Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

The government has made it clear that these bills are an essential part of the national framework for achieving excellence and accountability in Australian schools. That means setting the highest standards of accountability and transparency. We have made an election commitment to deliver a national curriculum. That is a process that has been underway in this country now for 30 years. As a result of the actions of the Liberal Party and other parts of this chamber tonight, that process has been set back. As a consequence, $28 billion of funding over four years for schools, which was to commence from 1 January, has now been put in question.

We have here a situation where, having made an election commitment to deliver a national curriculum, we have developed an inclusive, open process for creating and implementing that national curriculum. The reality is that one opportunity here was to actually get the framework for the funding and the accountability of schools in Australia and to get that right. The principles of establishing higher standards in transparency, which in our view have to be consistently applied across both the government and the non-government sectors, have, of course, now been put in question. We have delivered in the last week an unprecedented agreement with the state and territory governments about these same principles of accountability and transparency applying to both government and non-government sectors. Of course, due to the actions of the Liberal Party here tonight—and I hold them directly responsible; as people who claim to be and purport to be the alternative government in this country, they ought to be held responsible—those objectives have now been put in question. As a consequence, $28 billion of public support for 1.1 million students has also been put in question.

The stakeholders, including the Independent Schools Council of Australia and the National Catholic Education Commission, indicated to the Senate inquiry that they do not consider the issues surrounding the national curriculum to be so significant as to delay the bill. Mrs Temby, of the Catholic Education Commission, said:

… we believe that because we are engaged in the consultations we will have an input into it and that will be all right.

Further, the government believes that this is an unprecedented effort by the Senate to split a bill, as proposed off the floor here, and that the provisions of the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 must be considered as a whole. The government will therefore be ensuring that this bill is returned to the House of Representatives. The government have always made it clear that this bill, as I say, is an essential part of our legislative program and our election commitments, and we are determined to implement them.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first of all say this: the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 is a better bill than it was three hours ago. It is a much better bill, and I want to thank the senators from the crossbenches for their support. I have three quick points. Firstly, we have made sure that individuals’ names will not be disclosed publicly for their philanthropy. It is bad public policy and it should never have been in the legislation at all. Secondly, the national curriculum is still embryonic. The idea of linking funding to an embryonic curriculum that we do not have the details about is absurd, and it is inappropriate for non-government schools to take the government on faith on such an issue, which is absolutely rooted to their core. It is totally inappropriate. Thirdly, as Senator Ian Macdonald so eloquently put it earlier tonight, it is quite appropriate that additional assistance be made available for Indigenous students from remote areas. Now, because of the amendments moved by the opposition and supported by the crossbenchers, the minister will have the capacity to make provision for Indigenous students from very remote areas, and that is a good thing.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say that, in discussing the support of the crossbenchers, I wish to make it very clear that the Greens did not support the taking out of the national curriculum from this legislation, and we do not support that. I do not like the idea of a blank cheque for four years under a flawed funding model. I made that very clear in my speech, and that is still my position. It is now obvious that this will go to the House of Representatives and then the real negotiation will begin. I want to make it very clear that the Greens do not intend to support a piece of legislation which does not have the accountability provisions, which does not have the curriculum provisions and which does not take into account those equity issues of non-government school funding in relation to government school funding.

You can have two separate bits of legislation. You can do one through the COAG process and one through non-government schools. No matter how you try and decouple them, they are not decoupled, because equity in education has to mean that there has to be some capacity for the Commonwealth to ensure that the states spend appropriately so that, whether Indigenous students are in a non-government or a government school, they are funded appropriately, and one is not a poor cousin to the other. It is the same for all students, in fact, in non-government and government schools. The Greens have a very strong position on this.

I think it was extremely sensible to say that this measure ought not to go beyond 2010, that it should include the national curriculum and that the government should bring forward the review of education funding so that we can go to the 2010 election with the whole community knowing where we stand. I look forward to the negotiations that are going to take place on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008, because it is certainly not over and there is no way that the non-government schools are going to get a blank cheque without the conditions that were made very clear to them, which they understood. It is not reasonable for that to be the case.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think Senator Carr’s comments should be left unchallenged on the record. The $28 billion for education can quite easily go forward. The Schools Assistance Bill 2008 is passed. If it does not go forward then that will be a decision the government makes. But there is a bill that will provide that money for schools, and it is a bill that has been supported by the whole chamber. Everybody agrees that there should be a national curriculum. There is no question about that. The problem is, of course, that schools have been expected to sign off on something they have not seen. The government can be assured and has been assured that we will all support the national curriculum, provided that it is reasonable—and I am sure it will be. Bring forward a bill with that, and there will be no problem. So the money is there. The Senate has agreed to the payment of the money. If the government choose not to pay the money, that will be on their heads.

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

The question is that the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.