Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity to speak to the second reading of what is the ‘Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) and All Praise John Howard Bill’. I find—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that it should be Prime Minister Howard.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It probably would be. I noticed that on the list of bills here today there are a series of pieces of legislation being referred to, usually in the conventional form—that is, by a direct description of the bill, for instance: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 2007; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007; Corporations (NZ Closer Economic Relations) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007; and Migration Amendment (Statutory Agency) Bill 2007. These are bills that tell us what the legislation is about, whereas this particular bill, the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, has this Orwellian description attached to it, which is increasingly occurring in this department. It is supposed to be some symbol of modernity, but it reduces our legislative program to a propaganda sheet whereby the government seeks to insert a political message into the title of a piece of legislation. Frankly, this is a very retrograde step. I wish to draw to the attention of the chamber that this is happening increasingly within this department, whereby the brave new world has very much come to the Department of Education, Science and Training.

This bill amends provisions relating to the Investing in Our Schools Program and provides funds for other school programs—capital funds for non-government schools and the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. Investing in Our Schools provides small targeted capital grants directly to government schools as well as non-government schools. In her second reading speech on this bill, the minister, Ms Bishop, noted that the Investing in Our Schools Program had proved to be very popular. She said the reason for that was that additional funds were to be appropriated. What she failed to mention was that for government schools this is the case, but not for the non-government schools, where there is in fact a new and lower cap that has been placed on the grants that any individual school may receive.

And, while the opposition supports in principle any moves to provide additional funding to schools, which of course this bill does and so we will support it, what needs to be appreciated is the dishonesty of the government’s message here and the way in which it presents this legislation. Of course, there should be a clear appreciation of the higher priority that Labor gives to the importance of education given the significance of education to our national prosperity and the continued security and social cohesion that education helps facilitate. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the minister failed to mention in her second reading speech that the effect of this particular piece of legislation was to lower the cap on grants through Investing in Our Schools for government schools. So the ceiling on grants will be lowered from $150,000 to $100,000. In other words, the government has shifted the goalposts mid-program. It has suddenly told government schools: ‘The application you were preparing for $150,000 in funding—scrap it. Write another one, reducing the amount by a third.’

When the program was announced as part of the coalition’s 2004 election commitments, the then minister for education, Brendan Nelson, indicated in a letter to school principals:

… the maximum amount an individual school community will receive is $150,000 over the next four years.

The same amount, the same specification, was included in the guidelines for the previous rounds of funding for this program, and the advice issued by the Department of Education, Science and Training on its website at that time said schools could apply for several projects up to a $150,000 limit over the life of the program. The guidelines for the second round however, which were released on 19 February this year, indicate that government schools are now only eligible for grants of $100,000. The government has reneged on its commitment as far as government schools are concerned. It has pulled the rug from under government schools despite the commitments it made at the last election. That is why I say there is dishonesty about the way this legislation comes before the parliament and the manner in which the minister has presented this bill.

Government schools that have already received a grant of less than $100,000 will only be able to receive a total of $100,000. It is only the schools that have been lucky enough to receive $150,000 to date—that is, those that have actually been able to bank the cheque—that are able to keep that more generous level of funding. If we compare that to non-government schools, we see that eligibility for grants completely uncapped. There are no restrictions. The sky is the limit. I understand that, in the most recent round of funding, 12 non-government schools received more than $1 million each. While a third of the funding that is available for non-government schools is capped at $75,000 per school—and again I stress that there is no absolute cap—the remaining two-thirds of the funding is for the non-government school sector.

There are quite clearly two sets of rules operating here. We have a situation where government schools have their maximum grant level slashed by one-third to just $100,000 while non-government schools are able to apply for more than $1 million. The minister said that this has proven to be a popular program. I am not surprised that it was popular—if you were one of the 12 schools. Many schools have decided to take advantage of it, but there is no reason why there should be different sets of rules applying for the different sectors. I cannot see any reason at all. I look forward to the minister explaining why it is that such different levels of regulation operate.

If the government’s schools policies were based on fairness, if they were actually based on need, then surely the rules of this program would be the same across the two different sectors—the government sector and the non-government sector. Government schools, surely, would be able to apply for the $1 million grants, as well as the non-government schools. I understand that, for the non-government sector, funds are targeted to the needier schools, but there are at least as many needier schools in the government school system that might benefit from the generous amounts available through this program as there are in the non-government sector. In fact, it might well be argued that there are many more needy students in the government school system than there are in the non-government school system.

As I understand the situation, the government has been far from even-handed in its policy approach to school funding. It has failed dismally on the fairness test; it fails to fund all schools on the basis of need. I contrast this with Labor’s approach, which is predicated on a commitment to fund schools on the basis of fairness and need. My colleague Stephen Smith has made that proposition perfectly clear. Just two days ago Mr Smith, who is the shadow minister for education, made four very clear and unequivocal points about Labor’s new policy direction for schools. Along with Kevin Rudd, he made it clear that Australian voters can expect from a Labor government a policy based on the following principles: a fair investment should be made at all levels of education, including schools and schooling; funding for all schools should be on the basis of need and fairness; Labor will not cut funding to any school; and Labor will not disturb the current AGSRC indexation arrangements for schools funding. Those are the four clear commitments that have been made and they underlie Labor’s policy. We can be confident that, in terms of those principles, we will be able to provide a policy that genuinely recognises a needs basis for the funding of schools. While there are obviously further announcements to be made in the run-up to the forthcoming election, I am confident that, with the propositions that have been outlined, we will be able to demonstrate a much improved allocation of funding to ensure that fairness is the underlying principle of schools funding.

