Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In respect of the government response to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report Teaching and learning—maximising our investment in Australian schools, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I thank the Senate for the indulgence a few minutes ago. I guess what we saw was an action learning in place on my behalf with some very experienced mentors, so I thank you for that. Looking back at it now, this is a document that the Liberals and Nationals reported in, I think, 2009, so now we have the government reporting on a document that it did whilst in opposition. But it does contain some really sensible sentiments and recommendations. It goes to the importance of supporting teachers and of their professional development, and I do not think anyone in this chamber would argue about the need for us to continue to support our teachers and, in particular, to develop their professional learning. As a teacher in my long-distant past, I certainly appreciated the support that I received when I taught in schools, and I valued the professional development that I was able to take advantage of that enhanced my everyday teaching and the learning opportunities that I then presented to children.

The report also looks at and makes recommendations around the need for continued school improvement and for tools and strategies to make sure that schools have plans in place to lift results. Schools and education do evolve. There are some key principles that stay in place, but when I look back at my own schooling and when I look at the schooling of my children and I now look at the schooling my grandchildren are receiving, while some things remain the same, that constant encouragement and development and changing of the school environment is really to be applauded. That need for school development and school improvement is critical, and it is certainly critical to have plans in place to lift results. We have the NAPLAN, which I think now is well embedded in our system. We did an inquiry on that last year and we made recommendations about the sorts of improvements that could be made to NAPLAN. I am very pleased to say that the government has picked up many of the improvements that we recommended, and we are now undertaking trials of NAPLAN going live. That is a good thing. We are looking at how we develop NAPLAN further so that children from different cultural backgrounds and different language backgrounds are also able to participate in that testing, because I certainly believe it is important for us to check where our children's learning is up to. And it is important to have a reliable test that not only teachers but also students and parents have faith in. It gives us a good picture of how our children are developing in certain areas across the curriculum. NAPLAN does not look at the whole of the child—that is one of the things critics say about it—but it nevertheless does provide a snapshot; and as long as there is bipartisan support for NAPLAN we can look to how we can continually improve it and make sure that schools are providing our children with the very best they can. That is a good thing as well.

The report also talked about the importance of early education and the need to have high expectations for every child regardless of their socioeconomic background. That is something I am very passionate about. We do not ever want to have the situation Gonski identified becoming entrenched in our system, where postcodes determine outcomes. We know there are some pretty horrific statistics in the Gonski report; one in seven 15-year-olds does not have basic literacy. As a community, and in a bipartisan way as a parliament, we really have to lift our school results to make sure that every Australian child has the very best opportunity. We have to have high expectations of all the children in our schools.

The report looked at the vital importance of encouraging more teachers to become qualified, particularly in maths, and at the need to support and mentor new teachers. I can certainly agree with that as a graduating teacher. That is how teaching development has evolved. When I left Murdoch University we did not have a mentoring scheme in place, as we do now in Western Australia, and I was left on my own. That not only did me a disservice as a young emerging teacher but it certainly was not doing the best by the children who were in my class and who I was expected to teach and reach milestones with. Mentoring new teachers is critical because it is in those first few years we can really build and develop good skills and strategies for the future. I was lucky I had some very good teachers around me who acted as natural mentors and taught me an amazing amount, giving me skills and encouragement, but that formal mentoring is critical.

These are good ideas but they are not just good ideas. They are backed up by evidence. If we get the implementation right it would have a significant impact on student achievement—there is no doubt about that. But this report must also be quite inconvenient for the Liberals and the Nationals because, since making those recommendations and coming to government, they have set out to systematically undermine the very initiatives they have themselves argued for in this report.

Labor's Gonski reforms were not just about money. They were about money driving real change in five areas: better quality teaching; higher standards; better training; support; and development. They were about better student outcomes—more individual attention for every student because, whether we like it or not, the facts are that postcodes are determining student outcomes. They do give more flexibility to principals. That was the aim of Gonski—to engage with the parents and the community. A needs based funding system is something I really hope we can achieve so every child in every school gets a great education and support through needs based funding that is applicable to them and their school. We need transparency and accountability to make sure we get results and to ensure states do not cut funding. The sorts of funding cuts we have unfortunately seen in Western Australia are going to the heart of programs that support vulnerable children and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have seen those sorts of cuts applied in Western Australia.

This is where the report and the reality really start to be distanced. We have seen the Abbott government break their promise to honour the Gonski agreement. We all heard those famous words—that there was a 'unity ticket' on Gonski and that it did not matter whether you voted Labor or Liberal, Gonski would be put in place. Yet we saw that those became just hollow words and broken promises. They are not commitments that have been lived up to.

The New South Wales state government was one of the early signers of Gonski. In fact, I was in the audience the night the state minister announced it. He said three short words: 'We got Gonski.' How disappointed he must be because actually they have not got Gonski. It matters for New South Wales. It is our biggest state. It has a high number of schools. But like every state it has schools that are struggling, and the Abbott government breaking that commitment on Gonski has been a bitter disappointment for New South Wales schools.

With $80 billion in cuts to schools and hospitals over the next decade, the Abbott government has driven a knife right into the heart of the kind of reforms they advocate for in the report today. We cannot fund professional development and mentoring without years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms. I would urge the Abbott government today to look at the report they endorsed and those fine recommendations, to realise the mistakes they have made and to live up to the commitments and the promises they gave to the Australian public.