Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think I hear Senator Sterle agreeing with me that, should it go to a vote now, we will actually have support from the other side. If we do not, it would have to be the greatest act of hypocrisy that we have seen in recent times in this place.

I sat here in stunned silence, I must say, to Senator Lines's contribution, some of which I will seek to dispel in a few minutes, but what is this bill all about? It is a usual theme: it will correct a significant error of the last government—we had that all the time through the numbers of years that Mr Rudd, followed by Ms Gillard, followed by Mr Rudd, led an incompetent and disparate government—that would see, for some school authorities, the Commonwealth liable to pay the entire amount, both the Commonwealth and the notional state share, calculated for an authority. It goes to questions associated with additional funding for Indigenous boarding students. It speaks of transition arrangements for special schools and special assistance schools. It extends the commencement of school improvement planning requirements, ensures schools moving between approved authorities will be financially neither advantaged nor disadvantaged and ensures the Commonwealth, as I just said, pays only its share of the total public funding arrangement. All it speaks to is ill-conceived drafting in the first place and a failure of rushed legislation.

So what are we talking about? We have just heard a rant from Senator Lines about Gonski. Let us be very, very clear. For the period of the out years, the current four-year funding period within this parliament, there is no change. Let me repeat that for those who are slow of listening: there is no change, no decrease at all, in the funding to the schools sector. The only change is an increase, would you believe it? You would not have known that listening to the previous speaker. There is an increase of $1.2 billion for the three states that resisted the bullying of Ms Gillard to sign up to the ill-conceived Gonski provisions. They actually were not the Gonski provisions, as, indeed, Mr Gonski and his co-authors rushed to say. The Labor Party, as usual, cherry-picked those bits that they thought were most politically expedient. Of course, my own state of Western Australia, amongst others, stood by and said it was not going to accept the domination by the then federal Labor government to take over control of its schools for the paltry amount that was offered to the Western Australian state. When we came to government, and Mr Abbott became the Prime Minister and Mr Pyne became the education minister, far from removing funds we actually put $1.2 billion more into the system. So let me dispel that myth from the word go.

I am pleased that Senator Lines said that she supports Aboriginal education, particularly in relation to boarding, because, if she did not, that would be a great travesty for all of us in this chamber. Let me speak, if I may, for a few moments about a program that has been running for some years, coordinated by the independent schools in Western Australia, called Future Footprints. It takes students from remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory and down they come to some 17 metropolitan independent and Catholic boarding schools in Perth. It receives limited funding from government sources, particularly, in this case, the Commonwealth. There has been very generous funding from the schools and those who support them.

But at the moment there are some 330 students in this program. I have followed it over the last few years and I have seen the excellence of the outcomes of the program for these young Aboriginal students from remote Indigenous communities. They come down to schools in Perth. They have gone on. Their completion rate to year 12 has been exceptionally high. The number of those who have gone on to post-secondary studies is enviable.

I have had the privilege of meeting some of the young people, who have set up their careers for the future, as a result of this wonderful opportunity that has been created for them. They have come from their homes in remote areas to schools in Perth. The program has been absolutely exemplary.

Any program that encourages these young people to take the opportunity to study at boarding schools around Australia must be accepted and those who participate in it must be congratulated and encouraged. The programs for these young people from years 10 to 12 are designed to increase retention rates—to increase the levels of completions. It is pleasing to record the success rates that are occurring as a result of these programs.

The young people are mentored. There is a liaison officer who ensures that these young people, of a weekend for example, have the opportunity to gather together, to meet and to discuss what is going on. I remember being told that when a school function is taking place the liaison officer would take the young girls into town and make sure that they had appropriate clothing et cetera so that when they attended the function they felt comfortable in themselves. We should encourage these sorts of activities.

I will go, now, to the question of disability. Let me explain to those who might be interested what will happen if these amendments before us this evening are not passed. There are some eight Northern Territory colleges, which I am absolutely sure my colleague Senator Scullion will be familiar with, which will be disadvantaged under the Indigenous Boarding Initiative if these amendments are not passed. In Queensland there are six colleges that will be disadvantaged. In my home state of Western Australia there are also six, including the Christian Aboriginal Parent-directed School; the Clontarf Aboriginal College, which has been a national leader over some period of time now in terms of their education programs for young men and young women; La Salle College, with which I have some familiarity; and the Wongutha Christian Aboriginal Parent-directed School. These are schools that will be disadvantaged if these amendments do not pass.

When I speak about the question of disability I will mention, for example, the Aspect schools in New South Wales. These are schools which focus on the needs of autistic children. They include Aspect Hunter School, Aspect Vern Barnett School, Aspect Central Coast School, Aspect Western Sydney School, Aspect South Coast School, and Giant Steps Sydney. All of them will be financially disadvantaged if these amendments do not pass. In Queensland, the Autism Queensland Education and Therapy Centre will be disadvantaged to the tune of almost half of the funding that is available to them currently. The same applies in my home state of Western Australia, where the Telethon Speech and Hearing establishment will be disadvantaged.

Here in the ACT—in your home patch, Acting Deputy President Seselja—the Galilee school will forsake almost 50 per cent of its funding. Where it would have been expecting $16,000 its funding will go down to $8,900—a loss of $7,000. It will be similar again in New South Wales and in Queensland.

I cannot let this occasion go past without making a comment on some of the discussion advanced by Senator Lines with regard to Western Australia—particularly the actions of the Barnett government. Senator Lines ridiculed the Barnett government about, to paraphrase her, its very poor contribution to education et cetera in this country. Be aware that the highest per capita funding for students in state schools in this nation is in Western Australia as a result of the Barnett state government. The highest paid teachers in this nation are the Western Australian state government teachers. So I will not sit here this evening and listen to Senator Lines—a Western Australian senator—malign the Barnett government. The man was an outstanding Minister for Education. His parliamentary secretary, the honourable Barbara Scott, was responsible for the education of preschool children. That program has found its way throughout this nation.

Senator Lines drew the comparison between the decision of the Barnett government to close some remote Aboriginal communities with its decision to close schools. That indicates one of two things—either she is loose with the truth or she is totally ignorant of remote Aboriginal communities in this state. It is a shame that Senator Sterle is not here, because he is a person who is well versed in the remote Aboriginal communities of Western Australia. As one who actually had an association with the Kimberley in past years, I have taken a keen interest in what has been made public, and I have heard nothing stating that the Barnett government is closing schools in remote Aboriginal communities. So this debate is not the place nor time to be making the sorts of spurious and false statements and allegations that we have heard in connection with the Barnett government

It is exemplary when it comes to the provision of primary, secondary and pre-primary education in this nation.

I conclude that all senators should want to pass the amendment to the Australian Education Act 2013. It will ensure additional funding for Indigenous boarding students. It will ensure that transition arrangements are in place for special schools and special-assistant schools and it will add to the facilities and funding for transitional and disabled students in that circumstance. When it comes to funding for the period of this government, for the period under consideration, that is guaranteed. Any statement to the contrary is simply one that we all know to be incorrect. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the chamber to pass these legislation.