Senate debates
Monday, 27 March 2006
Schools Assistance (Learning Together — Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 2 March, on motion by Senator Coonan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
4:43 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 being considered by the Senate today proposes to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 and, according to the explanatory memorandum, the specific provisions in this amendment bill have the following objectives: to move uncommitted capital infrastructure funding for government schools from 2005 to 2006 and to bring 2008 funding forward to 2006; to move unspent funding under the Tutorial Voucher Initiative from 2004 to 2006; to allow funding to be carried over or brought forward to another year for all non-per-capita programs, such as capital grants, targeted programs and national projects; to provide maximum general recurrent grants for a small number of non-government schools that cater for students with emotional, social or behavioural difficulties; and to make a minor technical correction to one of the defined terms in the act.
The bulk of the taxpayer funds provided through the principal act—that is, the States Grants (Learning Together—Achievement Though Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004—are provided as general recurrent per capita grants, and these grants are not affected by the proposals in the bill under consideration. However, there is also significant funding provided for capital works and for targeted programs for schools and students with special needs, and it is this type of program which is the focus of the amendment bill before the Senate.
The government’s major 2004 election commitment for schools was its Investing in Our Schools program, where supposedly $1 billion over four years was provided for capital projects in schools—$700 million for government schools and $300 million for non-government schools. However, an integral feature of the design of this program was the Howard government’s ideological obsession with bypassing the states and the government school systems that deliver education to most Australian children. For government schools, the government has decided to bypass state authorities by calling for applications directly from schools and local parents and citizens associations.
The previous minister announced that Australia’s 6,900-plus public schools would be eligible for up to $150,000 each under this process, but unfortunately the Howard government has been overwhelmed by its own processes and has failed to deliver the funds to schools. Most schools are still waiting for the money announced in the 2004 election, and schools around Australia are getting sick of funding dates getting pushed back. The previous minister for education promised that grants would be announced by May 2005. It is now almost April 2006. The new school year started some months ago. Many schools promoted their facilities to parents on the basis of the projects they expected to have completed—not commenced—in time for the 2006 school year. Now many parents are questioning schools on what happened to the promised shadecloths, computers or the like.
The government’s incompetence has caused all sorts of collateral damage. There is one contractor in South Australia who has had to send employees on leave, some without pay, as a direct result of the delays in getting the promised money out to the schools. In this case, the jobs of over 20 South Australians have been put at risk because of former Minister Nelson’s administrative incompetence. I do not even need to go into the round 2 larger grants process. Schools were first told that successful round 2 grants would be announced in October. Then this was pushed to December. Then we heard February, and now it is supposed to be April. It is irresponsible behaviour by this government to raise and then dash again and again the hopes of schools which are desperately in need of funds.
Although this program was clearly targeted in the election at all government schools and their parent associations, the minister has trotted out the flimsy excuse that the department was surprised by the volume of applications. DEST has been unable to administer the program in a timely way, despite significant increases in staffing for the program and despite the fact that this was a major election commitment. The bill before the Senate is a direct and inevitable result of government incompetence. All government schools were promised additional funding for capital projects in the election, so why is there any surprise at all that most schools and P&C organisations were keen to apply? There can be no excuse for not preparing to handle applications from many of the nation’s schools. As Minister Nelson sowed, so Minister Bishop now reaps. She is today saddled with trying to clean up the mess left for her by Dr Nelson—and the incompetence of the Investing in Our Schools program implementation is only the first example of Dr Nelson’s incompetent hand grenades he has left for his successor. No doubt she will uncover many more in the coming months.
The fact is that the Howard government has bungled its management of this program by trying to become a small-scale capital developer for Australia’s 6,900-plus government schools. It tried to paint itself as rescuing school communities from state bureaucracies but has instead created its own administrative monster. The government set up a duplicate administration for getting capital funding to schools, and it did so for blatantly political and ideological reasons. Now we see the inevitable result of this ideological obsession, with an ad hoc administration overwhelmed by its own application process. If there is a salutary lesson in all this for Minister Bishop—if she is to learn at all from the schoolboy mistakes of her predecessor—it is that it is much better to work in cooperation with state authorities for the benefit of all Australian schools. Proper consultation with the states, which after all do run school systems day in and day out, would have led to a much more effective and efficient means of getting capital funding into schools.
Labor does support the involvement of parent organisations in planning decisions about the allocation of capital funds, but this should be done in a strategic, efficient and targeted manner—in other words, done in cooperation with the states and territories. Labor’s concerns with the implementation of this program are not only about incompetence. The approvals so far also reveal a high degree of inequity in the allocation of funds between electorates. The figures clearly show that political advantage was a primary motivation in the decisions behind the Investing in Our Schools program. What has become clear is that the approvals process has been handled differently across the electorates, with Liberal and, especially, National Party electorates being far more successful in winning substantial funds than Labor held electorates.
Let us briefly have a look at the figures Labor has drawn out of a reluctant government. The average funds per Labor electorate are $550,000. The average funds per Liberal electorate are $705,000. The average funds per Nationals electorate are $1,350,000. The average funds per coalition electorate are $1,025,000. The average grants per coalition marginal electorate are $830,000. Of the top 20 electorates in terms of total funding to an electorate, guess how many are coalition held? Nineteen—19 out of the 20 top electorates in terms of total funding to an electorate are coalition held. The first Labor held electorate appears at 20—Bendigo. And nine of the top 10 electorates in terms of average grant per school in an electorate are—guess what?—coalition held. Reid is the only Labor held top 10 seat. How can the government possibly justify such huge discrepancies? How could a credible, accountable and transparent assessment process possibly arrive at such a flawed distribution of funding?
What has been clear throughout this process is that the fix was in early. Coalition members had the details of the program first, had more detail about the application requirements and were given extra material to encourage schools to apply. Is there any possible reason for the Howard government distributing million-dollar handouts to its own blue-ribbon seats? Does the former minister, Dr Nelson, really expect the parents of Australian schoolkids to believe that the schools in St Ives and Pymble in his North Shore seat of Bradfield deserve significantly more funding per school than those in Cabramatta in the electorate of Fowler? Like many other areas of education funding distribution, Labor wants to know why this funding was not allocated on the basis of real and objective need.
