Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in strong support of the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011. The federal Labor government is passionate about raising the quality of teaching in our schools and ensuring that all students, especially those in disadvantaged areas, are benefitting from schooling and improved transparency and accountability about our schools. It is a passion shared by all members certainly on this side of the House and probably, I would acknowledge, by most of those opposite—and not just the former teachers on the other side of the House.

Education provides young people the tools and know-how to enter adulthood, to succeed in life and to contribute to society. You do not have to look any further than the Building the Education Revolution program to see what this commitment looks like in action. Back in the day, the Howard government blessed our schools with 3,000 flagpoles, but the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have completely transformed our schools into modern education centres, providing 3,000 new libraries—so 3,000 flags on one hand and 3,000 libraries on the other. The contrast must be a little embarrassing for those opposite.

Every other week I attend an opening of a new school building in my electorate thanks to the once-in-a-lifetime BER program—new multipurpose halls, new libraries and resource centres, language and science facilities, new classrooms. These modern facilities are transforming education for our young people. Last month I also attended the opening of a new classroom at Marist College at Ashgrove, which I think is in the federal seat of Brisbane.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ryan.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon: it is Ryan. I take that interjection from the member for Ryan. As a former house master at Marist College, Ashgrove, I was thrilled to be asked to officially open the new classrooms and science labs. I was also delighted to join the local state member, Kate Jones, at the event and was impressed by her commitment to her electorate and her understanding of the great benefits of quality education facilities for local students. It was disappointing that there were not other members there. I am sure the member for Ryan had a full diary on that day, but I did not see her. I am sorry to hear about that. But I can tell you for a fact, Deputy Speaker Murphy, that no school principal, no parent, no teacher has ever complained to me about the BER program.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order—relevance. The Schools Assistance Amendment Bill makes no reference to the government's disastrous Building the Education Revolution overpriced school halls. I ask the member to be brought back to the substance of the bill.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, it is perfectly in order for a member to talk about assisting schools in a schools assistance bill.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has the call.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This interjection has been made previously. The same interjection and the Speaker made exactly the same ruling. Perhaps the member for Fadden might actually look at what goes on in the House rather than jumping to his feet every time he gets an opportunity.

As I said, no school principal, no parent and no teacher has ever complained to me about that BER program. I am sure the member for Ryan and the member for Fadden would know that people do not complain about the BER projects. No-one has ever said to me, 'We didn't want this new building,' or 'Our kids didn't deserve a decent library.' It does not happen. The only people who will tell you that are the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sturt and some of those opposite when they are in this chamber—only when they are in this chamber; not when they are in their electorate, obviously. These are the same people who want to rip $2.8 billion out of our schools.

Our revolution of the education system does not end with the BER program. In Moreton the Labor government has delivered almost 2,000 new computers for schools; we have secured the employment of 21 school chaplains; and we have provided extra funding for 16 state, Catholic and independent schools through the Smarter Schools National Partnerships program, surely one of the best programs to come out of the Rudd and Gillard governments. I will list those schools: Our Lady of Fatima Primary School at Acacia Ridge; St Brendan's Primary School at Moorooka; Acacia Ridge State School; Corinda State School; Eight Mile Plains State School; Moorooka State School; Nyanda State High School in Salisbury; Oxley State School; Salisbury State School; Sunnybank State High School; Watson Road State School in Acacia Ridge; Yeronga State School; Yeronga State High School, where the Prime Minister and community cabinet will be on 1 September this year; the Aboriginal and Islander Independent Community School, also known as the 'Murray School', at Acacia Ridge; and the Southside Christian College at Salisbury. These are just some of the schools that will benefit from the Smarter Schools National Partnerships program—and that is just in Moreton.

The Labor government wants to see all students, public and private, Catholic and independent, city and country given the best opportunity to get a great education. As I said, I visit many schools and I know the overwhelming majority of students are performing at a high level and our teachers and other support staff work very hard to ensure that this happens. But the reality is there are still children who are left behind and there are still some children who struggle to rise above their circumstances to complete their education on par with their peers. This tells us that more can be done to ensure a quality education for all and to ensure that no child is left behind.

