Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7137 together:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 11), omit all the words from and including "require" to the end of subsection 22(1), substitute:

  : (a)   require the relevant authority for the school or system to ensure that the school, or each school in the system, implements the national curriculum prescribed by the regulations in accordance with the regulations; and

  (b)   provide such funding as is necessary to ensure that each teacher in the school or system has received professional development in the implementation of the national curriculum in accordance with a nationally consistent professional development program.

[national curriculum—professional development for teachers]

(2)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 11), after subsection 22(1), insert:

(1A)   The national curriculum must not be prescribed unless the non-government school sector has had input into its development through membership and/or observer status on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee.

[national curriculum—non-government school sector input]

The first amendment relates to professional development for teachers. You will recall that in my contribution to the debate on the second reading I touched on the fact that school teachers did not have sufficient background or training to make the most of the national curriculum; this has been a criticism that I have heard a lot about and I know Mr Pyne, as the minister in the House of Representatives, has also heard much about this. This is a fairly modest amendment. What it seeks to do is simply to ask the government to provide such funding as is necessary to ensure that each teacher in a school or the system has received professional development in the implementation of the national curriculum. It is a big change to schooling in this country, and the coalition wants to ensure that it is done correctly. The second point is to do with non-government school sector input. The coalition believes that the non-government sector should have input into the timing of the implementation of the national curriculum and that it should be done formally. So there should be formal powers in legislation for the non-government sector to participate in developing the time lines for implementation.

These are two quite simple amendments. There is nothing particularly complicated about them at all. I should add that both these opposition amendments have now been endorsed by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union. So the endorsement for both amendments is broad, right across the independent school sector.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Mason for moving these two amendments together. It may save the chamber some time. These amendments have already been moved and lost in the other place. They were lost because they are poor amendments that do nothing to enhance the delivery of the Australian curriculum. I shall repeat, for the benefit of the opposition, the arguments made by the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in the House.

The first opposition amendment relates to the issue, as mentioned by Senator Mason, of teacher professional development. The Australian government is making a substantial contribution to the establishment of Australia's first national curriculum. This is the curriculum that the coalition often talked about but were unable to deliver, much like their early childhood agenda. Under the National Education Agreement, the Australian government and states and territories are jointly responsible for the development of the Australian curriculum. States and territories, including non-government schools and systems, are responsible for implementation of the Australian curriculum. This was a commitment under the National Education Agreement and is a requirement of the Schools Assistance Act. Implementation refers to delivery with appropriate support. This has clearly been understood by the states and territories since this was first discussed at ministerial council meetings. The first opposition amendment ignores this agreement. It is also fiscally irresponsible.

The opposition already has a $70 billion black hole, and this amendment would commit the Commonwealth to further millions of uncapped expenditure. There are over 100,000 non-government schoolteachers in the teacher workforce in Australia. The coalition refers to 'such funding as is necessary', without definition, in the amendment. The opposition have promised cuts of $2.8 billion and have yet to tell us what proportion of the $70 billion black hole will come from education—another $5 billion in cuts, $10 billion, $15 billion and now another uncapped promise.

All states and territories have agreed that the implementation of the Australian curriculum is their responsibility. They have committed to this. All states and territories have programs that could be used or redirected to focus on professional development for teachers to deliver the Australian curriculum. One significant benefit of the Australian curriculum will be the sharing of national and state and territory resources to support all teachers. The Australian government is also supporting the delivery of the national curriculum. The national digital resource collection, managed by Education Services Australia, gives schools access to over 5,000 resources aligned to the Australian curriculum. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership is delivering professional development in the form of the Leading Curriculum Change Professional Learning Flagship Program.

Let me move to the second opposition amendment, which is also an inaccurate reflection of current processes. Firstly, the Australian government believes strongly in school choice. The government's policies recognise this principle in practice. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth has regular meetings with the non-government school sector and takes into account their views when making decisions at ministerial council meetings. The Australian Education Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee, AEEYSOC, is made up of senior officials of government departments across states and territories. This committee was specifically established and formulated to provide support directly to ministers in relation to ministerial council meetings, and this is the key point. Membership of AEEYSOC is not an appropriate decision for the Australian parliament. It is a decision for the ministerial council and it is a decision for education ministers from all states and territories. I would also make the point that it is a decision that the coalition somehow forgot to make when they had the opportunity.

