Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I have only three minutes in which to finish my contribution on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007, having spoken on it late last night. Before I stopped at 11 o’clock, I was talking about this government’s proposal to put flagpoles in schools. I want to make two points about that.

One was about truly supporting Indigenous education. Most of my speech last night was about this government’s lack of recognition, under the Investing in Our Schools Program, of Indigenous schools. I recognise the fact that $100,000 worth of capital equipment will not go as far in a remote school as it would in a school in a suburban centre in a capital city on the eastern seaboard. Therefore I was a bit perplexed as to why government schools, which might have a majority of Indigenous students, were not entitled to much more than $100,000, but so be it. This government continually wants to crow about the fact that Indigenous students are not doing so well. That is predominantly, supposedly, never ever its fault, but when it gets an opportunity to provide more money to those school students it does not do it.

Going back to the issue of flagpoles, I have had many requests from Indigenous communities and schools wanting to know if they could get two flagpoles so that they could fly the Indigenous flag as well as the Australian flag. But under this scheme it is one flagpole and one flag, and the flag has got to be the Australian flag, not a flag that Indigenous people might want to hoist up a pole and have just as much respect for. The crux of the matter for this government is that, while it goes on at length about flagpoles, about citizenship and values in schools and about trying to pay teachers for their improved performance in the classroom, it never really looks at the real substantive issue here: providing schools, particularly Indigenous schools, with the fundamental resources that they need. It never dips into its pockets and it never says: ‘As we’re talking about literacy and numeracy outcomes for Indigenous kids, how can they possibly meet a year 3, 5 or 7 benchmark in literacy when there is no nationally funded oral program? Basic How to Teach Reading 101 says if you can’t speak the language, you can’t read it.’ We never hear the minister talking about having a comprehensive oral English program out there so that the Indigenous children of this country might be able to speak the language that they have to read, which they are then measured against. The logical extension is that now teachers will be measured against it. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would encourage the previous speaker, Senator Crossin, to actually have a look at the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007 and the second reading speech. Part of the bill provides for $9.445 million for literacy, numeracy and special learning needs programs, but I did not hear the previous speaker give the Howard government any credit for that whatsoever. Obviously, she has not read the bill, and she has certainly not taken any notice of the second reading speech, in which all of this was explained.

It is probably appropriate at the beginning of my speech to do a reality check of education. I ask the Senate: why do we have states? We have states to look after things like policing, health, housing and education. Education is a state issue. To help with that, the Howard government has provided all of the states and territories with a huge windfall tax gain called the goods and services tax—the GST. Senators will well remember, though I am amazed that many Australians still do not know, that every single cent of the GST goes to the state and territory governments. They have enormous amounts of money. They are rolling in money from the GST. And yet what have the states done with that? Across all states we have the worst health system that we have seen for many years. The health system is going backwards at a time when the states are getting more and more money from the Commonwealth through the GST and more and more money from the Commonwealth through direct grants for health.

So what do you have states for? They cannot look after health and they are pretty ordinary at looking after housing—let us look at schooling. What have the states done for schooling? This is a state issue. Everything that Senator Crossin spoke about is probably true, but why don’t the states, which have the responsibility for schooling and education, actually do something about it? It is okay for Senator Crossin to come in here and blame the federal government, but it is the state governments that have responsibility for education. The state governments should be doing all the sorts of things that Senator Crossin spoke about, but they do not, and so yet again the Howard government has come riding to the rescue of the states by providing some $1.81 billion for schooling. Why have we done that? Because the states are not meeting their responsibilities to the young people of Australia. The states are not providing the funds that are needed to give our children a good education. For decades—centuries even—the states have been in charge of education, and they have given us a system which is very second-rate. So the Howard government has come along and provided this money to help out.