The national curriculum is an important part of this objective. It was agreed previously that all non-government schools be required to sign up to a national curriculum by 31 January 2012 as a condition of funding. However, the development of the national curriculum has taken a more phased approach and greater flexibility is required to ensure a smooth implementation. Obviously as a government we must get this right. Therefore, this bill removes the implementation date of January 2012 and will enable time frames to be determined by regulation. This will provide certainty to the non-government sector—the sector in which I taught for eight years—and it will also bring them into line with government schools, where I taught for three years.

The meeting of all education ministers agreed in December last year that the Australian Curriculum should be substantially implemented by the end of 2013. Therefore, we need to ensure that the implementation of the curriculum is the same for both government and non-government schools. All Australian schools should have the same curriculum time line, and this bill achieves that.

Just as there is movement between states, there is also significant movement between systems, particularly from state schools to private schools and particularly when going from primary to high school. This bill also ensures that we do not need to bring legislation into this place to amend future time lines. These are really practical implementation matters that do not need to be considered by the parliament. This amendment will enable the implementation time lines for each new phase of the national curriculum to be prescribed by regulations and authorised by the Standing Council for School Education and Early Childhood. Greater flexibility in the implementation process will also allow future editions and revisions to the national curriculum to happen more easily. The development of the national curriculum marks the beginning of a new era in Australia's education system, part of our journey from colonies to a unified nation. It will drive substantial improvements to our children's education. It will also put an end to the confusion experienced by students moving interstate who have to deal with changing subject matter, and it will ensure that all students, no matter where they are, are learning similar material. It will also help teachers, by giving them a clear idea about what is to be covered but with the flexibility to adapt the curriculum to local contexts—a national story with local characters, local lessons and local implementation. The national curriculum will also give parents a better idea about what their children should be learning at each stage of their education and the skills they should be developing. The bill before the House is another step along the way to achieving a better quality education for all Australian children, and I commend the minister for this endeavour and proudly commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011, advancing this government's proud record in the area of education. There are a number of important practical changes that this bill will enable, and I support the amendments because they achieve three very important outcomes. They provide a more certain legal framework for the non-government sector in which to implement the national curriculum and remove the 31 January 2012 date as the deadline for implementation. They also allow the curriculum implementation time frames for non-government and government schools to be aligned, and they look to the future and provide the necessary flexibility for the implementation of each new phase of the national curriculum to be authorised by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, which was formerly known as MCEECDYA.

I would like to commence with a few general comments on education and notions of what a curriculum offers. Education is and will always be my passion. It is truly the transformer of societies, and the plan for the way in which that society sees itself and envisions the future for its citizens is laid out in our syllabus or curriculum documents. In the current educational discourse practices in Australia, the new term for the core government documents to which teachers refer is 'curriculum' rather than 'syllabus'. Curriculum or syllabus documents are important for teachers, as we use them in our professional capacities to inform and guide how we plan for the learning of all students in our care. Some parts of the documents prescribe core knowledge, but it is teachers as professionals who are the critical agents who make that knowledge accessible and provide the organisation of the learning environment to enable students to engage and learn.

It is the teachers who are critical in this—the teachers as professionals. It is the skilled pedagogues and exemplary citizens who model how to learn and how to be a good Australian citizen who bring the curriculum to life. It is the teachers who construct the learning environments to support students to become great Australian citizens who can work, live freely and participate fully in life in a healthy democracy that is enabled by the teachers. It is teachers who construct classrooms and other learning spaces that enable students to do the talking, thinking, reading, writing, drawing, typing, speaking, moving, listening, sharing, producing and ways of being that really make learning happen.

There is much debate in educational circles about what exactly constitutes the curriculum. Is it just the document itself or is it something far more? Some argue that the curriculum is everything that students learn at and around schools. Such definitions go beyond the prevailing use of the word 'curriculum' in this bill. A curriculum certainly includes knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, understandings and capacities that students gain from being a student. Essentially, the curriculum links us to the world around us. That dynamism of the world around us and the need to be able to respond to it are acknowledged in this amendment.

Considered and careful amendment of the national curriculum documents is a necessary response to the critical evaluation of the implementation of any curriculum. Teachers' and students' responses will always need to inform ongoing improvement of learning. Their views are vital to enable the standing council to make informed changes to the curriculum over time. No changes will be made without the authorisation of the standing council. The amendment before the House allows for this good practice to be enabled.