The Prime Minister has recently attacked me on schools-funding policy. He has effectively sought to put words in our mouths and verbal Labor on these matters. Quoting statements that I made in this chamber a few years ago, he said that Labor believes the school policy is an addition, not an alternative, in terms of providing reasonable access to quality schooling. What he failed to point out is that we support the establishment of non-government schools and we take the view that we need to ensure that there is additional choice for parents with regard to the provision of non-government school education to give all parents a choice as to where they send their children. But that choice has to be predicated on the assumption that there are high-quality government schools available to all children in this country. A genuine choice of a government school must be available to all families, rich or poor, whether they live in the country or the city. On that basis there can be the provision of genuine equality of opportunity. It is not a fair and reasonable choice to run down government education—to undermine the quality of public education in this country—and then say that your choice is to go to a private school. That is not genuine choice at all. I am very concerned that the government’s approach on these questions does not provide adequate support to ensure the provision of high-quality public education in this country.

So I urge the government to appreciate that, if we are to provide genuine equality of opportunity in this country, that can only be addressed on the basis of genuine quality in the education provided to all children in this country, no matter where they live. I have a view on what our priorities should be for public education. Seventy per cent of Australians attend public schools in this country. That is the overwhelming majority of Australians. The principles that underlie our commitment to quality ought to be extended to that overwhelming majority. That should be a fundamental principle in the approach taken by the Commonwealth to the different sectors. Yet, quite clearly, you can see that that principle is not followed by this government in terms of this legislation. The principle is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of choice if it is not backed up by a fair policy administrative framework.

While supporting families in their choice of schooling, Labor not only recognises that most Australian children will attend public education but is also committed to ensuring that those families that enjoy the benefits of public education get access to an education of the highest quality. It is the responsibility of any government to guarantee that all children have such access. That is why we say that the Commonwealth government’s approach should be to cooperate and work with the states to ensure that that happens right across the Commonwealth. That is what our education revolution is all about: the provision of a national educational education system—at all levels—to make us the best in the world and to provide the children of this country with the best opportunities that can possibly be provided within the resources that this country has at its disposal.

Let us look at the principles outlined in this bill. The bill has provided additional funding to schools and therefore, of course, we support it. However, the bill reduces the amount of funding available to individual government schools through the Investing in Our Schools Program, and that is a matter of deep concern. It shifts the goalposts for government schools and it is not fair in that regard.

As I have indicated, this program finishes up in 2008. Now, in the year before it finishes, the guidelines the government has put forward for applications have changed. So the government is open to the charge that this program—which is essentially an ephemeral program—was no more than a political stunt announced at the last election, when commitments were made that have been reneged upon two-thirds of the way through this parliamentary term. This was not a cheap stunt: it will have cost $1.2 billion after four years—not an insignificant amount of money.

What concerns me, though, is that the government has sought to misuse this education funding in this way. It is therefore necessary to move a second reading amendment to draw attention to the approach that the government has taken. While the Senate should welcome the additional funding for the Investing in Our Schools Program, I would note that, when making the announcement, the minister was silent on the change of criteria for government schools halfway through the life of the program. The Senate should condemn the government for leaving many government schools ineligible to apply for additional funding by reducing the funding cap from $150,000 to $100,000 and failing to guarantee the future of the Investing in Our Schools Program beyond the current funding round.

I now move the second reading amendment standing in my name, as circulated:

At the end of the motion, add “but, although the Senate welcomes the additional funding for rural, regional and remote non-government schools, it notes the continuing failure of the Government to immediately address the need for additional funding for needy rural, regional and remote government schools”.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. The bill provides for extra funding of $50 million to increase the English as a second language program for humanitarian entrants and introduces a loading in the recurrent school-funding arrangements for regional and remote non-government schools of around $40 million.

The Australian Democrats will support this bill. We have said on many occasions, along with others in this chamber, that any additional funding to enhance the facilities of our schools is more than welcome. We particularly welcome the first measure in the bill, which provides more funding for intensive English language tuition for newly arrived migrant primary- and secondary-school-aged children.

Under Australia’s humanitarian program, more families from African countries are coming to Australia. In 2003-04 and 2004-05, 70 per cent of the 12,000 refugees invited here were from Africa. In 2005-06 that was 56 per cent.

Resettling populations from protracted conflict areas does bring with it particular challenges but Australia is able to meet those challenges. Many are leaving refugee camps in which they have lived for most, if not all, of their lives. These camps often house 70,000 to 80,000 people. The refugees arrive in a country that offers welfare payments, access to health care and, importantly, schooling for children. But it is by no means an easy adjustment that they face when they come here. Some of these difficulties are common to all refugees: displacement and alienation; men being unable to find work and losing their sense of worth; women finding themselves isolated; children challenging traditional limits; and prejudice and racism, both real and perceived. Many African refugees have spent extended periods in refugee camps, often for more than 15 years, and have not had access to adequate food, water, shelter or health care.

Many of these women and children are highly traumatised. Many women have lost husbands and often on multiple occasions have been brutalised and raped in their home countries, during flight and in the camps themselves.  Many children and young people have known no other life than the refugee camp. They have grown up with very limited schooling—some with none at all. Their basic literacy skills are non-existent or very low. In 2005-06, 42 per cent of humanitarian arrivals were of school age with an average of only three years of education prior to their arrival. It is overwhelmingly obvious that we need to provide more support to these children and young people. We need to provide more support across all areas, including education and English language tuition.

In Australia, children whose schooling has been disrupted or whose schooling has been largely non-existent because of war, poverty and sickness are placed into classes according to their age and not their ability. They are already well behind the eight ball. Many will not have family or friends who are in a position to help and support them and, for these students, added support to learn English is a good thing and it will go some way to ease the difficulty that these young people face. I certainly hope that this is not the full extent of the government’s effort to provide more support. I hope the government will show more compassion for vulnerable cases and consider extending the time period and the level of service available for settlement services. I hope it will introduce long-term service provisions for at-risk cases and I hope it will fund widespread community education about the circumstances from which these groups come. The government seems very keen on spending money on advertising; let’s see some of that go where it could do some good. Rather than scaremongering about refugees with HIV, the government should provide real information about the experiences of these people who were not lucky enough to be born into Australia’s predominantly safe environment.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have far less enthusiasm for the second element of this bill. We would be the first to say that there is a clear need for additional resources for education in rural and remote Australia—that is nothing new. This government and previous governments have struggled to provide equitable access to quality education and training in rural and remote locations, and that has been the case for many years. The reality is that schools and training facilities outside metropolitan areas have different needs and costs to those in the cities, and this applies equally to government and non-government schools and facilities. It is a great shame that the government has not recognised this—these institutions are affected by their location.