The money the Commonwealth government is providing goes to all children. We do not have this class warfare distinction that the Labor Party seem to have every now and again. I am not sure whether today they are on the class warfare bit or whether they turned it over a couple of days ago. I notice that the front page of today’s Australian indicates that the present ALP platform is that Labor governments must give priority to public schools—the old class warfare stuff. Private schools or Catholic schools are for the rich and the poor people all go to state schools. I should declare an interest here: I went to a state school—I never went to a private school—and I share that distinction with the Prime Minister. We are both very well served by our state school education. But now parents are voting with their feet. Nowadays the state schools system is so poor that parents want to look to Catholic and other private schools to give their children a decent education. As I say, parents are voting with their feet. Many parents are taking second jobs so they can get their kids into a private school or a Catholic school. It costs them a bit more, but the state governments have run state schools so poorly that parents do not want to send their kids to them anymore. At great personal cost to themselves, parents are sending their children to private schools because they know they will get a better education there.

Our government wants to support choice for parents. We support the public schools. Indeed, a very substantial part of the funding that has been made available through this bill will go to state schools. Of the additional $181 million allocated—a figure I will come back to shortly—$127 million, a bit more than two-thirds of it, will be going to state owned government schools and $54 million will be going to non-government schools. So the Howard government is fair and even in providing funding for all families so that all children can get an education. On the other hand, the Labor Party, until an announcement a couple of days ago, only wanted to help children going to state schools. All those working-class people—all those ordinary Australians, if I can use that terminology—who want their kids to go to private schools instead of state schools are prepared to work harder, and the Labor Party did not want to help those parents out.

In the last couple of days, I heard Mr Rudd saying that he is going to adopt the Howard government’s approach to schooling and axe Mr Beazley’s hit list of private schools. Mr Rudd has announced it unilaterally, in contravention of the Labor Party platform, it appears to me—that does not seem to worry the Labor Party too much; they have never been very good at following the rules—and told everyone that Labor will not abide by that part of the platform and will adopt the Howard government’s approach to schooling. According to the Australian, some of those on the left of the Labor Party are not too happy about this. I understand that there is a pretty good rearguard action going on now to do Mr Rudd over at the national convention when it occurs in a couple of months. So it will be interesting to see whether the Left of the Labor Party will have their way on schools or whether, with an election coming up, Mr Rudd will be able to paper over these things, smile prettily and confuse people about Labor’s real policy on schools. The good thing is that there is no confusion about the Liberal position on this. We have been clear and up-front. We want to help all children with their schooling. We want to give parents choice in the way they can educate their children. The bill before us today is a tangible recognition of the Howard government’s approach.

A total of $1.181 billion is going into schools, most of it to government schools but a fair share to private schools. In the amending bill before us today we are adding another $181 million to the Investing in Our Schools Program, bringing the total amount committed by the Howard government for schooling to $1.181 billion. It is a great news story. One would think that Labor senators would be in here congratulating the government on this additional input into schools.

Senator Crossin mentioned flagpoles in a derogatory way. I happen to think the proposal is a pretty good one. I remember going to Croydon to open a little school up in the Gulf of Carpentaria. It was a long way for me to go but I was able to do a few other things while I was in the area. It was great to go to that small school in the gulf, Croydon State School, and to see how proud those kids were—if my memory serves me correctly, there were about 30 kids in the whole school—to be able to fly the Australian flag. The majority of the children were of Aboriginal descent. They were all very proud Australians. They had an Aboriginal flag there, as well as a Torres Strait Islander flag—and good luck to them. They were acknowledging themselves as proud Australians. It was a great day when we were able to launch that flagpole.

Going around North Queensland and looking at the work that has been done by state and private schools under the Investing in Our Schools Program is practically a full-time job for me. I have been to St Anthony’s up in the northern beaches of Townsville, the Catholic school in Mareeba, the state and Catholic schools in Biloela and the Mount Archer State School in Rockhampton looking at the work that has been done with this money. Many of the schools have received up to $150,000. A new element of the program is that this additional $181 million will go to those schools which so far have not applied for and have not received money. Up to $100,000 will be made available under the next stage of the Investing in Our Schools Program. Not every school will get $100,000. It is a semi-competitive program and the schools have to justify what they need.

I have to tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this program is one of the most welcomed and most gratefully received programs that the federal government has ever introduced. In the past, state governments starved their schools of funding. While schools require shade areas, new playgrounds and new classrooms, the state governments are too busy spending their money on spin doctors, bureaucrats—public servants—getting the message out and playing politics. They are not too interested in spending money on schools. Children desperately need these additions. What is the alternative? The parents and citizens groups have to go and sell raffle tickets to raise the money to put in air conditioners, shade areas or new playgrounds for the children. These are essential items in the education system. At night-time or after work the mums and dads have to go and sell raffle tickets to try and raise money to put into the state schools, which is what the state governments should be doing.