The non-government sector is represented on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, AITSL. The Australian government has also established the strategic policy working group chaired by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations secretary. It includes representation from the Catholic and independent sectors and was specifically established to consult on the government's education reforms. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth personally chairs the cross-sectoral Australian government election commitments working group. This is a significant opportunity for formal consultation, and this is entirely reasonable given the importance of the non-government school sector. It is also more consultation than the former coalition government ever provided. The government will continue to consult with the non-government sector and to include the non-government sector in working parties and committees. These amendments should be defeated.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister was eloquent, as always, but I think I did mention that the coalition amendments I have moved this morning have been endorsed by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union. There is a reason for that, and that is: there is no specific legislative device whereby the independent schools sector have a role in developing time lines for implementation of the national curriculum. What the opposition is asking for is simply a specific legislative charge for independent schools to have a capacity to be involved in the setting of time lines for the implementation of the national curriculum. I do not think that is asking too much.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should respond to Senator Mason's assertion in that respect. I covered many forms for which the non-government sector has the opportunity for input in terms of time lines. In fact, these very measures represent concerns from the non-government sector as to aligning themselves with the government sector and other matters related to when the curriculum changes should occur. Those consultation mechanisms will continue and will allow the non-government sector the opportunity to input into government decision-making processes.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, without being too argumentative, which as you know I would never be, that consultation is a matter of ministerial discretion rather than legislative right. That is what the government does not seem to understand.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sad as I am to reiterate the point that I made earlier, the consultation processes that have been allowed for the non-government sector by this government exceed by far what the former government put in place for this sector. The opportunities for consultation are there. The sector is working with this government and state and territory governments on the Australian Curriculum and the advances that we have made far exceed what was attempted by the former government.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During my contribution on the second reading, I spoke about the cross-curriculum perspectives, and the minister, indeed the Senate, will recall that. They are the Indigenous perspective, a commitment to sustainable patterns of living, and an emphasis on Asia and Australian engagement with the region. They are the cross-curriculum perspectives that are weaved through the national curriculum. That is what the relevant authorities have done with the national curriculum. I ask the minister: why don't we have a cross-curriculum perspective that teaches students about the role and importance of liberal democratic institutions in shaping the society they live in?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much as I am loath to take the Senate down this path, which has been journeyed many times by Senator Mason in Senate estimates, I can quite clearly indicate to Senator Mason that I have listened in detail to his concerns, as I am sure that any person looking at the advances that have been made to a national curriculum would have their own perspective on, but I have yet to encounter someone who has quite the ideological fervour for the particular issues that you raise, Senator Mason. Certainly, there will be some criticisms of some elements of a national curriculum from some sectors or some areas but all I have heard in the main is people relieved to see that progress in this area is occurring.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister believe, and does the government therefore believe, that the cross-curriculum perspectives of (1) Indigenous perspective, (2) a commitment to sustainable patterns of living, and (3) an emphasis on Asia and Australia's engagement with the region are more important than the importance of liberal democratic institutions, or the heritage and the impact of Judaeo-Christian Western traditions, or the role of science and technology? Try that, minister.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will simply reiterate the point I made a moment ago. I do not intend to reprosecute what has been covered in Senate estimates session after session and I would encourage Senator Mason to follow his earlier remarks about avoiding the ideological focus that we seem to be commencing.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is really unbelievable that we have a national curriculum being developed to standardise curricula throughout the country and, as you know, the opposition agrees with that in principle. Of that there is no argument. But this is an enormous change to curricula offered to Australian children throughout our country and yet you cannot get a straight answer out of the government to suggest that the perspectives it is weaving through the national curriculum for the apparent benefit of our children are more important than the cross-curriculum perspectives that I just suggested.

The government has never had the courage to do that. Not once. I have never had the minister, either in estimates or in this place, have the courage to stand up and say, 'No, Senator, you are wrong. Indigenous perspectives, a commitment to sustainable patterns of living and an emphasis on Asia and Australia's engagement with the region are more important than the importance of liberal democratic institutions, or the heritage and the impact of a Judaeo-Christian Western tradition, or indeed, the role of science and technology.' No-one on that side has ever had the courage to make that point. Not once, in 18 months.

