Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 provides $28 billion of funding to non-government schools for the years 2009 to 2012. Let me say at the outset that Family First supports a national curriculum and Family First supports a strong public and a strong independent school education system. Family First wants a curriculum that lifts education standards in Australia. We want a curriculum that encourages children to have a love of learning. We want a curriculum that challenges, inspires and enriches the lives of children.

However, Family First has a number of concerns with this bill. Of major concern to Family First is the degree of bullying being displayed by the federal government. The Rudd government is behaving like a bully in the schoolyard: ‘Give me your homework and hand over your lunch money or you’ll cop it.’ The government is trying to ram through this $28 billion school-funding scheme in the last sitting week of the year in an effort to bully schools into signing up to the government’s proposed but unseen national curriculum. How can you sign up to a national curriculum when no-one knows exactly what it looks like?

Many representatives from schools and schools associations that I have had discussions with believe that they are being held to ransom by the Rudd government over this bill. They say it is a case of being pressured to sign up to the unseen national curriculum if they want to see a cent of government funding. They say the Rudd government’s line is: ‘Trust us; we’ll give you the detail of the national curriculum eventually. Just sign up first.’

The government’s decision to refuse funding unless schools agree to the national curriculum has left independent schools stranded. The end of the school year is looming, and these schools still do not know if they will have the funding they need to maintain their programs next year. If the government really wanted schools to support its national curriculum, it would stop standing over schools like a schoolmaster from the 1940s and stop threatening them with the strap if they do not sign up to something they cannot even see. In case the government has not realised or noticed, education has moved on since the 1940s.

No wonder schools and parents are anxious. Let us think about what we tell our kids: ‘Don’t sign anything without reading the fine print. Don’t sign up for a mobile phone deal and don’t put your name to any contract without knowing the detail.’ So how can independent schools be expected to sign up to an unseen national curriculum without reading the fine print?

Family First is also concerned at the references to funding sources in this bill. Under section 24 of this bill, independent schools will have to declare publicly all the sources of their funding. Where does that leave the benefactor or company who wants to contribute to the school’s art room or music program and is not seeking credit and does not want to be hassled in the future? Bad luck—under the government’s scheme, he or she or their company is being named and identified as a target for every group and every individual seeking funding of their own. That generous benefactor faces being hounded by those after a quick buck.

Independent schools, like any organisations, are already bound by disclosure processes. They already have significant existing reporting requirements to government and they are happy to provide that information. Independent schools registered as companies limited by guarantee for administration purposes, like all other companies, already abide by existing reporting and auditing regulations. According to the Commonwealth programs for schools quadrennial administrative guidelines 2005-2008, under the Commonwealth funding agreements for non-government schools, all non-government schools and systems must:

… provide electronically a statement … to the Department by 30 April in the year following the program year … which contains particulars … such as all income received (gross) and expenditure incurred (gross) in operating the school and/or system and providing activities for students …

Information from the financial questionnaires completed by schools is published in the National report on schooling in Australia and other reports. So this information is already publicly available. Why does the government insist it needs more disclosure from these schools? The government knows that schools cannot commit to offering services to their students and parents from the start of next year unless these billions of dollars of funding are provided. That is why the Rudd government is holding independent schools to ransom, by threatening to withhold that funding. This would be a joke if it were not so serious.

Family First is serious about supporting education, both public and independent, and giving parents the option to make a choice about quality education for their children, whatever sector they choose. If the Rudd government were serious, it would allow the $28 billion to go through immediately, then deal with the curriculum and disclosure elsewhere. This would ensure children at independent schools are not deprived of programs next year. It would also allow time for independent schools to be fully briefed on the detail of the proposed national curriculum and for any concerns about the scheme to be addressed without the threat of funding cuts looming over schools. But it will not. For those reasons, Family First is standing up for schools and especially for the parents and students who choose to attend non-government schools.

Family First will move in the committee stage to split the bill, so that the $28 billion of funding can go to the schools without delay, while we wait for the Rudd government to do its homework—to bring back for marking—and develop the detail of the national curriculum next year. Family First’s amendments will also ensure the schools provide adequate reports on the programs they provide from government money, while removing the unnecessary detailed disclosure of other funding.