The combined effects of incompetence and political pork-barrelling have discredited this program, which should have been targeted at meeting the real needs of schools and students in partnership with parents and school communities. In light of the demonstrated incompetence and politicisation of this billion-dollar fund, Labor only supports the increased flexibility in the bill for the minister to move funds around within the funding quadrennium so that schools actually get the money they have been promised. This flexibility includes the capacity to bring forward 2008 funding to 2006. Students certainly deserve to have this money put to good use in supporting their education. But be warned: this flexibility ought not to be used for political purposes, for media releases and stage-managed activities for coalition politicians. Labor and the public are onto the political misuse of this fund.
I will turn now to the Tutorial Voucher Initiative. This tutorial vouchers program is yet another example of the Howard government’s incompetence when it comes to administering programs, with unspent funding from both 2004 and 2005. It is another example of ideology over good sense. The government has insisted on tendering out for brokers to provide tutors for the children who need literacy support, including some brokers with doubtful qualifications and operations. In 2004 the government introduced the payment of tutorial vouchers of up to $700 to parents of children who had failed to meet national benchmarks of reading literacy in national testing of year 3 standards in 2004. Once again the Commonwealth has tried to implement this scheme without discussion with the states. Now that the pilot program has failed to deliver, the government is trying to blame the states instead of working with them from the beginning. As part of the original design of the pilot, the initiative is administered by brokers that are responsible for facilitating the contracting of tutors, confirming child eligibility, providing parents and caregivers with choice of tutors and managing its administration. Some of the brokers are, sensibly, school authorities, but others are private providers and enterprises.
Answers to questions at Senate estimates revealed a nationwide take-up rate of 36 per cent by mid-November last year. However a state-by-state analysis of the figure shows a much poorer performance on the part of commercial brokers for this program, particularly in comparison to the performance of school authorities. For instance, state education departments in New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania topped the table of take-up rates, ranging up to 69 per cent of eligible students. The most notable failure of this program is the performance of a private company, Progressive Learning, which has spectacularly failed to deliver tutorial programs to eligible students in Queensland and Victoria.
Figures provided by DEST show that just 656 of 5,717 eligible Victorian students received any help through the tutorial vouchers program, only 12 per cent of eligible students. The vast majority of students assessed at their year 3 benchmark testing as requiring extra literacy assistance have now sat the year 5 literacy benchmark test without having received any tutoring whatsoever. Progressive Learning also charged a $250 administration fee, so the few students in Victoria who actually received any tutoring at all only got $450 of the value of their $700 vouchers.
The federal government issued contracts to companies to deliver the tutorial voucher program with the full knowledge that the companies could not talk to the parents because they were not legally able to obtain their contact details, nor were the companies authorised to talk directly to the state governments, which actually had the contact details. This sounds like a Yes, Minister program. The program has been an administrative disaster, being more about an ideological obsession with bypassing state school authorities than about helping students who desperately need support.
The government has established a cautious evaluation exercise of this pilot program and engaged a commercial consultant, Erebus International, to undertake this evaluation. The opposition is, of course, very interested in what this evaluation concludes about the efficiency of delivering a program in the way insisted on by this government and the effectiveness of delivering literacy programs while cutting schools out of the equation. For this reason, the opposition lodged a freedom of information application to get access to relevant material, including any summary, analysis, report or documents prepared by Erebus International for this evaluation. On 13 March the department refused to release those documents on the basis that, amongst other things, disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. And, yet, within two days, a selective summary of those evaluation documents was prepared by Minister Bishop’s office and released to a national newspaper. Isn’t it amazing how in one context something may be contrary to the public interest but, if you are able to determine precisely which aspects of the documents you disclose, suddenly they can appear with the minister’s apparent approval in a national newspaper? Clearly, disclosure of the original, unedited documents would have been contrary to the interests of the Howard government or they would not have hidden behind the public interest claim to refuse the FOI request.
We in the opposition will continue to pursue this evaluation because we actually believe the Australian public has a legitimate interest in knowing just how this pilot program did operate and what effect it had on the literacy development of students identified as needing extra assistance. Labor will support the carrying over of unspent moneys from 2004 and 2005 because there are children in this country who need literacy assistance and support. But we also need to protect the integrity and value of this funding.
I am foreshadowing that Labor will move a substantive amendment to strengthen the conditions of funding to ensure that only qualified and accredited educators deliver. This amendment would require persons and organisations other than already approved school authorities to meet national standards of quality, such as professional teaching standards of tutors, and probity, such as financial and administrative records of private enterprises. I urge the Senate to support this amendment at the committee stage.
We have also circulated in the chamber during the course of my contribution our second reading amendment. I have set out in reasonable detail Labor’s concerns regarding the administrative incompetence and the political misuse of the two significant funding programs dealt with in this bill. Both the Investing in Our Schools program and the Tutorial Voucher Initiative highlight the operational and political mess left to Minister Bishop by her predecessor—a mess this bill only starts to deal with. For these reasons I move:
At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate:
(a) condemns the Government for:
(i) failing to deliver urgently needed capital funds and literacy support in time for schools and students to achieve the benefits of those funds,
(ii) failing to protect the integrity and probity of its program for tutorial literacy vouchers, especially in the appointment of brokers for the delivery of tutorial assistance in some states,
(iii) approving capital funding under its ‘Investing in our schools’ program in an unfair and unequal way between schools and regions, and
(iv) failing adequately to take into account the relative educational and financial needs of schools in the allocation of capital funding under the ‘Investing in our schools’ program; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) ensure that all programs are administered in ways that deliver maximum educational benefits for students,
(ii) take steps to assure the educational integrity and probity of its tutorial assistance for students with literacy needs,
(iii) direct some of the unspent funds for tutorial assistance for students with literacy needs to use by schools to develop appropriate programs for their students, in consultation with parents and for the professional development of teachers to improve their literacy teaching skills, and
(iv) support improved accountability provisions for funding under the capital grants and tutorial assistance programs”.
I urge the Senate to support this second reading amendment. In doing so I note that it ought not to have been necessary for this amendment to call on the government to ensure that all programs are administered in a way that delivers maximum educational benefits for students. One would have thought that was self-evidently required. It should not have been necessary, but on the Howard government’s performance specifically on these programs this statement of the obvious unfortunately needs to be explicit.
5:00 pm
Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I also rise to speak on the so-called Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006. This make-do piece of legislation is designed to overcome the problems that arose with the government’s own half-baked schemes of a couple of years ago. Before going into the details of the bill I would like to say that the Democrats will reluctantly support this legislation, but not because we think the programs the legislation refers to are the best way to address the needs of students in schools. Very clearly, they are not—something we strongly pointed out when the original legislation was introduced at the end of 2004. We will support this legislation today because the simple truth is that funding for education in this country is inadequate and, if nothing else, this bill provides some money for education, albeit mostly shifted from other programs. Whether you talk about preschool, primary or secondary school, TAFE or university, this government is not investing enough in education. We say it is essential for the future of Australia that we put more money into those purposes.
