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

I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

(Quorum formed)

I have moved this motion on the advice of the clerks, because I may want to revisit this issue.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all rely on the clerks, Senator Carr.

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

I understand that there will be additional amendments moved. I will just indicate the strength of our view on this issue to Senator Mason. Essentially, as far as the government is concerned, the position that has been put by Family First and the coalition is unacceptable. We are insisting that the bill be proceeded with on the basis on which the House of Representatives has insisted—that the national curriculum be an integral part of that bill and not be divided from it. We do so on the basis that every Australian child deserves the best education we can deliver and every Australian child deserves a decent chance in life, regardless of what their postcode is, what their background is or how their parents earn a living.

Every Australian child deserves access to the skills and knowledge that they will need as they grow and take their place in the world. That is why the government is proposing to invest $58 billion in school education over five years. That includes new funding for national partnerships on quality teaching, on literacy, on numeracy and on low socioeconomic status schools. This is an increase of some 29 per cent on the previous five years. It is precisely because we are serious about quality education that we are developing a national curriculum.

This is not an optional extra. It is not a political plaything. It is the key to creating a world-class education system that produces the outcome that our children deserve. That is why we went to the last election promising to do precisely that. That is why we started to work on the delivery of this promise as soon as we assumed office and it is why we established the national curriculum board and ensured that it included representatives from all school systems, including Catholic and independent schools. We are consulting every step of the way, with curriculum experts, with teachers in both government and non-government sectors, with specialist associations and with the community. We have established this process because we believe the national curriculum should be developed by experts and not by politicians. We want everyone to be involved.

The national curriculum will detail the content and the achievable standards all young Australians in our education system should have access to. It will make the entire school system, government and non-government sectors, more transparent and accountable. It will enable us to give all young Australians the best possible preparation for the challenges and opportunities of their century. The national curriculum will not mandate particular classroom practices. It will give schools and teachers plenty of room for innovation and creativity. It will allow them to use their own professional judgement about how to develop and deliver learning programs and the sequence in which that material is covered. Schools and teachers will continue to make their own decisions about how best to reflect their unique circumstances and philosophies in the curriculum.

They will still be free to take advantage of teachers’ specialist knowledge and to pursue students’ special interests. The national curriculum will be flexible enough to accommodate all schools, including Montessori and Steiner schools, preparing children for the International Baccalaureate, the University of Cambridge International Examination and programs of that quality. We will ask the national curriculum board to advise on the best way of acknowledging the curriculum these schools offer.

Only yesterday the Montessori Australia Foundation confirmed its support for the introduction of a national curriculum. The chair of the foundation, Christine Harrison, said:

We are confident that Montessori schools will be able to offer the Montessori curriculum under the framework of the new national curriculum.

That confidence is well founded. Ms Harrison also called on the Senate to pass the bill. She is not alone. Yesterday we heard from Bill Daniels, Executive Director of the Independent Schools Council of Australia. He had this to say:

The Independent Schools Council of Australia has right from the start backed the government on its quadrennium funding legislation.

Mr Daniels went on:

This is legislation that was flagged pre-election. This is the Government doing exactly what it said it would do.

On the national curriculum, Mr Daniels said, ‘We are part of the national curriculum development process. We are comfortable with the role we have in the development of the national curriculum.’ We also heard yesterday from Dr Bill Griffiths, Chief Executive Officer of the National Catholic Education Commission. He was equally forthright. He reminded us:

The National Catholic Education Commission is comfortable with the process underway to develop the national curriculum.

Dr Griffiths went on, ‘We’ve been involved in that process from the very beginning and have been appreciative of the way in which our contribution has been received and the tenor and nature of the debate at that professional level.’ Mr Daniels and Dr Griffiths also agree on another critical point. They agree that it is absolutely essential to get this legislation passed before the end of the year. They agree that we have to give schools and parents the certainty and the funding stability that they need from 1 January next year. Everyone seems to understand that, except the coalition senators here. Everyone seems to understand that fundamental principle of the way in which our education system actually operates.

The opposition has the same problem with the national curriculum that it has with a number of other matters. It simply cannot make up its mind. The Liberal Party says that it is in favour of the national curriculum, but it is absolutely opposed to the legislation that we require to actually make it happen. It is clear that the Liberal Party is prepared to say and do anything for a headline. The Liberal Party has backed a national approach to schooling many times in the past.

