Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Mason today relating to the National School Chaplaincy Program.

It is now confirmed and on the record that the Labor government has refused to commit long term to the National School Chaplaincy Program. That is a great shame. That has been confirmed today in question time and it was indeed confirmed yesterday when a motion was put by Senator Mason and me on behalf of the coalition to say, ‘Yes, this is a worthy valuable program and worthy of keeping into the long term, continuing into the long term.’ I will put on the record my thanks to senators Xenophon and Fielding for their support to get that motion through by 33 to 31.

There are 2,700 schools currently benefiting from the chaplaincy program, and they like it. A survey was undertaken recently and the report of that survey said that 97 per cent of the principals of those schools said, ‘Yes, it is a program worthy of keeping and we really appreciate it.’ That is the record of this program. It was started under John Howard and I am very proud of that fact. It started as a three-year program of $165 million for the first three years. The fact is, the program is working—it is benefiting.

What is it all about? The chaplaincy program provides pastoral care, counselling and spiritual guidance in a range of areas, such as bullying, mental health, family relationships, drug and alcohol abuse and those sorts of matters—practical, helpful and sensible advice. I have known lots of chaplains in Tasmania and others on the mainland and they are great people and they are solid people. They are providing practical helpful assistance in those school communities. They are appreciated by the school communities, not just the principals. That is the benefit of this program. It is fantastic.

Last weekend the Prime Minister went to the annual meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby Conference and said, ‘Yes, I like the program,’ and he announced a one-year extension to the program. That is not good enough. A one-year extension through to the end of 2011 will get them past the next federal election—albeit, we know that it will get them past that—but the question is: what then? Senator Carr has confirmed today that there will be another review—a further review. This government is up to its neck in reviews. They have already done one review and they know the results are fantastic—a 97 per cent result; you cannot get much better than that—yet they are saying, ‘No, we are not going to commit to this into the longer term.’ There is just a one-year extension to get them past the next election.

I call on members of the community—not just Tassie but all around Australia—and say: ‘Come on. Please lobby. Please lobby your local federal member of parliament and express your views in support of the chaplaincy program, because it is worthy of support in the long term and on a continuing basis.’ Labor’s refusal to commit to the chaplaincy program is cause for considerable concern.

A petition was launched just a month or so ago in Tassie and around Australia—with coalition members and senators—supporting the chaplaincy program. I have already got many petitions and signatures from all around Tasmania supporting the program. I want to put on record my thanks to Scripture Union Tasmania for their work in supporting the chaplaincy program and encouraging those in the community to benefit from it.

You see, the government is happy to spend and waste billions of dollars—and the fact is it has been billions of dollars in the last two years; we have hit the anniversary and it is just under $3 billion of waste and mismanagement. They are happy to spend $8 million on the GROCERYchoice website, which is an absolute joke based on a hollow promise. They are happy to spend billions of dollars and waste it on this education revolution. They are happy to put up memorial plaques for the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. But they are not happy to spend the money that is required to continue this program into the future. This is what they should be doing but they are not. So having further reviews rings alarm bells with me—to say, ‘We are going to extend it for one year past the next election.’ That motion yesterday was comprehensive and it was passed. I ask the government to reconsider. This motion is very important and it calls on the government to make a commitment to extend the program to new schools that apply for a chaplain and to retain current levels of funding into the future on an ongoing basis.

The government’s current position is not good enough. So I call on members of the public to lobby their local member of parliament to retain the chaplaincy program. (Time expired)

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

I was hoping to be able to cede this time to Senator Carr to come back in and give further answers, because I think there was a lot of excitement about Senator Carr continuing to speak. But, unfortunately, he was needed elsewhere so I will have to do it. So I apologise to the Senate because I think it would have been very valuable for all of us if we had more opportunity to have Senator Carr talk with us. But in terms of the process around the chaplaincy program I am so disappointed that members on the other side, in particular Senator Barnett, who, both in this chamber and in the wider community, misrepresents what is happening with the chaplaincy program. Regarding his strident call earlier to the people of Australia to lobby, we know that many people have already been scared by the process that has been stirred up around this issue.

Basically, with the chaplaincy program—as with many other programs that are funded through the government—there was an original commitment made by the previous government, which was very clearly a three-year commitment. It was not a commitment made by that government for all eternity. It would have been a useful thing, perhaps, if that was the intent. If they had said, ‘From this day forward until the end of time there will be full funding for this program.’ But that did not happen. We know that. We know that programs are put out there through a range of consultation and decision through the policy-making processes. We look at programs that will be put in place, in this case through the education process. The chaplaincy program was launched with a lot of fanfare and there was a lot of excitement around it. I think that in very many schools where, as Senator Barnett was saying in his contribution, the chaplaincy program has worked well.