It was very encouraging to hear that the government is finally considering the benefits of a year of preschool for all children before they start school. There is a wealth of evidence that shows that preschool education has immeasurable benefits for children, particularly those from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It is time that the focus was not only on how access to early childhood education and care helps parents manage the balance between work and family but also on the innumerable benefits of early childhood education and care for children themselves. Early childhood education lays the foundation for children’s effective learning and improves their social, cognitive and emotional development. It is vital in breaking the cycle of poverty and in reducing crime, teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency. Early childhood education stops children from dropping out of school at an early age and leads to a better skilled workforce. All children deserve the best possible start in life, and Australia has fallen way behind overseas counterparts in providing the sort of substantial and sustained investment needed to make sure that children get off on the front foot.
So I hope that this announcement is not just another political football that gets thrown back and forth between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. I would like to see that the federal government, having said that preschool is important and should be mandatory, continues on with that idea and does not then turn around and say, ‘It’s the states’ responsibility to fund it,’ while the states then turn around and say, ‘Child care is important but that’s a federal responsibility.’ We do not need that kind of duck-shoving. Every single Australian child needs to be able to get early childhood education and care that is provided by enough qualified staff to make sure that the focus is on the children’s development, not just on babysitting so that financially pressured parents can do their bit to keep the economy going.
It is not just at the preschool end of things where Australia is lagging behind. We need to be doing more to meet the educational needs at all levels of all our children, not just those lucky enough to be able to attend the most well-resourced schools. Education should be a national priority, but unfortunately, in comparison with other countries and even in comparison with Australia a few decades ago, there is an inadequate commitment on the part of governments to bridge the gap in the educational achievements of the haves and the have-nots. Kids who are bright and who have supportive, well-educated and well-resourced parents are still doing much better than those who happen to be born into poor or isolated families or who might have a learning disability or a language problem or who are Indigenous. Unfortunately, attention in this place has been focused on which schools should or should not be receiving more or less money. The real question should be: what are the educational needs of the child and how can we best meet those needs? Funding decisions should be made on the needs of the child, not on whether the school is non-government or government—but that is not what this government has done, and we see that again in this legislation.
I will now look briefly at the provisions in this bill. They are aimed at providing additional funds for a small number of non-government schools that cater for students with emotional, social or behavioural difficulties. The government is not concerned with providing additional support for all students who require the intensive support that their special circumstances necessitate. If that had been the case, it would have come up with a system to provide resources for all students. As I said, the government has not done that. Instead, we have a system where the government is providing additional funds to a new category of schools, a separate classification of so-called ‘special assistance schools’. These are schools that ‘primarily cater for students with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties’. This new classification means that these schools will be able to receive the maximum level of general recurrent grant available to non-government special schools for students with other disabilities.
The Democrats support additional funding to support students with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties—we certainly need it, as we do extra funding for all students with a range of disabilities. These are high-needs students who need intensive support. But the funding in this bill will not be available to all students with these needs, as I said; it is just available to support students who are in that small number of non-government schools. Government schools that cater for these high-needs students are not eligible, and students with these high needs who are not in specialist schools but may be in a special classroom within a mainstream school or even within standard classes in mainstream schools, whether government or non-government, will not receive additional funding.
So while the government talks about needs based funding there is no real effort to develop an approach that is based on the needs of children whether they have behavioural difficulties, learning difficulties or whatever. Again, the focus is on the school, not on the needs of the students. But hiding behind the mantra of so-called choice—again we see that in the title of this bill—the government continues with its flawed SES funding model that, whichever way you look at it, leads to an unfair and inequitable distribution of funding. Again, the distribution of funding is not based on the needs of children. Nowhere in this model does it take into account the needs of a child with language problems, the needs of Indigenous students or students with learning disabilities.
I would like to take a moment to speak specifically about students with learning disabilities. The recognition and funding of students with learning disabilities is a subject I have raised a number of times here in the Senate, and the 2002 Senate inquiry into the education of students with disabilities very clearly identified the special needs of students who have learning disabilities and the lack of support that is available in schools. The Australian Learning Disability Association’s submission to the national inquiry into the teaching of literacy last year reiterated that the compulsory education sector does not differentiate between learning disorders and learning difficulties. The submission also made the point that funding is not available to support those students with learning disabilities as required. In simple terms, having a learning disability means that a child will not learn in the same way as approximately 90 per cent of the population—that is, these children and students need to be taught differently.
It is estimated that, like in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, approximately 10 to 12 per cent of Australian students have a learning disability of some kind, but unlike these countries in Australia disabilities such as dyslexia, poor visual and motor control and short-term memory problems have been largely ignored, at least at the official level. Students with learning disabilities do not get a satisfactory education, so we test them, we benchmark them, but at the end of the day there is very little by way of services, at least from the federal government’s perspective, that assists them with their problem.
There is still a lack of understanding, awareness and acceptance amongst the public, policy makers and practitioners with relation to learning disabilities generally, and in particular of the need to differentiate between—and I would say diagnose—learning difficulties and learning disabilities. There needs to be a national push to promote the needs of these students, particularly within school communities, because they will take their learning difficulties with them throughout life. Teachers have told me that even in those areas that may have developed policies for assisting students with learning disabilities there are no resources to support teachers to improve their skills, and there are often no facilities to provide the accommodations that students need. Teachers are having to work in spare classrooms if they are lucky, and staff tearooms or even storage rooms if they are not. There is almost no access to note takers, readers or scribes, or any of the technologies like laptop computers, that would so help these students.
Another key problem is that schools are unable to even identify students with learning disabilities correctly. There is a lack of guidelines and procedures for assessing the needs of students and little help within the school system to organise an assessment or to pay for it. Parents face costs of hundreds of dollars just to have an assessment of their son or daughter made. We need national guidelines for testing for learning disabilities and we need funding to support that testing. Teachers and schools cannot be expected to adequately cater for the needs of these students if they do not know how extensive the problems are or what the exact nature of them is.
Current funding for programs to support students is ad hoc and inadequate. The federal government will no doubt argue that the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program provides assistance for these students, but this simply demonstrates the failure of the government to recognise the difference between the needs of students with learning difficulties and those with learning disabilities. This is a failure shared by the many state and territory government education departments. They chose to provide support for students with learning disabilities through umbrella programs that are primarily designed to help students with difficulties.