There is a mountain of evidence and information available about student participation and achievement levels in rural education. On average, the school performance of country students lags behind that of urban students. There is a gap of 11 points between the percentage of students in metro areas passing the year 3 writing benchmark test and their counterparts in rural areas. That gap pretty much stays the same across years 5 and 7, give or take a percentage. One in five students in rural schools is not meeting the writing benchmarks, and it is no better in reading and numeracy. Yes, the gap between kids in metropolitan schools and kids in rural schools is only seven points in year 3, but by year 5 the gap increases to 11 and 12 and stays there for year 7. Again, we are looking at one in five rural students not meeting the benchmarks, and the situation is even worse if you look at students from very remote schools. Here, the gap between the percentage of students from urban schools and the percentage of very remote schools meeting the year 7 reading benchmark is 38. That is a difference of 38 points. For writing, that figure is 33 points and for numeracy it is also 33 points. All of us in this place have questioned the benchmarking and testing that goes on in years 3, 5 and 7 as being useful in telling us what needs to be done, but here you have a very clear example of the differences between metropolitan, rural and remote, yet we only have a very partial response from this government to fix the problem.

According to the National report on schooling, country students are also far less likely to finish school than their metropolitan counterparts. Seventy per cent of students in metro areas complete year 12 and only 53 per cent from remote areas do so. Although students from remote areas make up around one-third of our school students, rural and remote students constitute only about 17 per cent of tertiary students in Australia. That is a disgrace. We know there are problems with attracting and retaining teachers in rural schools and that we need better pre-service teacher preparation and ongoing support for those working in these country areas. Indeed, a HREOC report back in the year 2000 recommended that all teacher-training institutions should require undergraduates to study a module on teaching in rural and remote communities and should also offer students the option to undertake a fully funded practical placement in a rural and remote school. Now, you do not hear the Minister for Education, Science and Training talking about this when she goes on about performance pay for teachers being the way to lift results, and we see nothing in this bill to fix that problem or pick up on that recommendation made seven years ago.

There are disincentives affecting staff in rural and remote schools. The isolation; cost of travel; cost of living, including higher telephone, food and power costs, poor-quality and often expensive housing; and limited opportunities to participate in professional development, with resulting impacts on promotional opportunities, are some of the many difficulties. There have been suggestions that we should have a senior teacher outreach program to enhance the ongoing education and training of rural teachers and to provide for rural leadership, support and development—again, gone missing in this bill. Positive long-term incentives to increase and strengthen the rural education workforce and to encourage teachers to remain in rural areas, incentives similar to the incentives offered to country health professionals, are clearly needed. There has been talk about the need for more flexibility at a local level so that education facilities can be restructured to become more viable and relevant to their communities.

These issues and solutions are not unique to non-government schools. They are matters which apply across the spectrum of rural, regional and remote education and across early learning, primary and secondary education, vocational training and higher education. And they apply to both government and non-government schools—and that is the crux of the problem with the measures in this bill: once again the government’s anti public services bias is showing through. Yes, according to figures from the report on government services, 24 per cent of non-government school students attend schools in regional and remote areas. But 32 per cent of all government school students also attend schools in these areas. The public education system gets none of these incentives. Those 715,502 students get absolutely nothing in this legislation.

The government’s tired old refrain that public schools get more of the total combined federal and state money misses the point. This should not be about public versus private schools. It is about what schools need to meet the educational needs of their students. Of course, as we well know now, that is not a government priority. If it were, it would not be able to justify diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars to wealthy schools while other schools have demonstrably too few resources to do their job.

Australia is unique in the world when it comes to an open-ended public funded system for non-government schools that places no obligations on those schools for overall educational outcomes and that takes no account of the schools’ existing resources. The reality is that some schools need extra funding, whether that is because of remoteness, the nature of the students they service or the existing levels of their resources. And the children at those schools deserve those extra resources, whether they are at government or non-government schools.

It is time that we had some honesty in the debate about funding for schools. Let us do a national audit of all schools—government and non-government—so that we can see what schools need more resources and what schools do not need more. Let us see schools with the greatest need, including those with students who have extra educational and social needs, getting the greatest amount of funding. Let us see all schools required to meet the same rules and obligations when it comes to providing education to all—and that includes being subject to FOI and anti-discrimination legislation.

Unlike those in most other OECD countries, despite receiving public funding, our non-government schools can pick and choose. To be fair, many non-government schools do accept children with extra needs, but we all know of cases where children from disadvantaged backgrounds or children with learning difficulties or disabilities are turned away from some non-government schools. If these schools do not feel the ethical obligation to provide for these students, at the very least they should be contractually required to provide for them if they want to receive public funding. And let us see all schools subject to a curriculum that will provide their students with the skills they need for a modern world.

It is not acceptable to provide public funding to schools that do not allow their children access to computers or that refuse to teach sex education, for instance. Let us see all schools required to meet the same accountability and transparency standards for the public funds they receive. The Australian public deserves to know how public money is spent. Let us not be fooled by the government’s very narrow definition of choice, which is simply code for entrenching inequality between schools and giving more support to those who are already most advantaged.

Let us remember that free public education is at the core of providing equality of educational opportunity, and that participation in quality education reduces poverty and social exclusion and improves health, wealth and wellbeing. Societies where the gap between the haves and the have-nots is smaller are more cohesive, healthier and happier societies.