At this point of our nation's history, in a world with a global economy and increasing mobility, the federal government has determined that it is time to move to a national curriculum. It has always interested me that in the curriculum wars that have gone on in each jurisdiction over many years the shaping and reshaping of the content of courses has been a highly political event. The determination to keep as much of what was already there and to push to include new materials, new skills, new competencies and new knowledge has resulted, in many jurisdictions, in overloaded documents that commonly bring about something called 'the crowded curriculum'.

The national curriculum development has faced the same challenges and now we are on the cusp of phase 3, where health, PE, information and communications technology, design and technology, economics, business and civics and citizenship curricula are all about to be developed. There will once again be fulsome debate about what stays in and what is removed. New knowledge, understanding and perspectives will be offered up, learning flows will be resequenced and debate about what is prioritised and what will be less prominent will continue. All this considered and time-consuming work will, and must, be undertaken.

It is in this context then that the need for the amendment before the House is, in fact, a response to the natural, robust debate and consultation process about content, shape and timing of any national curriculum. This bill concerns the specific issue of the implementation of the national curriculum and the manner in which this implementation is to occur. The necessary amendment contained in this bill concerns independent schools, including non-systemic or schools within an approved school system.

The act as it currently stands mandates a particular date for the implementation of the national curriculum. The amendments contained in this bill reflect recent negotiations where it has been agreed that the national curriculum will be implemented in stages. Each jurisdiction will now be afforded the necessary flexibility to address particular issues relevant to its particular state or territory. It is important that this legislation reflects this and enables the appropriate and agreed implementation of the national curriculum.

Provision of a quality curriculum for all Australian students delivered at the same time in all sectors is central to the future progress of our nation. It was a long time ago that former Prime Minister Bob Hawke declared Australia to be not only a lucky country but also a clever country. This well-remembered statement was an acknowledgement that a strong national education system is vital for the welfare of Australia and for the lives of our citizens.

Additionally, throughout the 1990s in particular, economists around the world realised the immense importance of human capital in enabling economic growth and development. I see education as investing in human beings; it is not only good for the individual who receives that investment but it is also an advantage for the common good, and the common good is also an economic advantage. In my view, Australia is a country which has been at the forefront of recognising that investment in a quality education is vital for the nation's long-term social and economic wellbeing.

I believe I am not on my own in this regard and, in fact, it was an Australian president of the World Bank who recognised the immense importance of knowledge sharing in reducing global poverty. James Wolfensohn recognised that in the global economy knowledge, as a commodity, was outstripping material resources and capital as a source of wealth. As a result, the World Bank recognised the need to prioritise the spread of knowledge and education throughout the developing world.

As a member of the Australian parliament I support the actions that maintain and enhance the esteem afforded to the Australian education system. As a Labor member I am proud to say that we have a long and proud record of investing in education as the great enabler. That is why we are investing in renewal, in teachers and in bricks and mortar. I am aware that we are discussing curriculum matters, but bricks and mortar decisions impact on the way curriculum can be offered and the learning spaces and resources in those classrooms. Those opposite have never completely understood the future dividends of investing in education infrastructure, and this is most clearly demonstrated in their approach to the Building the Education Revolution.

Since I was elected as the member for Robertson I have yet to see a school that has not been transformed by the Building the Education Revolution program. Apart from the physical transformation though, new rooms, smart boards and new learning spaces are part of the form and nature of the curriculum being taught and learned. The school principal at Ettalong Public School, Mr Colin Wallis, was proud to state that in the future, looking back on the BER would be an event where we should have immense pride. It was a time when the federal government, determined to keep Australians working by stimulating the economy, invested in public education.

At Brisbania, also located in my electorate, the principal, Mr Michael Burgess, stated that since he had become principal he had noted the immense dissatisfaction of his students and teachers in the demountables that the school relied on. The demountables were intended only to be temporary, but after decades they were still there: smelly, old and leaking. As a result of the BER Brisbania Public School has four brand-new classrooms, a new technology room and a storage room, with which they are absolutely delighted. It is vital to recognise that these buildings will be used far into the future, enhancing the educational opportunities and learning outcomes of future generations. The BER recognises the fundamental notion that investment in education is one of our most important government activities. I understand that the development of the national curriculum has been a central policy of this government and is tied to the government's commitment to developing a truly national economy. I am confident that the profession will voice its appreciation and critique of the curriculum to ensure it develops and adapts over time to keep pace with our rapidly changing world while holding to the wisdom that we have from the older curriculum. All students in our education system have differing capacities. They all deserve a curriculum that allows them to find their strengths.