We would not want to see students with learning difficulties miss out. These students are also educationally disadvantaged and need additional support. However, their needs are generally very different from those with disabilities and, while some students with learning disabilities might be assisted by programs which target those with learning difficulties, it is very likely that many students with learning disabilities are missing out. This is a really serious issue and it is time that the government sorted out what needs to be done in order to fund learning disabilities and what the differences are with the current set of disabilities that are funded through the states grants legislation—that is, students with physical, intellectual and emotional disabilities. We need to look at the group that has difficulties that can be overcome by literacy programs and then examine the other group that is much more difficult to assist.
Unfortunately, taking a coherent and thoughtful approach to funding the educational needs of children seems to not be what this government is about. What it is about is ad hoc, ill-conceived add-on programs that are driven by ideology, badly administered and fail to provide any real contribution to the quality of education of Australian children, and certainly the Tutorial Voucher Initiative fits into that category like a glove. That is the reason why we have this legislation before us today. It is mopping up the mess made by two of the programs that this government put in place 12 months ago—the Investing in our Schools program and the Tutorial Voucher Initiative. When they were introduced we did not support that approach. We argued that it was administratively inefficient, inequitable and would ultimately be ineffective. One of the reasons the tutorial voucher system did not work was that the government was so opposed to that system being done through schools, and so, as I understand it, the schools at the end of the day became brokers and became involved—but only because the government simply could not make the system work that it had planned. That idea of brokers and tutors coming from nowhere and being available to do this work was a gross failure.
We welcome additional funding for education. We do not, however, welcome the way in which those funds have been administered. There must be a shift in this process from government schools across to nongovernment schools, and the Democrats are always opposed to that notion. We need more money for capital works in schools. Overall, Commonwealth expenditure on capital works has dropped since 1993 by around 30 per cent. But the Investing in Our Schools program was always going to benefit most those schools that have active, committed parent organisations that can write good grant applications for that shade over the sandpit or other small item that schools may be able to put forward that fits within the limit of the grant amount, a limit which only applies, of course, to government schools.
There was no mechanism in this program for any sensible or equitable prioritising of the funding. We desperately need a national standard for basic school amenities but there is still no sign of that turning up any time soon. We need an audit of school buildings and facilities, so that we can all see which schools do not have basic infrastructure. We then need to fund the necessary development in a coordinated manner, but that just has not happened. We also need a better approach to literacy development. Giving $700 vouchers to parents of grade 3 students who fail the reading tests so they can access private tutors was never going to be an efficient or an effective way to help those children.
The Democrats argued at the time that the $20 million should have been used to support existing programs in schools. Schools already have the structures and the expertise; all they need are the resources to work one on one or in small groups with struggling children. Again, the reason this has been put in place is that the Commonwealth cannot reach agreement with the states on how to do this, and we constantly have this bickering about cost shifting, who is paying for what and who is getting the plaudits for putting programs in place. That is what this is about; it is not about any sensible approach to improving learning outcomes.
There were many questions raised about the voucher scheme when it was first proposed, such as the availability of suitable tutors, the capacity of some parents to seek help for their kids and how this tutorial assistance would tie in with what students are learning at schools. Now we are seeing the results of that failure to pay attention to those questions. The government cannot say that those in the Senate did not point this out to them. I hope that this time the government have learnt something from this kind of fiasco.
We need more investment in schools, more money for capital works, more money for literacy development and more money to support students with additional educational needs. In this respect, the government must do much better. All Australian children deserve and need a quality education regardless of their circumstances, the state or territory in which they live, the resources of their parents and which school they go to.
I indicate that the amendments circulated in my name will be withdrawn.
5:18 pm
Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Greens on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006, the first schools bill introduced by the new Minister for Education, Science and Training, Ms Bishop. It is unfortunate for the new minister that the first bill that she has introduced is a bandaid bill to amend the obvious problems that inevitably arose from the shoddy, populist policy follies of her predecessor—but that is what this bill is. The Greens sincerely hope that future bills from the new minister will set a new course for this government regarding schools, one that puts education first rather than the ideology or electoral game playing that we are used to seeing not only in education but also in other portfolios.
This bill seeks to slap bandaids on two programs that have been introduced by the former minister in the past couple of years. They have failed and, as a result, have let down young people, parents and teachers. The bill also amends a provision of the funding act to allow the government more power to manipulate funding spending. The remedies this bill seeks to introduce will simply allow these poor policies to limp on until the next major funding decisions are made in 2007 and 2008. The increased flexibility in funding delivery creates a powerful temptation for political abuse of this funding in the hands of the minister of the day, whoever it may be.
The first program dealt with by this bill is the Investing in Our Schools program, which was announced in a flurry in the last federal election campaign. This program sought to deliver $1 billion of federal funding to schools for capital improvements: airconditioning, shadecloth, repairs and the like. This $1 billion was to be spread over four years, with $300 million going to private schools and $700 million to public schools. There was no consultation with state governments about this program, and the thrust was to cut the state governments out from managing this new capital funding, even though the states have a long established admin infrastructure to manage capital investment in schools. Instead, this cash was to be doled out directly to schools that had applied through P&C committees and school boards—that is, unless you were a private school, in which case the funding went to block grant authorities that already distribute recurrent capital funding to approved projects.
The problem is that just about every public school in Australia has applied for some funding. Many people may think that is not surprising—unless they are the minister for education or a senior official at the Department of Education, Science and Training. They tell us that the program has failed to deliver the promised funds to public schools because they have been so surprised at the overwhelming number of applicants for money. This bill aims to roll over the funding allocation for the program from 2005 to 2006 in order to catch up with the demand and eventual delivery. We are getting used to this sort of frequent incompetence by the government, but it is worth questioning whether there are not other motives at play here.
By rolling over these funds, is the government simply back loading the delivery of these much needed capital projects later into the electoral cycle by delaying the completion of these projects from the first year and a half of the scheme but seeking to deliver the full promised funding in the second half of the four-year funding term? Does that not mean that schools will get their new shadecloths, library extensions or netball courts in an election year? Some people might think this a cynical or uncharitable perspective to take. But let us look at where the funding is already being distributed under this scheme. Others have noted with concern that the funding has been distributed at a ratio of three to one, favouring Liberal held electorates over Labor held electorates. The average funding that coalition electorates have received is $792,010, compared to $549,303 for Labor electorates.