This program not only provides money for children and their education but also relieves parents from some of the more arduous asks of having to raise money to put the essentials into state schools. In many private and Catholic schools the P&Cs do a lot of work. I know many parents take on an extra job so they can afford to send their kids to a private school, because they believe they get a better education there. This program also helps those mums and dads because it relieves them a little of the obligation to raise additional funding for the education of their children. These funds assist with buildings, maintenance and the updating of schools throughout Australia. As I have indicated, there has been a very enthusiastic response from schools for funding under the Investing in Our Schools Program.

I might say in passing that the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Ms Bishop, and the parliamentary secretary, Mr Pat Farmer, do a fabulous job. I think Ms Bishop, as education minister, has been quite outstanding in the work she has done in recent times helping our schools. I also congratulate Pat Farmer. He has been as enthusiastic in his involvement with this program and in helping schools as he was in his athletic events in years gone by. I think some of his athleticism, energy and enthusiasm have carried over into the way he has helped to develop this program.

So far the minister has approved over 15,000 projects from government schools and over 2,000 from non-government schools. I seem to have opened many of those, because my weekly work seems to involve going from one end of Queensland to another opening these schools. I know that my Liberal Senate colleagues in Queensland, Senator Mason, Senator Brandis and Senator Trood, have been doing the same sort of thing. I know that our local members, Mr Entsch in Cairns, Mr Lindsay in Townsville and Mr Macfarlane in Groom, and all our members on the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast and around Brisbane spend a lot of their days going and seeing the great work that is being done—being lobbied, I have to say, by parents and citizens, presidents and treasurers for a little extra funding, and principals wanting to talk to their local representatives about new initiatives the Investing in Our Schools Program could help with. So it has been a great program and a very well received program.

That brings me back to almost where I started. When you see the effort the Australian government has put into education you wonder why we bother to have states. You really do. They cannot run hospitals, they cannot run schools, they cannot run housing and they cannot run the road system. In spite of the enormous amount of money that we give them through the GST and through special grants, they cannot do any of these things and they have to come to the Commonwealth government, which has an understanding of the needs of these things, to bail them out of problems all the time.

This bill will provide funding, for schools that have received little or no funding to date, of up to $100,000 for government schools and up to $75,000 for non-government schools. The bill also appropriates some money for the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. What Senator Crossin said is right: there is a concern with the education of Indigenous young people because the states are simply not focusing on the issue. This bill will give some money towards the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. There are other funding programs that the Commonwealth has provided to try to give Indigenous kids, particularly in remote parts of Australia, the opportunity they need to have a successful and fulfilling future.

It is a good news bill. Congratulations to the minister for bringing the program forward and for convincing cabinet of the need to add to it—I am sure that not a lot of convincing was needed. I am very proud to be part of a government that has put this enormous amount of money into the education and future of young Australians. I certainly commend the bill to the Senate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007. While any increase in funding for our schools is, of course, to be welcomed, I would like to share with the Senate the concerns my colleagues and I have about some parts of this bill and this Minister for Education, Science and Training, the member for Curtin. I should also like to mention that Labor acknowledges the infrastructure shortfall our schools face and supports the injection of additional funds into the Investing in Our Schools Program.

But as my Western Australian colleague the member for Perth, Stephen Smith, noted in the other place, the Howard government and Minister Julie Bishop have been quite cynical in the way they changed the guidelines for the Investing in Our Schools Program midstream, reducing the amount of funding government schools can apply for from $150,000 to $100,000. Besides altering guidelines for government schools, which means the ability of all schools to get funding has been cut, the Howard government has not committed to continuing this program beyond the current funding round. This is quite a blow for public schools, and I could not help noting the remarks by a writer in the Age on Tuesday, 13 March this year. In the article with the headline ‘Julie Bishop gets an F for fairness’, the reporter, a Ms Julie Szego—and I apologise to the reporter if I have mispronounced her name—suggested:

That’s the problem with the Howard Government—you can’t always take the portfolios at face value ... Maybe it ought ... to drop the pretence with Bishop’s portfolio and preface ‘education’ with ‘private’, to avoid any further confusion.