I also note that this piece of legislation is yet another variation to the hopelessly flawed SES funding model. We were all hoping that this year might have been the year when that model was properly reviewed and looked at and a new, more sensible model was introduced. But I see it is just more of the same tweaking around the edges to provide funding here and there. As I understand it, most of the schools that are subject to the SES model are exempt in one way or another from its rules. This is a disappointing piece of legislation to have to deal with in this place; with a stroke of a pen this money could have been going to government schools as well in remote areas, but it is not. Shame on the government for doing this.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. This bill delivers on the promises made in the May 2007 federal budget and continues the government’s very strong record of investment in education. The bill provides funds for the English as a Second Language Program for new arrivals and expands government support for non-government schools in rural and regional Australia.

The government recognises the vital importance of recent immigrants learning English. The ability to communicate with people in the workforce and in the general community is an essential skill for integrating into Australian society. As a result, the government is increasing its funding for teaching English as a second language in our primary and secondary schools. The coalition also recognises the challenges faced by schools in rural and regional Australia. Rural and regional schools face a number of costs that their counterparts in metropolitan Australia do not have to grapple with. Accordingly, the government has announced that a new funding loading will be applied to rural non-government schools, augmenting their initial federal funding by five per cent, 10 per cent or 20 per cent, according to their remoteness.

The government is proud of its record of support for non-government schools and for choice in education. The choice to educate children in non-government schools is one that is growing increasingly popular as parents are voting with their feet in what is a virtual referendum on the quality of Australian schools. In the last decade, enrolments at non-government schools have increased by approximately 20 per cent. Unfortunately, although Labor has indicated its support for the bulk of the federal budget this year, these funding policies are not really bipartisan.

We know that the Labor Party, perhaps because of the pressure they feel from the Australian Education Union, is, at best, ambivalent about federal support for independent and Catholic schools. Labor went to the last election with a hit list of schools whose funding would be slashed. They have spent the last 11 years in opposition complaining about the federal government’s support for choice in education. We know that the AEU, still using a Marxist critique, hate the idea that the federal government should facilitate choice. We know that the union movement will be bankrolling the Labor Party’s election campaign this year. We know that, for as long as the union movement holds the purse strings of the Labor Party, they retain their influence and dictate ALP policy. We have seen that expressed again in the papers this morning.

The new secretary of the ACTU has said that he wants a closer and more formal relationship with the Australian Labor Party. I would not have thought it was possible for there to be a closer and more formal relationship between the ACTU and the ALP than presently exists. But, apparently, it is possible for them to still get even closer. I do not know how that will manifest itself, but I will be waiting with bated breath to see what transpires. Already, the AEU has embarked on its regular dishonest advertising campaign, claiming that public schools are underfunded. The truth is that, whilst government schools enrol 67 per cent of all students, they receive 75 per cent of all public education funding. That is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. But it is not what you would believe to be the case if you watched the AEU’s deceptive advertising campaign. This is the sort of misleading and deceptive nonsense that we have come to expect from the unions and from Labor. But the Australian people see through it; they are not so easily fooled.

The AEU helped shape the Labor Party platform, as have other unions. Why wouldn’t they? They control 50 per cent of the votes on the floor of the ALP national conference—and it shows. When it comes to support for non-government schools, you cannot trust Labor. The Leader of the Opposition has been out there running around trumpeting the dumping of the Labor schools hit list, saying, ‘We hated private schools last election; we wanted to slash their funding, but we have now changed our mind, we now love them and want to support them by funding them.’ Mr Rudd has been out there saying, ‘The hit list policy has gone,’ promising that no private school will be worse off under Labor. Mr Rudd thinks that that will solve Labor’s problem. But not everyone is convinced by Mr Rudd.

I picked up yesterday’s Australian newspaper and saw that Bill Daniels, the head of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, wrote to Mr Stephen Smith, the shadow minister for education, to express his concern that the promises of funding from Mr Smith and Mr Rudd are:

… inconsistent with some of the statements in the ALP national platform—

the very platform that the antichoice Australian Education Union helped shape. What does the ALP national platform say on education? I went to the ALP’s website. When you click on the icon platform, this is what is on the ALP’s website—nothing. A month and a half after the national conference, the ALP have still not uploaded their national platform. I did try to assist the Senate on that issue, but I cannot because it is just not there on their website. The Australian, though, reports—courtesy of Mr Daniels, who has seen the relevant sections of the ALP platform—that it contains a clause to the effect:

… “income from private sources” will be taken into account when deciding how much money a school will receive …

We know what that means. That is code for private schools being defunded. If Labor won the next election, the schools hit list would be back. How do we know that? Because the ALP platform tells us that that would be the case. It is just another illustration of the old adage: don’t listen to what Labor say; look at what they do. They say they will not cut funding to independent schools, but their own platform suggests that that is just what they will do. Mr Daniels puts it best in his circular, when he writes:

… (Labor’s) policy, if implemented, would take us back to the dark old days when parents were penalised for their financial contribution to their children’s education.

That is the Labor way: a parent cares so much about their own child’s education that they want to put their own money towards it, and Labor thinks that should be penalised. We on this side of the chamber think it is a good thing that parents want to put money towards their child’s education. We encourage it and we support it. There is only one side of this chamber which can be trusted to support all schools—that is, the coalition.

In other areas of education funding, the 2007 federal budget maintains this government’s strong support for choice. The government will be increasing its support for children who do not meet literacy and numerous benchmarks with an expanded voucher scheme. The National Literacy and Numeracy Vouchers program provides a $700 voucher to the families of students who are not meeting literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Testing conducted at years 3, 5 and 7 determines students’ progress in these areas, ensuring that those who are falling behind are identified. These vouchers provide parents with an opportunity to seek additional help for their children outside the school system in a $450 million program. Vouchers are a very sound vehicle for delivering public funding in order to achieve these objectives. They promote choice and they direct funding to those services which actually help individuals.