Mr Pyne and I have prosecuted this case up hill and down dale and not once has anyone on that side ever said, and neither has ACARA, that those cross-curriculum perspectives that have been put to be taught to every kid in this country are more important than the role of science and technology, the Judaeo-Christian ethic and the importance of liberal democratic institutions. We have never had a straight answer from this government in 18 months, and still it cavils and squirms and swerves. You cannot get a sensible answer out of ACARA either, which is to administer this program. It is someone else's responsibility, yet this is the most far-reaching change to curricula this nation has seen since 1901. You cannot get a sensible answer to that question. What does that say about the entire national curriculum when the minister is not even prepared to stand up and say, 'I am proud of these cross-curriculum perspectives because they underpin the new national curriculum.' No-one in the Labor Party is prepared to say the three it has chosen are more important than the three I nominated. It has not happened once in 18 months.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well—

Senator Mason interjecting—

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

You're scaring me, Brett.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sterle, for that interjection, because that is what continues to occur here. I had hoped that Senator Mason would be in one of his better moods today, but it seems as if we are journeying back down that ideological scare campaign. He asks whether the government is proud of the national curriculum and the cross-curriculum perspectives, and the answer to that is a simple and straightforward yes. Let me address some of the concerns that Senator Mason continues to raise. He says that neither ACARA nor the government has given sensible answers to his questions. Unfortunately, he has been provided with sensible answers time and time again. What is critical here, though, is that he refuses to accept those answers.

I mentioned that from my point of view in dealing with this policy area I have yet to come across anyone raising with me these concerns about the cross-curriculum perspectives in the manner that I have heard Senator Mason raise them on several occasions. This is an opposition scare campaign which is failing to gain any significant traction. An amendment was moved in the House and it failed. These amendments have been moved here now, so let me address a couple of those in case somebody listening has some genuine concerns with the issues that Senator Mason has raised.

Liberal democracy is one of the issues that Senator Mason says should be part of a cross-curriculum perspective. The Westminster parliamentary system, Judaeo-Christian backgrounds and science and technology are present in the history and science curricula—not in the cross-curriculum perspectives but in the core subjects. Why Senator Mason feels that these particular areas must be significant cross-curriculum issues—or must be, should I highlight, at this particular point in time—is, I believe, simply to do with fearmongering. The opposition is chomping on an ideological debate because Senator Mason and Mr Pyne are outside the process involving the state and territory ministers and stakeholders and their consultations through the various measures that I highlighted before and outside the process with ACARA. It is time that the opposition simply got on board, accepted the national curriculum and let it be implemented.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be straightforward and frank. Does the minister and does the government believe that the three nominated cross-curriculum perspectives are more important than the three cross-curriculum perspectives that I nominated—the importance of liberal democratic institutions, the Judaeo-Christian western tradition and the role of science and technology? Does she on behalf of the government believe that the three nominated by the government are more important than the three nominated by me on behalf of the opposition?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, this question of Senator Mason's is starting to become somewhat repetitious. Senator Mason, I will not be drawn on answering that question in the way you seek. Indeed, nobody would, because your attempt to make those sorts of value characterisations is not appropriate. I have said, as I mentioned before, those particular matters of liberal democracy, Judaeo-Christian background and science and technology are all covered in core subjects. Why Senator Mason continues to insist that these matters must be part of the first cross-curriculum perspectives is beyond me.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very interesting—'value characterisations'. You might ask, Mr Chairman, what values are characterised by the three cross-curriculum perspectives nominated by the government and by the ones that the opposition have nominated. You might ask about the characterisation of those values. The opposition supports liberal democratic institutions, the Judaeo-Christian western ethic and the role of science and technology. We think they are more important than the Indigenous perspective, a commitment to sustainable patterns of living and an emphasis on Asia and Australia's engagement with the region—or at least equally important as those. Those are values.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7137 be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that divisions cannot take place before 12.30 on Mondays. The debate is adjourned accordingly.

Progress reported.

(Quorum formed)