The reporter makes the point, and it is a good point, that Minister Bishop bashes public schools and then does not give them the funding to improve performance.

But it has not been a good couple of weeks for the minister. A couple of weeks ago the minister pulled a stunt in the other place. In a bizarre display she tried to scold the Leader of the Opposition for allegedly stealing her policy. As if we need to! Given the fine work being done by the member for Perth, and the very positive reception given to Labor’s recent policy announcements on funding for schools, we have no need to steal anyone else’s policies, let alone a Howard government one.

Labor is adopting an innovative approach, while the Minister for Education, Science and Training continues to bash public schools and indulge in scare campaigns. It is little wonder that public opinion is turning against the tired, worn-out Howard government. The minister described the Leader of the Opposition as a ‘naughty boy’; it is the minister herself who has been sent to the naughty corner by none other than the federal Treasurer. After extolling the alleged virtues of performance pay for teachers for so long, it was the minister who copped a scolding, or should I say caning, from the Treasurer over the issue.

In a news item in the Australian on 21 March this year, under the headline ‘Costello junks Bishop pay plan’, reporter Samantha Maiden said,

Peter Costello has ruled out a large-scale federally funded program to deliver performance pay for the nation’s teachers, despite Education Minister Julie Bishop’s championing the issue.

So, who has been a naughty girl then? Who has been caught speaking out of turn? One would love to have been a fly on the wall in the cabinet room when the Treasurer gave the education, science and training minister a thorough dressing-down over the issue. I can imagine the Treasurer saying, ‘You naughty girl, you.’ Who has been sent to the naughty corner in the cabinet room for a bit of time-out? Can you imagine the tantrum put on by the minister when the Treasurer took one of her favourite rag dolls—her championing of performance pay—away from her? It would not have been a pretty sight!

What Minister Bishop needs to do, like so many naughty children and ministers, is get a taste of reality. The minister should get out to schools like the Forrestfield Senior High School in Perth, a sports college of which I have the privilege to be the patron, and see the fantastic job being done by teachers there and meet the great students. The teachers do not need performance pay to make them some of the finest people I have had the pleasure of meeting. They are doing a fantastic job in a great public school system in Western Australia. The minister should get out and talk to those teachers and hear them say, as they have said to me, that it is all right for the minister from Canberra to bag them because they are an easy target. I say it is not all right. She should hear these teachers say, as they say to me, that by bashing the public school system and promoting ideas like performance based pay she is insinuating that they are lazy or useless.

It is obvious to them, as it is to me and my colleagues, that Minister Bishop is attacking the very people we should put on a pedestal—the pedestal they once were on. These teachers should be held in the highest esteem as some of the most important members of our community. They are charged with one of the community’s most important tasks: the education and care of our children.

So the minister gets a caning from the Treasurer. She is told to pull her head in on the issue of performance pay. So what does she do? She denies ever supporting the concept of federal funding for performance pay in the first place. She says that she and the Treasurer have always seen eye to eye on the issue. I tell the Senate this: the minister must have copped quite a time-out in the naughty corner to have changed her tune so quickly and so thoroughly. The minister has been thoroughly humiliated by the man she has supported for so long—all tip and no iceberg indeed!

In a report yesterday by Samantha Maiden in the Australian newspaper, the Treasurer is quoted as saying:

We can’t change the terms and conditions of teachers’ pay because we don’t pay any of them …

He went on to say in the same report:

I have said I will continue to put pressure on them—

that is, the states—

to change those conditions … to incorporate an element of performance pay … How they do that is up to discussion.

“(But) the commonwealth has the ability ... to make it a condition of funding.