Nine out of the 10 top electorates in receipt of capital funding are coalition seats. This looks like a reasonably obvious case of pork barrelling—that is, spending government funds to benefit sitting members with the hope of retaining government at the coming election. If anyone is confused when trying to understand the reasoning behind the flow of education public policy coming from the Howard government, it is revealing how helpful it is to look at it through the prism of electoral self-interest. Suddenly it does not seem all that confusing at all.
Of course, this could just be a coincidence, but I suggest it is not. The only other reading of this situation suggests that, if you put funding applications in the hands of parental bodies or P&C committees, the number and speed of qualifying applications will favour schools from areas where the parents’ education level and familiarity with the administrative process is highest. That will favour areas of higher socioeconomic status, which in turn are more likely to be areas held by the coalition. If this is true, it is still an indication of the failure of policy that delivers money not on the basis of need but, rather, on who is best at filling out applications—a pattern that, as we have seen, had a devastating effect in the government’s mismanagement of Indigenous schools funding programs.
These problems have been bypassed by the private school sector, however. For some mysterious reason, their funding is managed through existing block grant authorities. Not only this, but also they do not have the $150,000 cap on school projects like public schools have—a funding inequity without any explanation. All in all, the Investing in Our Schools program is a mess—either by design, for cynically political self-serving reasons, or by default, as a poorly designed bit of policy on the run. Either way, the only good thing is that, in the end, new infrastructure does get built in schools. This is the only reason that the Greens have any support for this proposal.
The second failure that this bill seeks to address is the much heralded literacy voucher scheme. This policy was to issue $700 vouchers to parents whose children had failed to achieve their benchmark in year 3 literacy. The voucher could pay for supplementary literacy support for that child. The support could be delivered by approved providers including private providers. This program was again developed without consultation with the state governments that run our public school system. As a direct result, it has been a complete shambles. Only 12 per cent of eligible children in Victoria and only 18 per cent in Queensland have received any tuition through this scheme. Even in the states where the state school system has been the dominant approved provider of additional tuition, the take-up has been less than 70 per cent. As a result, the scheme has been massively underspent.
This bill seeks to roll those unspent funds into schools based literacy programs. It should be obvious—and it was said at the time—that, had this funding been spent in schools from the outset, 100 per cent of those young people needing extra help would have benefited from the money. This bill basically amounts to an admission by the government that they were wrong about the benefits of vouchers and the scheme should as a result be discontinued.
But that is not the approach that the government is taking. The government sees vouchers as a way to sell their half-baked choice based vision for education. Perhaps government polling is telling them that it sounds popular and those best placed to benefit from the scheme are those who are most likely to be voting for individualistic ideologues. So vouchers continue to stay on the government’s agenda. Indeed, one of the only things that the new Minister for Education, Science and Training has had to say about schools has been an indication that she would like to see the voucher scheme expanded. She was reported in the Australian recently as saying:
I am quite supportive of the notion of vouchers across the board ... The notion of vouchers to give parents choice is a notion that appeals to me. There are a whole range of areas where tutorial vouchers could be utilised.
We should be astounded at this continuing infatuation with vouchers in the face of the failure of this trial scheme. However, the interest in vouchers is not an interest in practical solutions to problems of educational quality. Rather, it is an application of an ideology that is flawed.
School vouchers are not a new idea. They have been used in various countries around the world with patchy impact at best. In Chile, school vouchers which could be redeemed at private schools were introduced in the late 1980s. A World Bank report in the late 1990s found that, after 13 years of operation:
There are no improvements in student achievement, contrary to the predictions of the voucher proponents.
Having weighed up the Chilean experience and with the experience of voucher systems directed only at the poorer students in Milwaukee in the United States, the same report concluded:
There is no persuasive evidence that private schools are more effective than public schools and the evidence that they are more cost-effective is mixed.
So, after years of data, there is no strong evidence to prove that vouchers improve educational quality. Vouchers are only a success in accelerating the privatisation of schooling and providing an opportunity to claim an increase in choice for parents.
But even this idea of increased choice is also flawed. In the United Kingdom, debate has recently raged over the introduction of so-called trust schools, which allow business, religious organisations and other partners to enter into administrative arrangements to manage existing schools or set up new schools. They will take control of their own buildings and land, directly employ their own staff and set and manage their own admissions criteria while remaining state-maintained schools. This is about giving parents choice, according to Mr Blair’s government, just like the voucher system. It is supposed to free parents from sending their kids to the local school and it instead offers them a broader menu to choose from.
This kind of choice is an illusion and the logic is flawed. How can everyone choose to send their children to the best schools? It is simply not possible. Schools fill up, parents cannot afford to transport their children the distances that are required and religious and other criteria exclude certain children from access to particular schools. Such models, which are designed to give choice, actually give the schools more choice, not the parents. The schools are empowered to pick the most attractive students. In turn, many local comprehensive schools suffer by having their brightest children or children from a particular section of the community picked off. This means less choice for parents who cannot get their children into alternative schools.
Just like the World Bank report found, parents are discovering that opting out of the public education system does not necessarily deliver better results for their children. Recent research that was commissioned by the New South Wales Teachers Federation has shown that, increasingly, parents are coming back into the public system after having enrolled their children in one of the burgeoning number of private schools—many of them new schools—on the promise of higher quality and a better learning environment. They have quickly found out that smart uniforms and fancy names do not equate to quality teaching and education excellence.
The Greens continue to worry that it is the view of the government that private schooling is necessarily better schooling and that any scheme that encourages parents to choose private schooling should be encouraged. The evidence is that this is not good for our children’s education and, to the extent that it distracts from the need to heavily invest in the growth and quality of public schools of all kinds, it is a dangerously flippant policy.
The Greens would like to see the $1 billion earmarked for the Investing in Our Schools program and the money earmarked for the tutorial voucher scheme be part of an investment strategy that is based on need. Rather than the criteria for funding being based on the ability of parents to fill out applications or the ability to take up voucher offers, the Greens would like to see such funding distributed on the basis of the best assessment of which investments will bring us the best bang for our education buck. That means investing in public schools, investing in Indigenous education, investing in special needs education and investing in early childhood education. In just a few weeks time we will be told by the government that they have more money than ever before for they have a record surplus, record revenue and record forecasts for more. But, if the best that the government can do to invest in all our futures through the education system is this bill, there will be record disappointment and record cynicism at that failure.
The Greens reluctantly support this bill—only because we want the $7 million to get to those public schools most in need and we support more money being spent in school literacy programs. We have deep reservations about the targeting of the $300 million that is directed specifically at the private school sector. It is disappointing to see that the government are continuing their blind faith in the continuation of a proven to be failed voucher scheme. The Greens will continue to call for the multibillion dollar investment that is needed to deliver the quality of public education that our young people deserve. Until this becomes a priority for all governments, they will find that the Greens continue to be their harshest critic in this area and the loudest advocates for public schools.