In June 2003 the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, said he wanted to ‘drive Australia’s eight different educational jurisdictions to one education system’. In June 2004, even John Howard said he would make school funding conditional—I emphasise ‘conditional’—on greater national consistency in curriculum and testing standards. In February 2007, another education minister, Julie Bishop, said, ‘I am focusing on higher standards through greater national consistency.’ And of course we all know that consistency is a matter of deep expertise in the Liberal Party. She said, ‘If I can’t get cooperation on a national curriculum I will tie funding to it.’ That was the position of the Liberal Party just last year. Now they have abandoned that long-held position in pursuit of a wacky right-wing agenda that even most Liberals would repudiate.

For 12 years, the Liberals have made noises about a national curriculum, but they have failed to deliver. Now they are holding Australian schools to ransom. They are jeopardising the funding for thousands of schools and millions of students. They are putting $28 billion in funding at risk, and it appears that they could not care less. Those opposite say that they care about Australian jobs. Obviously they do not care about the jobs of teachers, administrators and all the other staff in non-government schools. Now those schools are staring down the barrel of not getting their money by 1 January. We have an opposition here that is holding the gun to their heads. Yesterday, the member for Sturt—who humiliates himself by coming to this chamber to try to stand over his senators—said, ‘We take our sweet time on it.’

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

I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, under the provision of the standing orders about reflections upon members of other chambers in this parliament. This minister is quite incapable of speaking for 10 words without going back to his bullyboy union tactics. The point of order is that he is reflecting on another member by saying that he is here bullying or standing over people. Not only is it untrue, it is a reflection on another member of the parliament. I would ask you to ask the minister to withdraw and apologise.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that you are unable to ask him to apologise, but you are able to ask him to withdraw, which I take you to be doing.

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

Yes, thank you.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, withdraw what?

The Temporary Chairman:

The aspersion cast, I think, Senator.

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

What is the aspersion? That the member has humiliated himself?

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

The aspersion is that he is standing over his colleagues. It is an appalling reflection—and quite untrue, I might say. But this minister thinks he can get away with any sort of union bullyboy tactics in this chamber, and we are not prepared to let him do that. If he does not withdraw, then perhaps there are other matters that we should be considering in relation to the whole program.

The Temporary Chairman:

Perhaps I could encourage the Senate to move forward with the items on the agenda. Senator Carr, may I caution you to be careful about your language.

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

I take that advice. Yesterday the member for Sturt said, ‘We can take our sweet time about this matter.’ Twiddling their thumbs was, of course, the characteristic of the now opposition when they were in government, and we see it again. They are now prepared to twiddle their thumbs in opposition. At least they are consistent about that, I suppose. The opposition does not care about educational standards and they do not care about funding certainty for non-government schools. It is about time that they started to. It is time that they actually accepted the responsibility for their actions.

Bill Griffiths, of the National Catholic Education Commission, raised another interesting point earlier today. He said that he does not know who the opponents of this legislation actually speak for. I think that many others are asking that same question. They do not speak for the Australian independent and Catholic schools. They do not speak for the hundreds of non-government schools pleading with them to pass this legislation. They do not speak for the 80,000 students who move interstate each year and go into a school with a different curriculum. They certainly do not speak for the majority of Australians, who voted for a national curriculum in November last year.

Senator Fielding himself admitted yesterday that most Australians want a national curriculum. So what part of the word ‘democracy’ does the opposition not understand? The reality is this: the opposition speak for no-one but themselves. Their only motivation is to score cheap political points. They think that this will not cost them anything and that they can act in their own sweet time, but their grandstanding is actually threatening to impose huge costs on Australian children and parents. They should make no mistake about this: our non-government schools need this $28 billion. The government cannot spend this money without parliamentary authorisation. The only way to provide that authorisation is by passing this bill. The opposition need to be very, very clear on this point. There is no contingency plan. There is nowhere for you to hide. You are the ones who are holding back the $28 billion which is so vital to the education of over 1.1 million Australians. The opposition are the ones who are actually threatening to wreck the non-government schools sector. They are the ones who are playing fast and loose with the education of Australia’s children. They had better be prepared to live with the consequences.

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

I was in a good mood this morning, and I was going to be very generous to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and to the government. I nearly changed my mind, but I am always too generous by nature. I wish to thank the government for its cooperation on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 thus far. We have had a history of productive compromise on this bill. That is why we have moved the debate forward. It is a much better bill today than it was on Tuesday.