I have been an advocate for a more fundamental and widespread use of education vouchers. Some of Australia’s leading institutions have added their support for this concept. The Group of Eight universities recently came out in support of student vouchers as part of a more consumer driven system. Earlier this year the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry heavily featured vouchers for higher education in its education reform blueprint. I am pleased that the government has continued to expand its use of vouchers to deliver education funding, and I look forward to further developments in the use of vouchers. I must commend Senator Birmingham on his first speech last night, in which he called for a comprehensive voucher system in the school sector. Under other proposals announced in the budget, the federal government has continued to intervene where state Labor governments have failed to deliver.

There are a few things which I must at this point take up in response to Senator Carr’s speech earlier. Senator Carr was making the allegation that this government has somehow dudded government schools and dudded independent schools in relation to the Investing in Our Schools Program. I should put on the record that the guidelines have not changed for the original amount of funding under the $1 billion plan that was announced at the 2004 election for government and non-government schools, except for the new allocation of funding announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year and the $40 million remaining from the previous allocation for state government schools. The original allocation provided was $700 million for government schools, for grants of up to $150,000; and $300 million for non-gov-ernment schools—$100 million of this amount for grants of up to $75,000 and $200 million for larger grants. Program funding was brought forward, through legislation for state government schools, due to overwhelming demand. However, non-government schools will be able to receive funding as per the original guidelines through to 2008 as funding was not brought forward through legislation.

But the real outrage regarding the Investing in Our Schools Program is the approach of the state governments. It is bad enough that the state governments do not adequately fund their own state schools—that is why they are called state schools: because they are run, they are managed and they are funded predominantly by the states. Not only do the states not adequately fund them, but after we introduced this Investing in Our Schools Program the state Labor governments actually creamed administration fees off the top of the grants to schools. We have seen in Western Australia and New South Wales those governments actually take funds from schools administration fees of over 20 per cent. They have creamed 20 per cent off the top for administration. Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory also impose fees and charges on successful applications. It is an outrage. These states do not adequately fund their schools, the Commonwealth has to step into the breach to support them and then state governments cream the money off the top. It is an outrage.

Also in this budget we have done more for literacy and numeracy. We know that providing students with skills in literacy and numeracy is critical to their development. We as a federal government are not going to stand by whilst a provider driven state education system fails in its duty to properly prepare students with the skills they need. In addition to vouchers, which provide assistance to underperforming students, the government will be rewarding high-performing schools who improve their literacy and numeracy standards with $50,000 grants. Further, the government will reward teachers who undertake ongoing professional education to ensure that Australia’s children are taught by the highest quality professionals. The government also realise that not all teachers are created equal. We are seeking to reward outstanding teachers with performance pay. And in its typical fashion, following the lead of the AEU, the Labor Party is opposing the apparently radical idea that teachers who perform well should be financially rewarded for doing so. After years of claiming that teachers are underpaid, they are opposing a program of merit based pay. Labor’s shadow minister for education, Mr Smith, mused earlier this year that performance based pay for teachers was something that he supported in principle, but he was quickly smacked down by the AEU. I note Mr Smith has now adjusted his rhetoric following the dressing down he copped from AEU Federal President Pat Byrne and is now talking about rewarding teachers for things other than student performance.

The government is also acting where state governments have failed in providing support for technical eduction. The highly successful Australian technical colleges are being expanded with three additional centres to meet the strong demand. These Australian technical colleges have gone from being just an idea to reality in a very short space of time. In the 2004 election the establishment of 25 colleges was announced, and by the end of this year 21 colleges will be operating around Australia. The good news is that the Commonwealth’s effort in establishing these colleges has shamed the state governments into establishing their own technical colleges. Some 20 or 30 years ago the states, very unwisely, dismantled the old tech colleges that we had. We recognised that that was a mistake and we did something about it. Thankfully, as a result of what we have done, by 2009 there will be 70 technical schools around Australia. There are now 25 and the rest will be established by the states. So by 2009 there will be between 25,000 and 35,000 young Australians at technical colleges. That is what I call a real education revolution. This is not just about having a lathe or a pie warmer in every school, as Mr Rudd announced as his grand technical education revolution; this is about having 25,000 to 35,000 real students enrolled at 70 technical colleges around Australia. That is a real education revolution.

In addition, the federal government’s usage of vouchers to promote choice has been expanded to cover Australian apprentices with the new apprenticeship training voucher. First and second year apprentices in areas of skills shortage are eligible for vouchers to the value of $500 to defray the cost of their education. Those vouchers are in addition to the government’s $2,000 tax-free wage boost for young Australian apprentices. If Labor were doing their job and providing real choice for students—something which they are, belatedly, starting to do now that we have shamed them into introducing their own tech colleges—then some of these federal programs would be unnecessary.

Perhaps most importantly, the federal government will be encouraging the development of additional academically selective government schools as part of the next round of funding negotiations with the states. New South Wales does have a number of academically selective government high schools—something in the order of 17—Victoria has two and South Australia is in the process of establishing its first three. There is no reason why, because you lack the means, you should not be entitled to the best education possible. Unfortunately the state education systems, which have become so monochromatic, have not provided real choice and real variety in their own systems. That is something that the Commonwealth is going to endeavour to encourage the states to do in the next round of funding negotiations. I have to admit that the Victorian Labor government have reluctantly agreed to build an additional two selective entry schools after pressure from the Victorian state opposition, but that does not go far enough.

Academically selective schools do offer real opportunities to talented kids from disadvantaged backgrounds who lack the means, and I think the states need to realise the benefit of offering that sort of choice in the state sector. On the issue of education, we know where the coalition stands—this government supports choice, it supports excellence and it supports higher standards. The real test though is for the Australian Labor Party. Will they toe the union line or will they support parents? Will they support choice? It is time for Labor to stop paying heed to special interest groups and to stand up for standards and choice. It is time for the Australian Labor Party, once and for all, to abandon the politics of envy.