5:32 pm
Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The purpose of the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 is to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity Act 2004. This bill provides for funding for government financial assistance to states and territories for government and non-government schools for the 2005-08 triennium. It is an unfortunate choice of name for this bill, if we bear in mind what this government has done in real terms to school education in this country. The Commonwealth has certainly not worked together with the states and territories but has instead harried and bullied them into accepting grossly unfair and undemocratic conditions of funding which enable the Howard government to have an enormous ability to interfere with the running of government schools.
For the first time in history, the Howard government is funding the private education minority more than it is funding the state school majority. It does so, for example, by ignoring the private school income raised from ever-rising fees and other means of raising funds. It boasts that, in doing so, it is widening choice and offering more choice to parents. That may be the case in wealthy electorates on the eastern seaboard where access to private education and schools exists or where parents can actually afford to pay enormous amounts towards their school fees. But, for the majority of the Northern Territory constituents whom I represent, this bill offers nothing. It offers no extra choice and certainly offers nothing at all if you happen to be an Indigenous parent living in a remote community who relies on CDEP every fortnight.
We have the totally inequitable situation under this government where a rich grammar school in Sydney or Melbourne can have huge playing fields and a gymnasium and still get very generous taxpayer funded moneys, whereas schools in places like Ngukurr or Umbakumba in the Northern Territory struggle along with limited per capita funds and have no playing field or other equipment.
In my travels around the Northern Territory, I had the privilege two weeks ago to spend 4½ days with Barbara McCarthy, member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for the seat of Arnhem. We managed to get to six Indigenous schools in six Indigenous communities in that time. The conditions in those schools have not changed significantly in the last 25 years. The reason for that is that the Northern Territory government is working extremely hard to get Indigenous kids to school, and it is working—there are more kids going to school out bush than I have seen before, particularly in the secondary school program—but the resources that those schools have are diminishing.
It was put to me by a principal of one of those schools that funds provided by governments, particularly the federal government, only allow these schools to cope—that is, the schools are funded to cope rather than funded to succeed. When I went to the Ngukurr school I found a class of 29 Indigenous kids. They are second language learners of English—so ESL kids technically. There were 29 kids in a grade 5, 6 and 7 composite class with only 25 desks and chairs. That is because the school never anticipated that they were going to have such an enormous number of kids come, certainly for the first eight or nine weeks consistently of this school year.
What we have out there in the bush, which is unrecognised by this government and also by its education department, are strategies by Labor governments working out there through people like Barbara McCarthy, who is out there talking up the benefits of education in her communities, but those schools are now seriously struggling to survive because of the poor funding arrangements handed out through the Northern Territory government to help these schools cope and exist. So much for learning together and choice!
This bill allows the minister to move funds between program years within the quadrennium for all non per-capita programs, such as the Tutorial Voucher Initiative and the Investing in Our Schools program. In addition, it also has other provisions, such as allowing for the payment of maximum general recurrent grants to non-government schools which cater for students with emotional or behavioural problems. There is nothing wrong with that on the face of it. In broad principle, Labor actually supports the bill, but we believe this government has absolutely failed in supporting all schools, having shown a total bias towards private schools in general and, with the Investing in Our Schools program funding in particular, a bias towards Liberal and Nationals electorates in particular.
The Investing in Our Schools program provides funds of $1 billion over four years for capital projects. That includes $700 million for government schools, yet only $300 million for non-government schools. For government schools, the Howard government could not resist bypassing the state and territory governments and calling for applications directly from local parents associations. That in itself makes things pretty tough for Indigenous people in the remote schools in the Northern Territory where, due to the disastrous changes made by the previous minister for education to the former ASSPA program—that is, the Aboriginal support program that used to encourage and draw Indigenous parents to participate in the schools—Indigenous parents have now voted with their feet and walked away from schools because these committees no longer exist and are not encouraged to exist by the funding actions of this government. Parents have voted with their feet. Parent groups have collapsed throughout remote schools, particularly in the Northern Territory. When you then introduce a funding system such as the Investing in Our Schools program that relies on an Indigenous parent body to either write that funding submission or sign off on it, it makes it even more difficult for those schools to access these funds. In terms of accessing funding from this federal government, it is a policy decision that has given no consideration at all to life and difficulties faced out in remote communities and the impact that changes on one funding program have in getting these Indigenous parents to access another funding program.
Figures provided by the government from the previous minister, when analysed by our shadow minister, showed that, of the total IOSP allocation last year, 66 per cent went to schools in government held electorates while 32 per cent went to ALP held electorates. The average funding to coalition electorates was $792,000, while that to ALP electorates was only $549,000.
The Tutorial Voucher Initiative announced in 2004 is another election promise that has been similarly poorly administered. With respect to the funding tutorial assistance for children who failed the benchmark reading test, this program has failed to reach many of those students who were ineligible. I should point out though that, around the states and territories, the voucher system is to be paid directly to parents other than in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory, it is going to be funded through the Northern Territory government. The federal government should come to the table and start talking to the Northern Territory government about how this is going to be done. We are almost at week 8 in the Territory and none of this money has filtered through to the Northern Territory government—not one cent of it. An answer to an estimates question on notice revealed that there are 763 eligible students in the Northern Territory. I sincerely question that figure. I would say that is an incredible underestimation of the number of kids out bush who have failed to meet the year 3 benchmark and who would need assistance.
This is where we come to another situation in which this government fails to appreciate and understand the difficulties in trying to get money out to where it is severely needed. We have a government that stands on rhetoric of trying to improve Indigenous outcomes, encourage Indigenous people to lift their game and encourage Indigenous parents to get involved, but it has a funding system that does not enable Indigenous parents to get involved at all, because the funding is now not channelled through a parent committee. Secondly, we now have a situation where the voucher system will be channelled through the Northern Territory government rather than be paid directly to the schools. If there are 30 kids in a place like Ngukurr who would be eligible for that voucher system, why isn’t this funding system flexible enough to pay the money directly to the school and let them employ part-time instructors, because there will not be privately employed tutors in a place like Ngukurr or Numbulwar? Pay the money directly to the school. Get around some of the bureaucratic red tape that currently holds back Indigenous kids. Recognise that your policies are failing to achieve any sort of outcomes in terms of Indigenous education out there. They are simply not working.
