Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the two Democrat amendments on sheets 4884 and 4883 are not going to be moved. The only amendment is the opposition amendment on sheet 4887. I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 19), after item 20, insert:

20A  At the end of section 120

Add:

        (7)    The Minister may make a determination authorising payment for the purposes of this section to one of the following:

             (a)    an approved authority mentioned in section 9; or

             (b)    a nominated authority mentioned in section 10; or

             (c)    an approved government school community organisation mentioned in section 11; or

             (d)    any other person or body that has met national standards for educational quality and financial and management probity.

        (8)    The regulations will specify the content of the national standards described in subsection (7)(d) following consultation with state authorities for government and non-government schools, national and state professional teaching associations and accreditation authorities and national parents’ associations.

This amendment is the same amendment that was moved by the opposition in the House and it demonstrates our clear intent to strengthen the probity controls in place in relation to schools assistance funding. If agreed to by the Senate, this amendment will protect the quality and integrity of projects supported under section 120 of the principal act. Although the amendment within this context is concerned with the need to improve the operations of the government’s ill-considered tutorial voucher initiative, it has the benefit of applying to all projects funded under the grants for national projects element of the broader Commonwealth programs for literacy, numeracy and special learning needs.

In the second reading debate I outlined the need for reform in the way this kind of program is administered. There is too much scope under current legislation and administrative guidelines for funding to be wasted. The appointment of the mysterious progressive learning company as a tutorial voucher broker is a sad and, for the government, embarrassing case in point. This broker clearly had no understanding of the way schools and school systems work; it clearly has failed to deliver. Only 12 per cent of eligible students in Victoria have received the help they need to improve their reading literacy. I do not believe Senator Kemp addressed that particular fact in his summing up, despite the fact that we debated it—certainly I questioned it as opposition representative in the Senate—at some length.

It is not good enough for the minister to fall back on this standard government mantra: ‘When things go wrong, blame the states.’ Look at the difference in the take-up of the scheme in those states where school authorities were brokers. In those states they were able to use their knowledge of schools and students’ needs and the relevant education systems to deliver much higher participation rates—no word from the minister on these successes.

The amendment would give some protection to the future operation of the Tutorial Voucher Initiative and other related programs funded through column 6 of the table in part 1 of schedule 9 in the principal act: grants for national projects. This element will more than double to over $19 million in 2006, arising from the moving of unspent moneys in 2004 and 2005. This funding needs protection and it needs to be spent wisely and strategically. Some of the unspent funding should be given to schools and systems, for them to spend directly on schools, students and teachers.

Those students who have already missed out should have priority in the use of these funds. They cannot wait for yet another round of calling for applications, tendering for brokers, searching for tutors and checking their qualifications, experience, child protection records and the like. We must guarantee that the professionals working with schools, teachers and, most importantly, children and their parents have the appropriate skills. We must protect the integrity and probity of the individuals and agencies that have been funded for the allocation of public moneys to deliver this literacy support. My suggestion to the chamber is that the opposition’s amendment will provide this kind of protection.

We acknowledge that existing authorities, such as school and community bodies, mentioned in sections 9, 10 and 11 of the principal act, already meet conditions for the receipt and delivery of Commonwealth funds for schools. This includes the large amounts provided through per capita general recurrent grants, as well as for capital works and targeted programs. But other persons and bodies should also meet quality and probity criteria. The amendment moved by the opposition prescribes that anyone other than an already approved authority will need to satisfy national standards for these criteria. This means that persons or organisations brokering literacy tutors should meet the same standards for financial integrity as other recipients of Commonwealth grants—something that would seem to be logical and appropriate. Most importantly, the brokers must be responsible for the quality of tutors they contract for literacy support. Those tutors must satisfy the professional teaching standards that are required of all teachers. The principles set out in the National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching, as endorsed by all ministers including the Commonwealth minister, would be a useful starting point.

The best way to develop such national standards is to ask those in the states and territories, in the schools, in the classrooms and in the teacher accreditation authorities to give advice on what will work. This kind of amendment is in the spirit of goodwill and collaboration, where all are working for students and for parents. When the standards are ready, the parliament can have the opportunity to consider these various issues through regulations. This gives the government the flexibility it needs to deliver the program in a timely way, while protecting parliament’s right to approve or change it. I commend the amendment to the Senate and urge support for the strengthened probity and integrity controls this amendment would deliver in schools funding.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Wong noted, this is the same amendment that was proposed in the other place and, as the minister pointed out in the other place, the proposed amendment is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of how funding is delivered under the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004. The outcome the opposition is trying to achieve is already possible under the act. The arrangements currently in the schools assistance act outline the processes for entering into arrangements with non-government schools and non-school organisations to deliver much needed educational services and support to Australian schools and students. The arrangements are robust and include the need for these organisations to enter into agreements with the Australian government that outline financial and educational accountability requirements. The opposition has again failed to make a sufficient case for these amendments; therefore, the government will not support them.

From a more technical point of view, I am advised that the overriding flaw in this is because it refers the payments to non-government bodies; however, the act makes payments to the states for non-government bodies. Notwithstanding that point, the proposal to add subclauses (7)(a) to (d) does not add anything new, because (7)(a), (b) and (d) are already possible under the act and (7)(c) refers to government school community organisations, and these are not non-government bodies under the act. Consequently, the government will not be supporting the amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a couple of points. It is no surprise that the minister is articulating this position, as clearly the minister in the other place has indicated the same view. The system that the minister describes as ‘quite robust’—that is, the existing system—and is defending against an amendment such as this is one that has delivered in Victoria a situation where only 12 per cent of eligible students have in fact received the relevant assistance. That is what this government is describing as ‘quite robust’. One in eight eligible students—12 per cent—in the state of Victoria is actually receiving the assistance to which they are supposedly entitled under this program.

My suggestion to the chamber and to the government is that 12 per cent is really not what most would regard as a reasonable outcome. It is certainly not an outcome that would be regarded as ‘robust’—to use the term of this minister and the minister in the other place. We on this side of the chamber believe that inserting better probity mechanisms and safeguards into this legislation is appropriate. We do not think having one in eight Victorian students who are eligible for this assistance receiving it is particularly strong praise for the way the program is currently being delivered.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Wong’s) be agreed to.