I will return to the questions raised by those remarks in a moment, but those opposite, especially ministers from Western Australia, might like to reflect on the concept of performance pay and think about how Minister Julie Bishop might be earning hers.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope you are listening, Minister Johnston. Heaven forbid that ministers from either side of politics be paid based on performance! Some on the other side would be handing money back to the department of finance if performance pay were introduced into their ranks. Imagine for a moment that ministers were paid for performance: how would Minister Bishop be earning hers, if she was earning any at all? Why might the Treasurer sign off on her bonus after such a scathing dressing-down? It is a bit like a mid-year performance review that went badly wrong for the employee in question. How might the minister salvage her bonus, which is very much in danger of going down the gurgler—by maligning public school teachers? Maybe blaming someone else might save her bonus. It might help. After all, blaming others is one of the few skills, if you can call it that, which she brings to the job. But maybe the best way for Minister Bishop to save her bonus is to do exactly as she did. As soon as Treasurer Costello pulled her nose she fell back into line so quickly she certainly went a long way towards restoring her prospects.

Speaking of performance and dedication—something Minister Julie Bishop is obviously lacking in—I want to return to Forrestfield Senior High School and make particular mention of the principal, Mr Peter Noack, who is ably assisted by Mr Greg Maynard, head of the physical education department. At Forrestfield high school they have successfully combined academic and sporting excellence with a series of sports colleges incorporated into the school structure so that gifted young sports women and men can integrate their school studies while they develop their sporting skills. This way of doing things is paying off in a big way. Not only are the students successful academically; they are also very successful in their various sports at state and national level.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is probably funded by the federal government.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is innovative, combining learning and sport, and these teachers do it without performance pay. They do not ask for it and they do not need it. And, just to take that interjection from Senator Johnston, they do it all themselves without any extra funding—all by themselves—with the goodwill and commitment of the students, the parents and, most importantly, the teachers. I hope that has cleared that up for you, Senator Johnston. These are the very same people Minister Bishop likes to malign. That is about real performance by teachers and students—unlike what we see from this lazy, tired government. I shall talk more about the virtues of Forrestfield Senior High School at another time, but it is important to talk about the great work of people like Peter Noack and Greg Maynard and the staff and students in the context of federal funding for schools.

But back to the Treasurer and his comments that so effectively suppressed the minister for education. What can we take the Treasurer to mean by these comments? One way to interpret these comments is that further power will be taken away from the states: you will do as we say or you won’t get your funding—more bullying, as usual, from the Treasurer. Sadly, this is the kind of behaviour we have come to expect from this minister.

There is a more sinister interpretation. We have witnessed in this very place, in late 2005, this arrogant government using its numbers in the Senate to guillotine debate and ram through the so-called Work Choices legislation. Then the states lost their High Court challenge. So could we see a repeat performance over education? Will we see the federal government using the corporations power to take away control of education from the states? This would be a monumental disaster for the great public schools system, for teachers, and, more importantly, for students. No wonder the minister for education has been sent to the naughty corner for letting the cat out of the bag over this government’s arrogant approach to public education.

Labor has a fresh approach to education and education funding. It is no wonder public opinion is condemning the Howard government for its treatment of public schools, and it is little wonder public and expert opinion is so receptive to the good work being done by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd, and the shadow minister for education, Stephen Smith. There is Labor’s Local Schools Working Together program to provide funding for capital across government and non-government schools where it is needed. I wish to repeat that for those on the other side who may be confused: across government and non-government schools where it is needed. These are areas where population growth means that parents and schools are demanding more and better facilities. The idea of sharing infrastructure is a very good one, and I commend once again the responsible shadow minister for promoting this policy. This is all part of Labor’s education revolution.

Another part of Labor’s plan is 260 childcare centres on school sites. Once again, this is another excellent idea, saving the double drop-off for parents, but—guess what?—ignored by this government. In addition there have been a number of other very good policy proposals put forward by Labor already this year: early childhood education guaranteed, efforts to get more students studying science and mathematics, and a national curriculum for the key areas of history, science and maths, working with the cooperation of the states and territories.