The compromises thus far—with respect to an audit when it is to be qualified for reasons not relating to financial viability and the minister’s refusal to authorise the payment of a non-government body now being disallowable by the Senate—throw the minister’s discretion to legislative review. That is a good thing for the bill, a good thing for the act and a good thing for this parliament. That is an improvement to the act. I want to thank you, Minister Carr, for your cooperation on that.

The second improvement is the disclosure clause, clause 24. Again, I thank the minister for specifically excluding the identification of individuals who make a bequest to schools. The idea of identifying individuals who make bequests to schools or for educational purposes was bad public policy. This is an improvement to the bill as well. As my friend Senator Macdonald so eloquently placed on the record on Tuesday night, amendments relating to the capacity of the minister to provide for remote Indigenous students also greatly enhance this bill. I think those were three significant improvements to the bill. It is a much better bill now than it was on Tuesday night. But I thought we could make the bill better still.

On points of philosophy—you have been discussing points of educational philosophy for the last 20 minutes—I remind the minister and the government that the national curriculum was initiated by the Howard government. It was initiated by us because we accept that world-class educational systems are very important. I accept that education is critical to the future of this country. I think you and I, Minister, agree on that. I do not think we have ever had a debate about that. It is a fact. More importantly, over the last few weeks all of my colleagues in the coalition have agreed with the broad spirit of your and Ms Gillard’s public announcements about transparency, about accountability, about teacher training and about educational outcomes. We all agree there should be more significant outcomes, greater transparency and greater accountability. None of us at all disagree with that. It was never our intention to hold up the distribution of $28 billion; rather, the amendment put this morning, sponsored by Senator Fielding and co-sponsored by the opposition, was all about seeking reassurance for alternative educational philosophies such as Steiner and Montessori and different curricula such as the International Baccalaureate and the University of Cambridge international examinations.

We were concerned that they would be prejudiced by this bill. You may not have been concerned about it, Minister; we were. It affects thousands of students in this country—and their parents. We did not do this for some reason of high principle per se; it was a practical reassurance that we were after. Minister, I congratulate you for this morning coming into the Senate and providing that practical reassurance. You have said that the bill will not mandate teaching methods or philosophies, and I thank you for making that clear. It is very important to us in the opposition and to all those students studying in those different curricula or educational philosophies. Upon reflection, I do wish that the assurance had been given right at the beginning of this debate. Then, perhaps, we would not have had to have this back-and-forth between here and the other place, all the tension, all the press releases, all the news conferences about this issue. If we had just been given the reassurance—perhaps weeks ago—we would have been much better off.

It was never, ever the intention of the opposition to hold back funding. We agree with the government that this funding must be given to schools by the end of this year. We agree that the national curriculum is a very good idea. We do not, in fact, at all object to the idea of funding being tied to the national curriculum. That is not the issue. We were simply concerned that some schools would be prejudiced by it. I thank the minister very much for clarifying that. The opposition will be withdrawing its amendment and will be supporting the bill.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there are some facts that have not been presented by the Minister for Education. It is worth noting these. The Senate, if I recall, passed the funding. That is fact 1. Fact 2 is that the Rudd government blocked the funding in the lower house. The third point is that—and the minister did acknowledge this—Family First does support a national curriculum. The fourth important point is that, regarding the unseen, undeveloped national curriculum, the government can come back in here at any stage they want and show it to all of us. Then we can all be reassured that schools will not be disadvantaged in any way. I do not hear a lot of complaints about the standard of teaching and curricula of non-government schools. The fifth point I would like to make is about whether there is enough concern in the community to have the national curriculum come back at another stage where it is not tied to the Schools Assistance Bill 2008.

It can come back at any stage. You could split the bill. The minister did not raise the issue of the media release from the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria that went out yesterday. It was made quite clear in their first sentence:

The Association of Independent Schools of Victoria (AISV) calls on the government to pass the Schools Assistance Bill with the amendments made in the Senate.

For the minister to come here and say that no-one out there has any concerns is very mischievous. Given the level of concern from some schools and some associations, given that you do not have to tie the national curriculum to this bill and given that there is bipartisan support for a national curriculum, taking it out would take a lot of angst out of people and would not divide certain communities.