The amendments before the House today attend to the important practical matters of management of this significant change to the content, the pedagogical practices and the national learning outcomes that will come with the national curriculum. For these reasons in particular and for many more educationally significant ones, I commend the bill to the House.

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

I take this opportunity to provide some summing-up remarks at this stage of the debate and also some remarks as we move to consider the bill as a whole subsequent to my summing up. I thank the members who have participated in that debate. Government members understand the importance of education and have identified those significant components of the government's reform agenda, which will ensure that every school in Australia is a great school and that we have a system which is fair and delivers the best possible education to all Australian students in all Australian schools.

The government is opposed to the amendments to the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill that have been circulated by the shadow minister. The government's bill should be supported. The coalition's proposed amendments should be opposed. The amendments go to two issues. We oppose those amendments on the basis that they are fiscally irresponsible and they ignore the commitments that have already been made and the division of responsibilities that have already been agreed to.

Contrary to the claims of the opposition, the national curriculum is on track for substantial implementation by the end of 2013. In fact, the agreement to implement the Australian curriculum by 2013 has been in place since September 2009. The ACT government and non-government schools commenced implementation this year, becoming the first in the country to start teaching the Australian curriculum. I commend the ACT, its education authorities, its teachers and its students for that particular commitment. Western Australia will use 2011 as a year of planning and an opportunity for schools to trial the curriculum. Queensland and Tasmanian schools will start to implement the Australian curriculum in English, maths and science in 2012 and then introduce history in 2013. The Northern Territory will implement English and maths in 2012, and science and history in 2013. That represents significant steps for substantial implementation by states. We do have New South Wales, who have decided to cut their education costs and are walking away from an agreement that was reiterated only a few months ago. But, as I have said before, this will mean that, regrettably, New South Wales students will be out of step with the rest of the country.

We have listened to a line of speakers from the coalition with no idea about the curriculum implementation timetable that I have just reprised. We have also heard opposition arguments in this debate that, frankly, ranged from the ignorant to the facile. The member for Sturt seems surprised that his ham-fisted attempt at an amendment to the Schools Assistance Act earlier in the year was opposed. It was opposed because it was a stunt that would have created chaos. Every time a new subject was added to the curriculum, we would have had to amend the act. It was not supported by stakeholders because, unlike the member for Sturt, who is at last back in the parliament, they could see its flaws.

We have had coalition speaker after coalition speaker wringing their hands and complaining about a lack of support for education. This is either wilful ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation, so I make a simple point: this Labor government has doubled the education budget. It is now over $65 billion. Not only have we poured a decade's overdue resources into schools but we have introduced teacher standards, national assessment, transparency through the My School website, computers, schools' facilities and so on. Those opposite delivered the flagpoles and that was it—a decade of government and approximately 3,000 flagpoles. The member for Forrest seems to believe that computers in school facilities are a waste of money. I am sure that the students and parents in her electorate do not share this view. She also somehow managed, I noticed, to bring the National School Chaplaincy Program into the debate, a program where we have announced an additional 1,000 places. We had the members for Mayo, Dawson and Wannon arguing about content of the history curriculum. Somehow, in their close reading of the curriculum, they missed the references to the Magna Carta, the Westminster system, federalism and constitutional monarchy. Despite their deep concern about history, they also forgot to mention that it is this Gillard government that is putting history back into schools across Australia after a decade of coalition inaction.

We have the member for Riverina telling the House what should and should not be taught in relation to climate change. In fact, we have had the most extreme ideological coalition opposition in living memory complaining about lack of balance. We have heard significant coalition support for the view of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The member for Sturt has announced that he is 'on a unity ticket with the AEU'. That will come as some surprise to them, I suspect. We have been told that there is a lack of consultation, when the introduction of the Australian curriculum has seen more discussion, debate and input than has ever before occurred. There have been nearly 1,000 participants representing stakeholder bodies, interest groups attending forums in 2010 and 180 other stakeholder groups making submission to the online forum—significant consultation.

The member for Brisbane thinks the Australian curriculum:

… burdens our schools with mandatory hours in the areas of English, mathematics, science and history.