Let me end by making it perfectly clear that talk of ‘hit lists’ is over. To respond to Senator Ian Macdonald’s contribution—which I always find completely different, to say the least—I will say it one more time. It can be picked up if he has his TV on in his room. It is over. There are no hit lists. Schools and students, government and non-government, will be better off under a federal Labor government. Funding will not be cut. It will also be fair and will be on the basis of need. We will see public opinion liking what they hear from Labor on education. The voters will get their opportunity later this year. They will vote on who should get their performance pay—our version of it at least—and I suspect it will not be people on the other side either in this chamber or in the other place.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by foreshadowing a second reading amendment on behalf of Senator Nettle and the Australian Greens which is to add at the end of the second reading motion the words:

“but the Senate condemns the Government for not funding schools on the basis of genuine need which necessarily requires funding to be diverted from being provided to the wealthiest private schools and instead being redirected to the most needy public schools”.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Greedy.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, address your remarks through the chair. Just ignore Senator Joyce.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I will. I am going to be very brief because Senator Nettle gave a sterling speech on behalf of the Greens on this matter last night. What she pointed out was that you cannot have a needs based policy, as the government says it has and as Labor claims it has, while the limited education funding and increases in the limited education funding keep going to the ultrawealthy schools at the top of the pile at the expense, therefore, of the most needy schools in Australia. You cannot say that you have a needs based program when the money going out of the public purse to already very well-off schools might be providing for a rifle range whereas public schools are looking to maintain or to refurbish toilets and basic needs for the kids that go there.

The prior role and responsibility of government is to ensure that all Australians have not just basic buildings in which to be able to be educated but that the quality of their education is going to ensure them an equal opportunity at the end of their education process for fulfilment in life. We simply do not have that in Australia. The gap between rich and poor is growing, as the gap between rich and poor schools is growing. The very richest schools are in the private sector and the poorest schools, not least Indigenous schools in this country, are in the public sector.

The case is for us putting extra expenditure into the public schools sector where it is badly needed—instead of putting it into the fifth swimming pool, putting it into the classroom where kids need to get a basic education. The argument that Senator Nettle put forward is that neither of the big parties anymore are offering needs based education policy. The Labor Party cannot claim to be doing that when its own funding program is right across the spectrum. It has withdrawn from the ideal that money should be going to the poorest schools in Australia. What money is available—and it becomes increasingly from the federal arena—should be going into refurbishing and upgrading the poorest schools in Australia to bring some equality back into the education system.

The Greens will be pursuing this issue in the run-up to the election. We are unashamed defenders of the public school education system in this country. We believe that more should be spent overall on education, not less. We want to take Australia from its languishing position in the OECD spending stakes into the top 10. The Labor Party has recently moved to put Australia back into the forefront of the delivery of broadband services. Is it not as important or more important to put Australia back into the forefront of the delivery of public school educational services?

Let me remind the Senate that the countries at the forefront of the OECD include Scandinavian countries and countries like Austria which, almost universally, have a system which is not divided between private and public education, unlike the system we have. We do have a private education system in this country and it is very diverse, and we accept that. But the Greens are saying that the limited education dollar should not be going to the very wealthiest school to build a fifth swimming pool when there are many schools in Australia which have a dire need for money just to enable them to present a quality education commensurate with that of countries of equal population and standards.

Again, I thank Senator Nettle for her speech to the Senate last night. I recommend that members read that speech. As a consequence, Senator Nettle will be moving a second reading amendment to get back to the time-honoured Australian philosophy of a fair go. We should be ensuring that when there is new money available for education it goes to the neediest public schools in this country.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions. The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007 contains measures that will provide increased Australian government funding to meet the immediate needs of school communities throughout the nation. Under this government all Australian schools have been funded at record levels. The Australian government will provide a record estimated $33 billion in funding for Australian schools over the four years 2005-08. Funding to Australian schools has increased by close to 160 per cent, from $3.6 billion in 1996 to $9.3 billion in 2006-07. Through increased financial assistance to schools, particularly schools serving the neediest communities, the government seeks to improve the outcomes from schools for all Australian students.

State governments have primary responsibility for education. State governments own, operate and are the major source of funds for public schools, while the federal government supplements that funding as a percentage of the state investment. State governments accredit and regulate non-government schools, while the federal government provides the majority of public funding, so there is a shared responsibility between the state and federal governments.