Family First, from day 1, has been genuine in trying to find a way forward with this. That is why we want to go down the track of adding some simple words to the bill before us. We want to add to the clause on the national curriculum the words ‘or an equivalent accredited curriculum’. I wonder whether that sort of principle makes sense. I wonder whether that principle has been considered before somewhere else. In the state of Victoria there is financial assistance for non-government schools. That sounds interesting. If you have a look at page 19 of their guidelines, guess what words they use in clause 7. It is basically talking about making sure there are some standards for schools in Victoria, but it also has some extra words that say ‘or as broadly equivalent by the registered schools board’. There are the words showing this being done before in an equivalent system, so there is some basis for this.

Given the angst out there, I do appreciate how the Rudd government has backed down on a number of the issues in regard to disclosure and a few of the other items. But this is still an issue of concern. Given that you do not have to necessarily tie it to this bill and you can do it somewhere else at a later stage when the undeveloped curriculum has been developed, it would make sense to then maybe have it tied in such a way.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, are you actually moving your amendment?

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will seek leave to maybe just amend that motion, given that the coalition—

The Temporary Chairman:

Are you moving the amendment or not?

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Madam Temporary Chair. I move the amendment on sheet 5697 Revised:

At the end of the motion, add “but agrees to the following amendment in place of that amendment:

(1)           Clause 22, page 25 (line 9), at the end of subclause 22(1), add “or an equivalent accredited curriculum”.

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

I wish to indicate I will not be supporting the amendment. I think it is fairly clear now that the coalition has said that it is supporting the bill with the national curriculum in it, and so it should be. The Greens have made it very clear from the start that this is an integral part of this legislation as far as we are concerned. A national curriculum is a national curriculum. Once you start going down the track of saying that you also recognise a broadly alternative curriculum, you do not have a national curriculum; you have a curriculum and any other curriculum that anyone thinks is broadly equivalent. So we will not be supporting the amendment. It is a mechanism for gutting the notion of a national curriculum, and we will not live with it. We will not support legislation with such an amendment in it because it destroys the whole notion of a national curriculum.

On a second matter, I think it is unfortunate that neither the government nor the opposition were prepared to support a Greens amendment to limit this funding to two years and to tie it to a bringing forward of the review of non-government school funding so that the community could have considered that before the election. I think that is important. Also, I note it was a mechanism to try to get equity with public schools. That is an issue which we really need to see addressed, and I think it has been a shame and actually wrong to decouple public school funding and non-government school funding. Now there is not a mechanism to actually link the two and see if there is parity—and there clearly is not.

I also want to put on the record how disappointed I am that this parliament was prepared to make a payment of $2.7 billion as a result of an overpayment, to almost half of the non-government schools in Australia, that is over and beyond what the SES formula said. I think that it would have been entirely appropriate to make the same payment to the public schools of Australia and for the parliament to decide to recognise that an overpayment for the non-government sector but not for public schools is wrong. I think that, with decoupling the two and having it in such a way that in the next two years the states are likely to cut their budgets to education—because of the economic downturn, the lack of GST receipts, the lack of corporate profits, taxation and so on—what we are going to see is a widening gap between the funding for public education and the funding for private education in this country. That is why it would have been very sensible to limit this funding for two years to see what that gap actually ends up as in two years and what we can do to fix it—because four years hence we would be going to see a significant widening of the gap in terms of equity and justice—so that all students, whether they go to a government or a non-government school, have equal opportunity in education. That is what we ought to be doing, and no more so than with Indigenous education.

I have made it very clear that I think it is a dysfunction of the federal system that we have a situation where 80 per cent of Indigenous students go to public schools and will be funded less than the students in private education. But I want to make it clear that getting a national curriculum as part of this bill is critical to the Greens support for it and we feel very strongly about our opposition to the proposed amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I have maintained my position in relation to this bill. I was satisfied with the comments made by the minister two days ago in relation to this bill. He has added to them today and obviously that has given a level of comfort to the opposition, and that is a good thing. I have to take issue with what the minister said about the member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne, and something to do with a standover. I should disclose that Mr Pyne was a student of mine when I was a lecturer at what is now the University of South Australia a few years ago, so some might say that I have taught him everything he doesn’t know!

Can I say that I think that sort of language—with respect to the minister—is quite unfortunate; the hyperbole is unfortunate. But stripping away the point scoring, I think what the minister has said today adds to the debate. In terms of the two issues that were dealt with and that the government agreed to, in respect of private sources of funding not being disclosed and the qualified audit provision being subject to being a disallowable instrument, I think it was a case of the government listening to concerns. It was not a case of the government backing down, as the opposition portrayed it. It was a case of the government clarifying the intent of the legislation, and that is a good thing. So I think there has been a lot of goodwill shown this morning with respect to this bill and I look forward to the matter being resolved and our getting on with the issue of a national curriculum and funding for these schools.