I am not exactly sure what the member thinks should be taught at school. While it seems that half of the coalition is concerned about the contents of the history curriculum not reflecting our Judaeo-Christian culture and background, we have the member for Hughes arguing that the Australian curriculum locks us into the past. The member for Herbert, on the other hand, worries that teachers are spending too much time on literacy and numeracy, and the member for Aston is not even sure whether he likes the idea of an Australian curriculum or not.

The fact is that in this debate on the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 every random thought bubble of coalition members has been ventilated, and virtually every coalition member has recently become an expert on curriculum design. The members for Longman and Aston clearly have authority on achievement standards and curriculum frameworks, but what the coalition members in this debate have clearly demonstrated, led by the member Sturt, is that they should not be designing the national curriculum. In fact, they should be kept as far away from education as possible, and that is for the sake of Australian students.

In relation to the first part of the opposition amendment that has been circulated and the issue of teacher professional development, I want to make a few points. The first is that the Australian government is making a substantial contribution to the establishment of Australia's first national curriculum, a curriculum that the opposition talked about but simply could not deliver. Under the National Education Agreement, the Australian government and states and territories are jointly responsible for the development of the Australian curriculum. States and territories, including non-government schools and systems, are responsible for implementation of the Australian curriculum. This was a commitment under the National Education Agreement, the NEA, and is a requirement of the Schools Assistance Act. Implementation refers to delivery and the support that delivery requires, and this is clearly understood by the states and territories.

This opposition amendment that has been circulated ignores this agreement and is fiscally irresponsible. The opposition already has a $70 billion black hole. This amendment would commit the Commonwealth to further millions of dollars of uncapped expenditure. There are over 1,000 non-government school teachers in the teacher workforce in Australia. The coalition amendment is an open cheque book. It refers to 'such funding as is necessary' without definition. This is the same opposition that has already promised cuts of $2.8 billion and is yet to tell us what proportion of the $70 billion black hole will come from education—another $5 billion in cuts, $10 billion, $15 billion and now another uncapped promised. The fiscal irresponsibility of the member for Sturt knows no bounds. As I have said, the states and territories have all agreed that the implementation of the Australian curriculum is their responsibility. It is a clear commitment. All states and territories have initiatives that could be used or redirected to provide a focus on professional support for teachers linked to the national curriculum. Over time one benefit of this national Australian curriculum will be the sharing of national, state and territory resources to support all teachers.

Support for implementation is also being provided at a national level—for example, through the national digital resource collection, managed by Education Services Australia, where schools have access to thousands of resources aligned to the Australian curriculum. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership is delivering professional development in the form of the Leading Curriculum Change Professional Learning Flagship Program.

In relation to the second part of the opposition's circulated amendment, the Australian government believes strongly in school choice. The government's policies recognise this principle in practice. I have regular meetings as minister with the non-government sector and take into account their views when making decisions at ministerial council meetings. AESOC is made up of senior officials of government departments across states and territories. This committee sits underneath the ministerial council to provide support directly to ministers in relation to the ministerial council meetings. The key point is this: membership of AESOC is not an appropriate decision for the Australian parliament; it is a decision for the ministerial council and it is a decision that the coalition somehow forgot to make when they had the chance.

The non-government sector is represented on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. The Australian government has also established the strategic policy working group, chaired by the secretary of DEEWR and including representation from the Catholic and independent sectors, specifically established to consult on the government's education reforms. In addition to that group, I personally chair the cross-sectoral Australian government election commitments working group—more opportunity for formal consultation than the former coalition government ever provided. I can say that the government will continue to consult with the non-government sector and to include the non-government sector in working parties and committees.

The Australian curriculum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The coalition could not deliver a national curriculum, did not provide professional development for teachers and did not include the non-government sector on AESOC. They delivered no computers. They did not build libraries. They did not care about teacher standards or teacher training. The coalition did nothing about literacy and numeracy. They were not interested in the performance of our most disadvantaged students. In fact, the performance of these students went backwards on their watch. And yet they have the hide to come into the parliament and talk about standards, consistency and the views of stakeholders. It really is time for the member for Sturt to get onboard, to get relevant in the important education debates of this country. The amendments that he has circulated should be opposed. The government's bill should be supported. I commend the bill to the House and make the point that the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 makes amendments to the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to provide a more certain legal framework for the non-government sector in which to implement the national curriculum and provide greater administrative efficiency for prescribing the phased introduction of the Australian curriculum. This is an important piece of legislation which I commend strongly to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.