The figures provided to us in estimates showed that, at best, in New South Wales only 69 per cent of those eligible had taken up the vouchers by the end of the last school year. Of course, in the Northern Territory, we are now nearly 12 months down the track and not one cent of that money has flowed to the Northern Territory government under the voucher initiatives yet. Of course, the Howard government has blamed the states for significant delays and underspending. Again, one of the classic hallmarks of this government is: ‘Never take any blame or responsibility; just take control and no responsibility.’ However, the real problem again lies with this arrogant government failing to work together with the states and territories. This program was announced on the run, with no consultation and, based on my experience in my last fortnight’s travel, with absolutely no understanding or appreciation of how a funding program like this works when you are in the back of nowhere in a remote Indigenous community that has significant barriers and hurdles to overcome.
Rather than working with all the states, this government put out the program to private tender to get private brokers to run it in many places. Some providers ended up being state and territory departments; many were not. These brokers were to administer the scheme: contract tutors, confirm child eligibility, manage the administration and report on the program. Just how accountable these private brokers will be we may see when the report on the program comes in. But at this stage, because of the enormous amount of bureaucratic red tape, none of the money for the voucher system has yet flowed through to any kid in the Northern Territory.
Figures provided to us in the estimates committee show that the best take-up rates were found where the state departments were the providers. The lowest take-up was found in Queensland, where it was 18 per cent, and Victoria, where it was only 12 per cent—and the same private broker, Progressive Learning, was contracted for both.
So this program has been an administrative disaster. Large numbers of students in dire need are not getting the help for which they are eligible. In particular that means Indigenous kids in remote communities. So, while Labor will support this bill, only because we put the funding needs of the schools and the students first and foremost, we do need to ensure that the consequences of this government’s incompetence and unfairness go down firmly on the record.
As a significant number of my constituents are Indigenous, I want to take this chance to again comment on the appalling handling of the changes to Indigenous education I have seen, particularly in the last four to five years. When you get out there in the bush and you actually talk to the teachers and you see a teacher like I saw at Ngukurr last week struggling to occupy and teach 29 children from years 5, 6 and 7 in a composite class, really the policies of this government beggar belief. They totally lack any educational credibility. I have an educational background and I would be struggling to teach 29 children from years 5, 6 and 7 here in a place like Canberra—or in Darwin or Melbourne or Sydney—let alone these kids who are learners of English as a second language. Someone somewhere in this government has just got to get the message through that this is not working and that the resources are not getting out there, let alone that they are nowhere near adequate.
How any minister could believe that a change that gives funding only after students have failed is appropriate is beyond me. But this is what happened under the previous minister with the in-class Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme. The in-class tuition was made unavailable until and unless an Indigenous student failed the year 3 literacy tests. As a former early childhood teacher myself, I find the logic of this beyond me. It is sheer stupidity—funding on the basis of failure. You have to fail to get help, by which time, of course, it will be too late. How this sort of policy will help to narrow the disadvantage gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students I am yet to work out.
Despite a departmental review concluding that ASSPA, the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness program, was, if not without faults, a very successful way of involving Indigenous parents, the previous minister took it on himself, in his infinite wisdom, to abolish it. This was in total contravention of the views of Indigenous parents. In its place we have not the automatic funding of ASSPA but a competitive scheme requiring hours of submission writing, at the end of which decisions are made elsewhere and no funds are guaranteed anyway.
As a result of this, Indigenous parents are confused and annoyed and feel disenfranchised. Many have voted with their feet and no longer play a part in any school committees. How then do you expect them to be around to sign off on, to consult with the principal about or to apply for any of the money under the Investing in Our Schools program?
Many formerly funded programs and schools have been cut out of the action. Previously successful sport or cultural programs have been cut. For example, at the Maningrida school this year they have been unable to send a sports team into Darwin, so their kids will miss out on possible Territory selection for a national competition. Furthermore, on a recent trip around schools in Arnhem Land, I found that the Bulman school got nothing last year under these arrangements.
At the Bulman school, there is an Indigenous principal called Annette Miller. She is a teaching principal. That means that for five days of the week she is in front of a classroom, so she does all of the administrative work required to run the school after hours or in her spare time. This government then expects someone like her to get on a computer—that is if there is one functioning, because when I went to Numbulwar the school there had not one functioning computer in any of its classrooms or in the principal’s office—after hours and write these submissions. Well, they do not do it. They do not have the time to do it and, to be quite frank with you, it is not a priority for them when they are trying to coordinate a curriculum, send in enrolment or attendance figures or put together testing results. The government is denying this. So it is a very difficult situation out there in the bush for these people.
A reply received from the now minister, while perhaps trying to be helpful, was quite a classic smoke-and-mirrors trick again, as we have come to expect from this government. It told me that this group of schools, such as Bulman and Amanbidji, which is another school in that area, got $124,000 last year, up by $26,000 on the previous year. Good news? Not really. Amanbidji also got nothing under this new scheme. They may not have got huge dollars under ASSPA, but small, remote schools such as those need and value every dollar. A few thousand dollars under the old scheme was much better than nothing under the new scheme. In the case of Bulman and Amanbidji, I ask: where did the $124,000 go to? I do not know, but I do know that at least two of the small, remote schools in that group got nothing. The small, remote schools have been disadvantaged, both under the Investing in Our Schools program and the new PSPI program. The larger schools, usually in more urban areas, have gained at their expense.
Let me emphasise the situation of many of these small, remote bush schools. Many are one- or two-teacher schools. Many of them in fact have a teaching principal. The principal has to teach during the day and then go and do admin functions after school or at weekends. In the case of Amanbidji, since the school is so small, it is a one-teacher-principal school. Not only does the principal there do all of the above, but the school has no money for cleaners at the weekend, so he and his wife go in and clean the school on the weekend as well.
Another teacher-principal, at Milyakburra on Bickerton Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria, has 25 kids between transition and year 7 to teach all day. She then has to do all the admin work and then, just to top off her day, she also prepares all the food that is sold in the tuckshop each recess and each lunchtime. These are hardworking, highly dedicated and committed education workers. The government long ago ceased to frame education policy on educational grounds. They have become so ideologically blinkered that educational thought does not enter into their heads. We can only hope the new minister brings back a bit of reasoned— (Time expired)
5:52 pm
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Normally I like to thank senators for their contributions, but I would have to say that given the quality of the contributions it would be a touch hypocritical of me to do that. Sitting back here listening to the speeches, I thought, ‘Gosh, the Labor Party seems to have learnt nothing—the same old attacks on private schools.’ Of course, a number of the senators who spoke went to private schools so they would know whether those private schools provided an education of value or not. But my view is that a lot of parents value private school education. Increasing numbers seem to want to send their children to private schools, and I would have thought after the Latham experience the Labor Party would have actually learnt something.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Why don’t you justify how much money you spent in coalition electorates?