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

The Greens are always happy when the government spends more money on providing improved education services to those in need. The government would have us believe that this is what the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 does in both of its parts because it delivers more money for new migrants and refugee arrivals in the first half and in the second half it delivers more money to private schools. The Greens welcome the increase in money for the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program, which is very much needed, but we do not support the further increase in funding to private schools in this bill. I will move on to the reasons for that later.

First I want to talk about the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program component of this legislation. This bill doubles the amount of per capita funding for this particular program. It is a program that is designed to give intensive support to new migrants to Australia who come in either through the normal migration stream or through the humanitarian refugee intake. These are young migrants who need both the language skills and the basic learning skills necessary to integrate into further schooling, into further education or into the workplace. The Greens welcome this funding increase because we have long held the view that Australia can and should provide a welcoming environment for immigrants and refugees whom we accept and that part of the welcoming environment we provide must include adequate English language training for those who do not have English language skills.

Sadly, the funding increase in this bill is not part of, or combined with, the other necessary support for public education that is needed to ensure that the increased money into this program can work. So we see a situation where students go to intensive English language centres—like the one that I visited in Beverly Hills in Sydney on Friday—and are able to get fantastic support for the time that they are there. But the government’s funding limits the support they can receive to three terms. Then you see a situation where perhaps a 17-year-old young man from Sudan, who has come to Australia through our refugee program, has been put into this intensive English school but only for three terms. He is not able to get the English language skills that he needs to go on. Because the federal government has reduced the funding to other public education services, migrants cannot go on to a well-funded TAFE where they could do a course like the adult basic English course, which used to be much more accessible in TAFEs. Since the federal government has cut funding to TAFEs, we have seen a lot of TAFEs around the country getting rid of their adult basic English courses because they do not have the funding to continue to run those courses. What this means is that the benefits that are provided through the funding program that we are dealing with in this legislation—benefits that might enable a young Sudanese boy who comes to Australia to get three terms of intensive English language support—cannot be continued for him because there is no TAFE course available for him to attend so he can get the English language skills that he needs.

Three terms of intensive English language support does not provide you with the capacity to go out and get a job in the workplace. I will give an example of this. When I visited the school on Friday one of the teachers told me about the afternoon she had sat down in front of a computer with a number of young African men who had come to Australia as refugees. They were only allowed to spend three terms there, so they were looking at what they would do when they left. There was not a TAFE course available for them to go to, so she was trying to help them to find some employment. She went online to the Coles website because these boys wanted to register themselves to pack shelves at night in the local Coles supermarket. But three terms in this English language centre for African migrants who have never been in a formal schooling situation is not enough for these boys. It meant that they were not able to read the questions on the website about their work history. They needed to do this in order to register their names to pack shelves at the local Coles supermarket at night.

There needs to be an increase in the availability of options for students—not only what is provided through the increased funding available in this particular bill but ongoing assistance in order to ensure that they can find a place in the workplace and contribute to our society. If we do not do that and we continue operating as we are now, with more refugees coming in from Africa—many of them have never experienced formal schooling and they are currently only able to spend three terms at an intensive English language centre, and then there is not another further educational opportunity for them—those people will end up not being able to contribute to or engage with our society. Many of them will end up in our prisons. That is what we are already seeing happen. Young boys are coming through as refugees and going through the English language program, but, because there is not the ongoing support that they need to get a job, to get into TAFE or to go to a normal school, they are ending up in prison. That is not the way to run our immigration system. Accepting people as refugees and then not providing them with the support to gain the English language skills that they need means that they end up not being able to integrate within the broader community. They end up not being able to engage and instead find themselves in prison. That is, unfortunately, the pattern that we are seeing.

I met a young girl at the intensive English centre on Friday who was an asylum seeker trying to come to Australia. She was turned back by the Australian government and had spent the last couple of years in Lombok in Indonesia, where the Australian government pays to keep asylum seekers that they have turned away. She is one of a lucky few who have recently been accepted to come to Australia. But her brother was not so fortunate. He was on a boat trying to get to safety and drowned. He drowned as a result of trying to get protection—from the Australian government in this instance. This young girl was sitting in the reading class on Friday, making a real opportunity of the experience that she was given through the program for which funding is increased in this bill. But she needs more support than that.

The Greens would like to see the federal government increasing the amount of support that is available for this program, which is a very good program. They do that in this bill, but there is a need to ensure that students are able to spend longer in intensive language centres getting support and that there are other services like full-time school counsellors to help people, such as this young girl, who do not have the English language skills that they need to attend a normal school. She also has to deal with the trauma of having lost her younger brother who drowned while fleeing the Middle East on a boat trying to get to safety. There needs to be an increase in the support available not just in relation to the programs but for school counsellors at intensive English language centres as well.

The intensive English language centre I visited cannot apply for support for infrastructure because of the way the government structures its funding for capital infrastructure at schools. Schools can apply for funding if they have a Parents and Citizens Association at the school. This school does not have that, because the parents are newly arrived migrants or refugees and they are trying to get on with their own lives. They are not in a position to spend a lot of time and effort setting up a P&C at a school where the kids will only go for three terms. The school is not able to have a functioning P&C that can write funding applications to get capital infrastructure from the federal government for their school. At the Beverly Hills school you see committed teachers who are doing fantastic work all through the week going in on the weekend to build a mound around the edge of the school right next to the railway line in King Georges Road, one of the busiest roads in Sydney, to stop the noise getting into the school. There is no capacity, through the way in which the federal government funds capital infrastructure at public schools, for them to apply through government mechanisms to get any support for such infrastructure. So the teachers have to come in on the weekend and build the mounds so that the students can continue with their work.

The Greens want to hear from the minister—and perhaps he can address these comments—whether negotiations have occurred with the state government about how this funding will be implemented. In New South Wales the state government contributes additional funding to these programs and to the funding of intensive English centres. We welcome the increase in the bill and we want to make sure that the response by the New South Wales government is not that it will reduce the funding it makes available to these intensive English centres. The Greens would like to see the state government follow the funding increase in this bill and also increase its component of funding for intensive English centres so that the schools can get the additional funds that they need to provide the quality education that they give students.