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

I would like to speak at some length on this particular matter before the chamber, but I am conscious of the timetable here and of a lot of legislation to go through, so I am going to confine my comments to no more than three minutes. I might say that will be quite difficult after listening to 15 minutes of a foul-mouthed diatribe by the minister which did not in anyway contribute to the debate. Having to sit—because it is their program—through that 15 minutes of foul-mouthed accusations makes it very difficult for me to confine my comments to no more than three minutes. The hypocrisy that comes from the Labor Party in relation to this and other matters is just breathtaking.

I wanted to rise to thank the Minister for Education—because it would not have been Senator Carr, who spent over an hour and a half arguing against this in this chamber—for agreeing to the amendment that the crossbenchers and the coalition insisted upon. It will facilitate funding for those schools—and they are mainly in North Queensland—which deal with Indigenous boarders, Indigenous children who come in from very remote areas to the more settled areas to go to boarding school. This amendment is very important to their future education. As I said, the minister in this chamber did not understand and spent over an hour and a half arguing against it the other night. But I am delighted that the Minister for Education took over and agreed with those amendments. In this brief time that I have allowed myself I want to again thank the crossbenchers for their support and thank the minister and all of the members of the lower house for agreeing to that particular amendment, because it means so much for Indigenous children and schools—mainly those in North Queensland.

Before sitting down, I want to again highlight that during the debate the other night the minister gave an assurance that none of those schools that I mentioned, and others that I could not name, would receive less money—indexed—in the future than they are receiving in this current year. I have made known to all those schools that the minister has given that assurance. So we will look with interest to next year to make sure that the assurances given by the minister in this chamber are in fact honoured.

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

I would like to take this opportunity to indicate that the government will not be supporting any further amendments to this legislation. I will also take this opportunity to thank Senator Mason for his constructive engagement on these questions. The extraordinarily difficult circumstances under which he was working within his own party should be acknowledged. The proposition that has now been reached is an inevitable position that has to be reached in any political dialogue of this type. It is disappointing to me that the opposition are such slow learners. Nonetheless, they have reached the conclusion that they have.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not very gracious.

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

Senator Ronaldson, at least a slow learner knows that there is something to learn. Some people are incapable of learning and you would fit clearly into that category.

The point that Senator Mason made about the comments that I made this morning in regard to the assurances about Montessori and what have you were of course made in the debate when we first canvassed this issue. More importantly, the Deputy Prime Minister delivered a speech on 10 November in which these same points were made. It has been a consistent part of the debate in regard to the development of the national curriculum. That is why these particular schools—Montessori schools and so on—and their associations have supported the action that we have taken in the development of the national curriculum. So it has been an absolutely consistent part of the approach that we have taken.

Some senators here do not like me speaking strongly on these matters. The fact is, these are incredibly serious issues. These are not light-hearted matters or playthings of particular cliques within the Liberal Party. They ought to be seen in context. This reform agenda is a fundamental part of this government’s program and it affects the welfare and opportunities of many Australians. Therefore, we will take these matters up forcefully and we will insist at every opportunity on everyone getting a fair go in this country, irrespective of the opposition of sections of the Liberal Party to what are very sensible, straightforward and widely supported reforms. They were endorsed by the Australian people as a result of last year’s election.

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

I would like to address Senator Carr’s comments regarding the development of the national curriculum. The issue was this: as Senator Fielding eloquently put it before, the national curriculum has yet to be devised, both the content of it and its level of prescription. For that reason we were very concerned about how that would interact and engage with Montessori and Steiner schools, which are about educational philosophy. But more particularly, we were very concerned about how that would engage with the International Baccalaureate and the Cambridge University entrance examination schools, because they are specifically about curricula.

In addressing the national curriculum, we do not know now what that will include. We are talking about an embryonic curriculum that is still to be developed. The concern of the opposition for months now has been how that will mesh with existing world-class and world-respected curricula such as the International Baccalaureate and the Cambridge University international entrance examinations. That has been our problem. Minister, I heard your reassurances and the opposition is gratified by them. But that is why we maintain this concern, but I am gratified by your reassurance.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fielding be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question before the chair now is that the Senate not insist on the amendment disagreed to by the House.

Question agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.