What goes on with these kinds of things is that at the end of the funding cycle clear reviews need to be put in place to evaluate the program, to see exactly how is it working and to work effectively with all those who are involved in putting the program together—all the user groups, all the various education people and the people in the community. I would hope that in terms of what will go on now, which is an effective end-of-funding-cycle review looking at what will happen in the future, some of the people with whom consultation will be developed will be the students to ensure that the students who are in many ways the user group of this program will be involved in the ongoing review. The Prime Minister, I think, made that clear at a very large conference recently where he made a public statement about his views on how the chaplaincy program would be looked at by this government into the future.

The government has made a clear commitment that there will be funding for a year into the future while this process is being evaluated, and that evaluation will engage with everybody who has strong feelings about it. To all those members of the community who have been scared by allegations that this program is not being valued and that there will not be a commitment to it, my message is: please be involved in whatever process of review is made public so that you are able to have your say about what goes through.

Reviewing is a natural and professional part of government business, for all parts of government and at all levels of government. You need to identify what the purpose of the program is, you need to identify how it has been used and you need to have a look clearly at how the funding has been expended. There are a range of views in the community about the way the chaplaincy program operates. Certainly, one survey—only one survey—that has been out there has talked about the huge success, and we acknowledge that.

Senator Barnett made the comment in his contribution that he knows many chaplains, and so do I. I work with them closely, talk about the issues they find in their schools, and I applaud much of the work that has been done. But there are some parts which even Senator Barnett must admit have not worked as well as they ought to have. Part of the review is looking at how we should move forward with that, but continuing to raise these scare campaigns about the cessation of funding does not help. Clearly, what we need to do is to look at how the program has been operating, what it needs, what funding should be allocated and then see how that will work in future budgets.

The funding has been allocated for a year; that has been made public. We have not made a commitment to all eternity and nor did the previous government. That should be remembered, because somehow there seems to be some confusion here that one government made an ongoing, forever, commitment and the other has not. That is just not true. I think it is particularly wrong to scare people who are looking towards the future of a program that many people do find valuable.

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

Every now and then an issue arises that provokes such a sense of urgency and passion in people that they are moved to make a representation of their views to their federal member of parliament or their senator. They are people from all walks of life who may never have contacted a member of parliament before but suddenly are so moved by an injustice that they do get in touch.

Throughout my 16 years in this place there have been a few of these issues and I have always been prepared to stand up on behalf of the people I represent to ensure that their views are heard, respected, and responded to. School chaplaincy is one of those issues. It is fine for Senator Moore to say that there is a review of a Howard coalition program in place. Perhaps it is one of the 177 reviews or one of the countless committees that the Rudd government has put into place to review programs, and who knows when we will hear a result?

There is no doubt that today young Australians, such as the ones of sitting here in the gallery, face challenges and opportunities they need every bit of help to meet and grow from. At the same time as school children are experiencing the horizon of opportunities that are beginning to dawn on them, they have to make sense of issues that we as adults find trying. Having a dedicated person at school to provide pastoral care on issues like bullying, alcohol, drug abuse, family and mental health can be a tremendous help for many children who may not be able to get that support elsewhere. That is why the coalition introduced the National School Chaplaincy Program in 2007 and why we are just as conscious of and committed to ensuring the program’s long-term viability today.

We have received many letters and emails on this subject. Here is part of a letter I received from a parent in Rosebud, Victoria:

Chaplains bring to students a quality of concern, compassion and understating, while secular personnel cannot. Nor can psychologists work with students to the same degree. Chaplains work with a sense of calling.

An email I received from another parent, in Balwyn, Victoria reads:

I believe that religious and spiritual matters play an important part in the lives of students, and they need someone on the school staff that they can trust and turn to for guidance in thinking through these matters. As you are one of my Victorian Senators, I hope you will support the continued funding of the present chaplaincy arrangement.

I am strongly supportive of the school chaplaincy program and I will do everything I can to ensure that it survives into the future. The whole coalition is strongly of this view and, unlike the Rudd government, we have been consistently committed to a strong future for the program and the students and schools that it means so much to. Our program enables schools to employ a part-time chaplain to provide pastoral care to students across religious denominations and backgrounds.

It is no coincidence that on the very day that the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, and the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, Christopher Pyne, announced that the coalition would continue this program if we came into government the Rudd government proceeded to announce a review instead of casting doubt over the program’s future.

This program has come from the communities and schools themselves and it deserves to be returned to them so they can use it as they wish in order to provide the best possible peace of mind. I call on the government to commit to the long-term continuation of this program, which generations of young Australians can use to help meet their challenges and realise their dreams.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue that has been raised today by Senator Barnett during motions to take note of answers is not an unimportant issue—I agree with that. In her contribution, Senator Moore outlined what the government is doing with regard to the National School Chaplaincy Program and its future funding. I am going to come back to that in a moment, but you have to look also at the broader context—that is, what this government has done in respect of education with the additional support, additional services and additional funding for students in schools. It has been unprecedented. There has been record additional funding in both the public and the private school sectors since the Rudd government came into office.