It has been claimed that there is decreasing funding to state government schools. In fact, the opposite is true. The government has provided record levels of funding to public schools in every year since 1996, in total an increase of 118 per cent, while enrolments have increased over that time by only 1.2 per cent. It is also claimed that non-government schools are supported at the expense of government schools, but that is not the case. The government believes that it is every parent’s right to choose the best educational outcome for their child, and this government’s funding policies have provided parents with greater choice than ever before.

The fact is that funding follows enrolments. There has been a 21.5 per cent increase in enrolments in non-government schools since 1996. Even so, 67 per cent of students are still enrolled in public schools and they receive 75 per cent of total public funding, while 33 per cent are enrolled in non-government schools and they receive 25 per cent of total public funding.

Through this bill the highly successful Investing in Our Schools Program is being bolstered by an additional $181 million. Of this funding, an additional $127 million will be made available for state government schools and $54 million will be provided for non-government schools. The Investing in Our Schools Program has fulfilled a $1 billion election commitment to deliver projects that have been identified as a priority by school communities and to provide much-needed educational outcomes for students. Almost 90 per cent of state government schools throughout Australia have received funding through this program.

While the majority of students across the country are already benefiting from projects funded by the program, there remain many schools that have not yet applied or have only applied for smaller amounts of funding. The Australian government is targeting the additional funds to these schools to assist all Australian state government schools to benefit from the Investing in Our Schools Program. To give all state government schools the opportunity to access the new funding, state government schools which have received no funding or smaller amounts of funding will be able to apply for projects which will take their total approved grants from all rounds of the Investing in Our Schools Program up to $100,000. For non-government schools the additional funds are for grants of up to $75,000, targeted at schools that have received little or no funding under the program to date.

This government also makes a significant investment in school buildings and infrastructure under the capital grants program. This program is providing an estimated $1.7 billion over 2005-08 to assist with the building, maintenance and updating of schools throughout Australia. This includes an estimated $1.2 billion in capital grant funding for state and territory government schools and an estimated $480 million for Catholic and independent schools, not including the funding in this bill.

The bill will provide $11.7 million for capital funding for non-government schools for 2008. This funding is to maintain the existing level of funding. Without this amendment, capital funding for non-government schools for 2008 will decrease.

The final measure in this bill is to provide $9.445 million for the national projects element of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program for 2008. This is to provide continued funding to the end of the quadrennium. These national projects underpin this government’s efforts to ensure that education policy, school practice and classroom teaching are effective in raising the literacy and numeracy of educationally disadvantaged students.

Parents are concerned about literacy and numeracy standards in our schools. An estimated $1.8 billion is already being provided over the 2005-08 quadrennium to the government and non-government education sectors through the schools grants element of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. This is a significant investment to support the literacy and numeracy and other learning outcomes of educationally disadvantaged students.

We should be aiming to raise the bar for every student so that we receive the highest possible standards. That is why the Australian government has taken the lead in ensuring that states and territories lift standards through a truly national literacy and numeracy assessment for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 from 2008. The test will look at the literacy and numeracy achievements of children against national measures. A student’s state of residence should not dictate education standards and experience, but there is little or no consistency between states and territories on critical issues such as starting ages, school structures, curriculum and year 12 certificates and university entry. I am calling for the development of a truly national curriculum and consistency in school starting ages.

We also cannot hope to raise standards in our schools if we continue with the fallacy that teachers do not deserve incentives and rewards for better performance. That is why I am developing options for greater consistency in professional development for teachers as well as calling on the states to provide higher salaries, and with an element of performance or merit based pay, and greater workforce flexibility. For example, we should be rewarding teachers who work in our most disadvantaged schools and achieve outstanding results or specialist teachers such as in science or maths.

This bill responds to the specific needs of schools and school communities. This government will continue to identify and respond to community aspirations for Australian schools to deliver the highest standard of education. The Australian government is committed to supporting a quality school education for all Australian children. The programs and initiatives it is putting in place are helping to create an Australian education system of high national standards, national consistency and quality so that all young people are prepared to meet the future demands of life, study and work. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question put:

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

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the Australian Greens second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:  “but the Senate condemns the Government for not funding schools on the basis of genuine need which necessarily requires funding to be diverted from being provided to the wealthiest private schools and instead being redirected to the most needy public schools”.

Question put.