I will now turn to the second part of the bill, the increased funding to private schools, which the Greens do not support. It is very hard to keep track of the new and innovative ways the government dream up to give legislative expression to their preference for private schooling. Since they came to government they have tinkered so many times with the way the Commonwealth subsidises private schooling that it is no wonder that the public, the media and parliamentarians get confused about how it all works.

At the time the government introduced their socioeconomic status—SES—funding model they would have had us believe that it would clarify the process and bring some simplicity to the way in which the funding operated. But it does not do that. The mess of funding get-out clauses, of special cases and of cosy arrangements continues to proliferate. We have seen SES funded schools, then SES ‘funding maintained’ schools, then SES ‘funding guaranteed’ schools, then there were the Catholic ‘funding guaranteed’ schools and now, presumably, with what is proposed in this bill, there will be some SES Catholic ‘funding guaranteed remote bonus’ schools. It is hardly a simple system for people to understand.

The cosy arrangements in this particular bill are not the worst that we have seen. The Greens recognise that, like public schools in remote areas, there are private schools which are not as well resourced when compared with other private schools. On the other hand, there are some which are very well resourced and most would be better resourced than their local public school, as is the case across the country. But this bill does not contain any provisions for finding out how rich a school is before deciding that it needs more public money. It does not means test the schools, which may be in receipt of large fees, generous bequests, endowments, earnings and other income streams. How do we know that the schools really need this money, given that there is no assessment done? How do we know that this will not be a foolish waste of taxpayers’ money—money which is urgently needed in other areas, like teaching English to new arrivals and to migrants? The answer is that we do not know. Even if we believe that there is a genuine need for some increased public subsidies to rural and remote private schools, which remains to be proven, we know that the area that needs government funding most is the public school system right across the board.

The Greens reject as bogus the argument that the Commonwealth is somehow responsible for private schools and the states are responsible for public schools. It is an argument that has no basis in law, in the Constitution, in history or in practice. Both levels of government choose to subsidise private schools, and both are significant contributors to public schools. The key point of departure between the Greens’ view and those of the Labor and the Liberal parties in this area is that both those parties are happy to allow much-needed public funding go to the wealthiest private schools while public schools suffer. Neither is prepared to stand up for the rights of public schools in this country. For example, the federal government does not impose an appropriate or an equitable level of accountability or responsibility to go along with this public subsidy to private schools.

Many, indeed the majority, of the remote and rural schools that will receive a boost from this bill are in fact majority publicly funded—that is, they receive most of their income from the government. Yet these schools do not have the same responsibility and accountability requirements. They are able to not adhere to antidiscrimination legislation. They are able to avoid the level of financial accountability and openness required of public schools. And they are allowed to teach content that simply would not pass muster in a public school. The Greens cannot support the extension of this subsidy to private schools with no means testing and no equivalent subsidy to public schools. I will be moving a second reading amendment to this piece of legislation, which I will foreshadow. That Greens second reading amendment:

… condemns the Government for devising a funding system for non-government schools that:

(a)

fails to take into account the relative wealth and income-raising capacities of each school;

(b)

does not require an appropriate level of accountability and openness from non-government schools in exchange for the receipt of public monies;

(c)

consistently favours non-government schools ahead of government schools;

(d)

continues to allow non-government schools which are now largely publicly funded to discriminate against prospective students based on ability to pay fees;

(e)

unfairly ties the funding of non-government schools to the cost of education provision in government schools;

(f)

is formulated without any reference to its effect on the quality of school education as a whole . . .

The Greens’ policy seeks to end this ineffective approach to schools funding and instead establish a national scheme that would be guided by need, by fairness and by the basic principles of educational outcomes—and in the spirit of cooperation with the states, rather than coercion. We do not propose a final blueprint for such a system. We propose instead a nationwide inquiry into the effectiveness and the equity of current arrangements with a view to introducing complementary legislation at state and federal levels to give life to a simpler, a fairer and a more effective funding system. I cannot say exactly what such a system would look like, but I can tell you what it would not look like. It would not allow remote public schools teaching the neediest children in the country to go begging whilst super-rich private schools in capital cities continued to receive government subsidies. It would not allow some schools to discriminate on the basis of wealth whilst receiving government funds. It would not dish out public money to schools without allowing open public scrutiny of the financial arrangements of those schools. And it would not allow public funding to support schools that promote discriminatory values and impose those values on the children in their schools.

The Greens want diversity and excellence in our school system. The Greens believe that it is not beyond the wit of Australians to construct such a system. And we believe that what we have now falls well short of that goal. I hope to see steps taken by both the major parties that address the influence that those components of the community with strong vested interests, through the churches and rich private schools, are having on the way in which public funding is being distributed to schools in this country. I want to see governments at the state level and at the federal level putting the priority on public education, making it the centre of the responsibility of the federal government to provide government funding to our public school system. We need to see, particularly in the lead-up to an election, a commitment from both the government and the opposition to invest in our public schools and to provide their much-needed support. We need to see a statement of support for the work that is done in our public schools. Let us see some value of the great work that is done. Let us see some acceptance of how much they are contributing to our society. That is what I would like to see. I would like to see both the government and the opposition talk about how much they value the work that is done in our fine public schools. (Time expired)

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

I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. In response to the inquiry you made of me, Senator Nettle, concerning consultations with state governments in relation to the implementation of this program, I am instructed that there have been and will continue to be consultations at a departmental level between the Commonwealth department and the state and territory departments. I hope that answers your inquiry.