The opposition constantly criticise and attack the Building the Education Revolution program, and go around looking for one instance here or there of where there may have been some technical hiccup. The opposition just will not acknowledge the great benefit that that program has had in providing additional resources, additional facilities, to schools and to the children who are taught in them: the extra computers, the new science blocks, the new assembly halls, the new covered learning areas—all the extra facilities, which I have seen personally on many occasions that I have visited schools. You talk to the teachers, you talk to the principals, you talk to the parents and citizens group and to the parents and friends groups, and they are so grateful for what the federal government, the Rudd government, have done over the last year to two years and for what is continuing to be rolled out as many of those projects are completed and coming into operation.

This is an opposition that do nothing but carp. They are saying today that the whole chaplaincy program has been abandoned, that it is going to fall in a hole. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the opposition know that they speak with forked tongues on this. Whilst they say that the Rudd government, the Labor government, has abandoned this program, the facts of the matter are that the previous government, the Howard government, only committed funding to the end of next year when they introduced this scheme. That needs to be repeated: they only committed funding to the end of 2010. As for the current government, the Prime Minister announced on 21 November—only a few days ago—that an additional $42.8 million will be made available to the program to ensure that the good work of the National School Chaplaincy Program funded school chaplains will continue until the end of December 2011.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, a one-year extension.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Barnett interjects and says, ‘A one-year extension.’ You cannot have it both ways. You cannot stand up in this parliament and say that the Rudd government has abandoned the program—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never said that.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the allegation that is being made. Your own government previously only agreed to commit funding to the end of 2010. At the same time, you have to acknowledge that the current government has agreed to an extension by one year of the current program—and, in addition to that, is conducting a review into its effectiveness.

Senator Troeth, a senator for whom I have great admiration and with whom I have worked very well on a number of committees, said, ‘Oh, you know, it’s another one of these reviews by the current government.’ When you lost office after 12 years of government, and we came to power, it was about time to review quite a few programs. I am aware, for instance, that concerns have been expressed to the government about the current program. The slow take-up in regional areas is just one. So there are issues about its effectiveness. That is what we are about: improving it in the long term.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this issue. To take up from where Senator Forshaw left off, the slow take-up in regional areas: the only reason there has been a slow take-up is that a number of these schools have not been able to get funding. Coming from a small rural community I have been very involved with the chaplaincy at the Kojonup Senior High School. Mrs Julie Sullivan has been our chaplain there for 7½ years. She is a very dedicated woman. She has rung me on several occasions asking, ‘Do you think this program is going to continue?’ So, as far as the school goes, it has to look forward and see whether its programs are going to go on. As far as this particular program is concerned, Mrs Sullivan works three days a week. She deals with children who have experienced grief, maybe the death of someone close, separation and divorce. In a rural area, unfortunately we have very little access to youth workers or psychologists, so these chaplains really do play a very wide role in what they do with the children. The chaplain is neutral and the children feel comfortable talking to them, whereas perhaps there are issues that they cannot raise straight away with their own families. As far as the chaplaincy program goes, it is probably even more important that rural and regional schools have access to this program than those in the cities, because often they have access to health professionals, whereas our children do not.

The local church communities actually pay 30 per cent of Mrs Sullivan’s salary to boost it. They fundraise to do that. Having been involved in a number of their fundraising activities, I know that the whole community gets behind this program. It is a community of 2,000 people, but that school chaplain is probably one of the most important people in our community. She is highly regarded. Some of the issues she has to deal with are quite horrific. But I really do admire the work that she does. I just wanted to give an example of someone in a small rural community who can influence the community in the way that she does.

I really do applaud my colleagues Senator Mason and Senator Barnett for the motion they put forward. It was passed here in this place. I would urge the Rudd government, if they are doing their review, to look at it very widely and also to perhaps do a review in the rural and regional areas of Australia. I am sure that my home town of Kojonup, in Western Australia, is not alone as far as trying to retain a chaplain. To lose Mrs Sullivan would be tragic for our community, because there is no-one else there to take her place. It is essential that we are able to continue to fund this program.

As far as the former coalition government’s commitment goes, that was a commitment of $165 million over the first three years, and I know that with a number of these three-year programs it is absolutely devastating when you cannot get recurrent funding for them. But this is a program that has proved itself. I do not think it needs too much of a review, and I would urge the Rudd government to continue to support it. Our children face so many challenges these days; it is very, very difficult. The drug problem seems to be escalating and it is affecting younger and younger children. The chaplains can deal with this problem and other problems. They can cope with the bullying problem and the mental health issues. They are able to refer these children on to the correct place, and they really are a terrific support to rural families.

Question agreed to.