support the government having more time to get the national curriculum right so that it can be enacted in 2013 or beyond. Equally, the non-government schools sector should have that additional time as well. It is simply ludicrous that they are required to implement the national school curriculum at the beginning of next year when it simply will not be completed, and when the government school sector does not have to implement it as such.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to.