May I say, though, in relation to Senator Nettle’s contribution, as to those of Senator Carr and Senator Allison, that it seems there are some on the left of politics who cannot grasp the notion that schools funding is not a zero-sum game. It is not as though every dollar given to a private school is a dollar taken from a government school. One of the hallmark achievements of the Howard government has been to increase, in absolute terms, Commonwealth support for both private and government schools in the course of the last 11 years. I do not have the figures readily at hand but, as Senator Carr, who I know takes a close interest in this matter, well knows, the extent of Commonwealth investment in both sectors of school education—government and private schooling—has massively expanded under the Howard government. How can it be, when there is a significant increase in the allocation of funding to both sectors, that one can imagine that this is a zero-sum game? In fact it is a win-win situation for schools education overall.

In summing up, may I say that the Australian government makes a substantial investment in education, providing approximately $33 billion to government and non-government schools over the period 2005-08 and delivering genuine choice for Australian parents. Funding for state government schools has risen by close to 70 per cent in real terms since 1996, while enrolments have risen just 1.2 per cent. That gives the lie to your proposition, Senator Carr, as it does to that of Senator Nettle and Senator Allison, that money paid to non-government schools is money taken from government schools. There has been a massive, 70 per cent increase in real terms since 1996. I do not hear you applauding that, Senator Carr, I am sorry to say. The enrolments, however, during that period of 70 per cent increase in funding have risen by only 1.2 per cent. It remains the fact that state schools enrol 67 per cent of students and receive 75 per cent of total public funding for schools.

State governments have primary responsibility for education in state government schools. They own-operate under the major source of funding for state government schools. While the Australian government supplements that funding as a percentage of the state investment, few people realise that if state governments increased their investment federal funding would increase automatically. There is a shared responsibility between the state and federal governments. State governments accredit and regulate non-government schools, while the Australian government provides the majority of public funding.

Through the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007 to amend the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004, the Australian government continues its commitment to invest in young Australians in regional and remote areas to deliver stronger educational outcomes for all students regardless of where they live. The Australian government is providing an additional $121.1 million in funding over four years for regional and remote schools as part of the budget’s Realising Our Potential package for education. This funding will support students at more than 400 non-government rural and remote schools through a loading under the general recurrent grants program. The funding is being provided in recognition of the high cost of delivering educational services in regional and remote areas of Australia and the negative impact that this can have on student achievement levels. There is clear evidence that rural and remote students do not achieve as highly as their peers in metropolitan areas, and through this bill the Australian government is seeking to rectify this. In addition, two recent Australian government reports demonstrated significant inequity in access to education between regional and metropolitan students: the report Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: the SiMERR national survey of 2006 and the report The impact of drought on secondary education access in regional and remote areas, also of 2006.

In levels of reading, writing and numeracy across all years in 2005, significantly more students in metropolitan and provincial locations met the benchmarks, relatively speaking, than did students in remote and very remote locations. I refer in particular to the National report on schooling in Australia 2005. National benchmark results: reading, writing and numeracy, years 3, 5 and 7, where Senator Carr, if he cares to interest himself in the matter, may find the statistics that form the basis for that conclusion. International studies, such as the Program for International Student Assessment and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, show that metropolitan students generally perform better than their regional counterparts. The Australian government recognises the unique hardships regional and remote schools face, and these funds will enable schools to target those areas that most seriously affect their capacity to enhance educational outcomes for their students. This additional funding will now be available for non-government schools and will allow them to direct resources to assist their most educationally disadvantaged students. Funding can be used towards improving the educational opportunities for students in these regions by attracting quality teachers, increasing staff retention rates or improving teacher access to professional development, thereby ensuring that students in regional and remote areas are able to achieve their potential.

Building on the success of the existing English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program, the Australian government, through the second measure in this bill, will double the per capita amount of support for eligible humanitarian entrant students. The increased funding will flow through state and territory government and non-government education authorities. Increased funding for intensive English language tuition is aimed at promoting the successful settlement and integration of newly arrived humanitarian students in Australian primary and secondary schools. It does this by recognising that English proficiency is one of the best ways to improve educational outcomes and future employability and to smooth the pathway to broader participation in Australian society.

The second measure in the bill implements a humanitarian settlement initiative. The bill will provide increased per capita funding to assist with intensive English as a second language tuition for school students entering Australia under the humanitarian program. The Australian government has implemented this measure on the basis of evidence identified in the 2006 MCEETYA Schools Resourcing Taskforce discussion paper entitled ‘Funding for English as a second language for new arrival students’ and the whole-of-government strategy to improve settlement outcomes for humanitarian interests. The English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program does not set out to fund the total cost of intensive English language tuition. It is provided to assist with the costs of this important support but recognises that all levels of government are partners in the successful settlement and integration of newly arrived migrants.

The Australian government’s increased contribution under the English as a Second Language—New Arrivals Program combines with other federal education funding, such as the general recurrent grants program and targeted funding for students with a language background other than English through the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program, to form a substantial package of support for these students. The focus of Australia’s humanitarian migration program centres on those groups of international refugees who are in greatest need of resettlement, which has meant that they need much longer in the initial phase of intensive English language tuition and, as such, the increase in funding announced as part of this package is confined to this group of students.

The Howard government is committed to supporting a quality school education for all Australian children, whether they attend government or non-government schools and whether they attend schools in capital cities, provincial centres or regional and remote parts of Australia. The program and the initiatives that 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 and work. This bill reinforces the Howard government’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that Australian children are given the best opportunity to have a quality learning experience in the best possible environment. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question put:

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

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate condemns the Government for devising a funding system for non-government schools that:

        (a)    fails to take into account the relative wealth and income-raising capacities of each school;

        (b)    does not require an appropriate level of accountability and openness from non-government schools in exchange for the receipt of public monies;

        (c)    consistently favours non-government schools ahead of government schools;

        (d)    continues to allow non-government schools which are now largely publicly funded to discriminate against prospective students based on ability to pay fees;

        (e)    unfairly ties the funding of non-government schools to the cost of education provision in government schools;

         (f)    is formulated without any reference to its effect on the quality of school education as a whole”.

Question put.