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
It is the same old thing. The Labor Party learnt nothing. The truth is, Senator Wong, that you are going to remain on that side of the parliament until you understand that parents want choice. This government is very comfortable with choice. Parents want choice and, until you understand that, the Labor Party is going to fail on education. I listened to Senator Crossin, who spoke earlier. I generally do listen to Senator Crossin, because she is one of those senators who like to get out and about. She is not like most Labor Party senators, who just stay confined to the city areas. Senator Crossin does get out and about—I think that is true. When I listened to Senator Crossin I thought, ‘Well, Labor was in power for 13 years; I wonder what happened to their policies in 13 years with the Indigenous schools.’ And then I thought, ‘Gosh, those government schools that Senator Crossin is talking about must be largely funded by Clare Martin’s Territory government.’ And then I thought, ‘Could Senator Crossin be attacking Clare Martin and her government?’ And I thought, ‘Gee, that’s a surprise.’ The Labor Party is in power in six states and two territories. These governments have very significant responsibilities in the area of education. Why aren’t they doing anything?
Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If you have any idea how education is funded, you would know that Indigenous education is funded over and above the education budget.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
No, we listened to you, Senator, and we understand the passion with which you come to this issue. No-one disputes that passion, and no-one disputes the serious problems there are in the area of Indigenous education. What are wanting are the highly politicised ramblings that go on as though the Labor Party had no responsibilities to develop a coherent policy on this. You had a policy at the last election and it went very badly. People thought it was a very ordinary and very poor policy. I do not know: Senator Wong probably was not responsible for that, but I urge you, Senator Wong, to learn what happened in the last election, listen to the people, listen to the public and frame your policies accordingly. Do not frame them because you have been given instructions by teacher unions.
All the time I have been in this parliament, the Labor Party get their policy in the post. It is written by the teacher unions and then they release it, and then the rest of the community throw up their hands in horror. So I have to say I thought the contributions were very ordinary indeed. I am sorry to say that, because as senators know I am a senator who likes to listen and to learn, and I learnt so little from those contributions.
The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006 was passed in the other place on 1 March 2006 and was introduced by my colleague Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan on 2 March 2006. The measures in this amendment bill address the immediate needs of school communities throughout Australia by providing increased Australian government funding.
If you listened to all those contributions from the other side of the chamber, you would never have guessed that there was increased funding being made available. This bill will enable more funding in 2006 to directly benefit schools and students. So what happened? The Labor Party attacked this bill. It is a very ordinary performance. Let me just make this very obvious point: under this government, schools across Australia has been funded at record levels. The government seeks to improve outcomes from schools—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Especially those in coalition electorates!
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
and provide a better future for all Australian students through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly to those schools serving the neediest communities. Senator Wong, I am a bit surprised to hear you attacking private schools, because you of course went to a private school.
Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Kemp, address your comments through the chair, please.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I just wanted to record—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall—that Senator Wong went to a private school. She may have felt that her experience showed that this school was not providing a suitable education. Alternatively, she might have thought, ‘Because of the education provided at this school I have had opportunities and now at a comparatively young age I am a frontbencher in the alternative government.’ People will draw their conclusions—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Justify the funding to private schools in coalition electorates. That is what I am talking about.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Oh, well, Senator Wong has clarified the issue. She actually is in favour of private schools. That is a good thing, and that is entirely appropriate because it means that we have at least some agreement there. Then of course we had this rather sleazy attack on this bill, and I do not think it becomes some senators—Senator Wong in particular—to stand up here and make allegations about improper use of government funds. So let me just quote from a briefing note I have here on advice from the minister, who completely rejected any claim that there is any bias or rorting of the program, or that funds are being directed to coalition seats: ‘The minister is satisfied that there are robust processes in place for selecting projects and that the sort of bias alleged cannot happen.’ So, from my understanding, the claims are completely unfounded.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong interjecting—
Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Crossin interjecting—
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you very much for the protection you are affording me, Mr Acting Deputy President. As you know, I am one who likes a considered debate and I am somewhat shocked at the abuse which is coming from the other side of the chamber on this important bill. As I said, the minister has indicated that there are robust processes in place for selecting projects and the sort of bias that is alleged cannot happen. Indeed, under this program the government is working hand-in-hand with peak national bodies, parents and primary and secondary school principals to make sure assessments are done as impartially as possible.
I am distressed that Senator Wong, who kept on yelling out ‘Speak about bias in funding’—so I go to a briefing note and I am now tackling that particular issue and answering Senator Wong’s question—is walking around the chamber and showing no interest. This is not a good look, Senator Wong, I regret to say. You are meant to engage in these debates.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you for your instructions. Of course, I will abide by them totally.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, very rarely do I query your ruling but the debate revolved around some bias in funding and this is exactly the question that I am tackling. I think it is entirely appropriate to address these very unfortunate comments from Senator Wong and others. The point I am making is this: it is the parents and principal representatives who vote on the state based assessment advisory panels which assess applications, and the minister states that neither the department nor the state government adviser has any vote on the project. I hope that lays to rest the accusations which have been made. It is entirely appropriate if senators think—
Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Crossin interjecting—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Wong interjecting—
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek your protection from this constant abuse from the other side of the chamber.
Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That is most helpful and greatly appreciated. I think that lays to rest these accusations of bias, which are totally and strongly rejected by the minister. I would like to say that there is a range of other issues from the speeches in the second reading debate that should be addressed, but there are not—that is the truth; they were very ordinary speeches. There was a bit of discussion on the tuition voucher and I thought that may be worth some comments. I make the point that this is one of a range of measures introduced by the Australian government to ensure that all students achieve a satisfactory level of literacy and numeracy. I would have thought that that would have been widely welcomed.
My summing up on this matter simply is this: I urge the Labor Party to go back to basics, to not accept registered letters from teacher unions posting their policies out to them, to listen very carefully to parents, to embrace concepts of choice, to welcome the increased funding which this government is putting towards schools and to work with the government in the very important area of Indigenous schools and education. I commend the minister. I am delighted to have had this opportunity to complete the second reading debate on this bill. I congratulate the minister and indeed the government on putting forward these measures. Naturally, we will not be accepting the second reading amendment.