Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2006, and in so doing allow school communities around Australia, particularly those in my home state of Tasmania, to no longer go unheard. Today they will be given a voice and an opportunity to be heard. Before dwelling on the bill I would like to congratulate the member for Rankin, as he departs the chamber, on much of his contribution today. I would have to say in a spirit of bipartisanship that it is really quite helpful for us to have these kinds of discussions and to be able to look at the pitfalls of education in Australia in a rational, sensible and calm way.

The member for Rankin’s contribution today stands once more in stark contrast to the member for Jagajaga’s contribution. I regret to inform the House that the member for Jagajaga is no longer in the chamber to listen to the debate in which she has been so antagonistic. The contributions of the shadow spokesman for education are always so angry, in stark contrast to those of the member for Rankin. They are always embedded with dogma and even, at times, hatred towards the government of the day—in this case the Liberal government—simply because of its colour. It is the same dogma which she uses to attack the Howard government; the previous excellent minister for education, Dr Nelson; and the current excellent education minister, Mrs Bishop. But that same dogma prevents her from ever challenging her state Labor colleagues. I am filled with regret at this fact.

I do not think anybody in this chamber today, or anybody listening to this broadcast or reading the Hansard, is confused any more about who is responsible for state education in this country. The Australian Education Union and the Australian Labor Party in the past have tried to provoke some sort of twisted rewriting of history as to who is responsible. The reality is that state schools in Australia are the responsibility, principally, of the states.

I tend to have a slightly different view to a black and white one, though. Really, they are the responsibility of all of us—all levels of government. I have seen in Tasmania how even local government is beginning to have a major role in the long-term success of schools in its municipality. I cannot think of a better example than Scottsdale High School, which is in my electorate of Bass and in probably one of the most beautiful corners of Australia in the north-east—Dr Nelson has visited there. The local Dorset council was one of the greatest supporters and promoters of a major upgrade that occurred there in recent times. All levels of government share a responsibility for education in this country. That goes not just for state schools but also for non-government schools. We have a shared responsibility, because we ought to have a shared commitment to the future of this country.

In closing, I will not throw too many more bouquets to the member for Rankin, but I will say that I really appreciated his remarks, which were directed at children who in some cases are being neglected. This is a most regrettable thing that is happening in Australia in certain situations. I would like to join with him today in saying that I too would like to commit to seeing a redress and an improvement in the future prospects for children who just do not get the same start in life that so many others do.

Apart from a minor drafting area, there are five main features of the bill that we are debating today. The first is to create capacity within the legislation for the government to be able to give more support to certain types of so-called special schools that cater for students who are at risk of leaving school for, if you like, non-academic reasons, such as social, emotional or behavioural problems.

The bill will also allow the government to reallocate unspent funding from the 2005 program to the 2006 program for government schools under the Investing in Our Schools program. It will also allow the government to bring forward funding from the 2008 program into 2006. The bill will also allow unspent funding from the generally very successful pilot known as the Tutorial Voucher Initiative, which was conducted in 2005, to be used in the 2006 program year. I welcome that. The bill also allows greater flexibility for the use of funding under the act to allow funding for a program year to be carried over or brought forward as necessary to another program year. I am greatly supportive of this.

It is time that schools in Australia and students in particular are heard again. I appreciate that health has been a major facet of political debate in recent years, and I hope that it continues to be an important issue that is discussed and debated. I still believe that education is one of the great frontiers where we need to make more progress in this country. That is why I am proud to be a part of the Howard government. It is not about dogma; it is about our commitment to students and the future of our great country. This government, in word and deed, is about building better communities, and one way we can do that is by giving more and better support—and strategic support—to schools all around Australia, and in particular to students, from whatever school they may come. Through this bill we will be able to provide more opportunities for the boys and girls who, in some cases, attend schools which have been neglected by their owners or custodians, the state governments.

In my home state of Tasmania, the Australian government is spending millions of dollars every year to fund infrastructure projects in schools that the state government has left behind. I am not even of a mind to congratulate the Australian government too much on doing that. I believe that the Australian government is doing what it ought to be doing—investing in our schools. We do not need a gold medal or a blue ribbon from our peers or from voters to tell us what a great job we are doing. I feel that it is our responsibility, and I feel that we are doing a job and that we should get on and continue to do that job.

However, having said all of that, the Investing in Our Schools program was a commitment made by the coalition prior to the 2004 federal election—an election which saw me and a number of my colleagues on this side of the House elected for the first time. I believe that the Investing in Our Schools commitment was one of the policy successes and major reasons for the historic return of the Howard government, which is now just one day away from achieving its 10th anniversary.

I am so proud of this program, because I have seen the way it has been appreciated and taken up by school principals, school teachers and by school parent and friend bodies. They have seen an opportunity to have an input into the future improvement of their schools. We have witnessed schools which have suffered similar neglect to the neglect suffered by some of the children that the member for Rankin described. I was one of the teachers who worked in those schools. As a member of federal parliament, I am very proud to be able to have as part of my canvas the fact that I worked as a public teacher in secondary state schools in Northern Tasmania. Those years were some of the best years of my life.

I digress for a moment to say that the last year of teaching I did is the one that I remember most fondly. After a number of years of being inexperienced, I think I got a little better. I enjoyed it so much—it was the best year of teaching I ever did. But it was the coldest year I ever taught. Can you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that in the state of Tasmania there are classrooms that do not have heaters? People might not believe this, but it is true. I worked in a school where the classrooms in the middle of winter were unheated. We could survive the summer months because they were brief and not that hot, but for some period of time the classrooms were so hot they were unbearable. But, being Tasmanian, we could live with that because we knew that the season would come and go and that for much of it we were on recreation leave. I suppose that is part of being a Tasmanian. It can get very hot, but when it does you know the end is not far away.

I taught in classrooms with no heaters—to correct myself, they did have heaters but they were not working. This was at a time when Tasmania, like it is today, was enjoying record receipts of federal funding—not just through the federal schools funding program but through its recurrent revenue, which was achieved by the great success of the GST and a growing economy. So what did I do? I would carry, along with my little tote tray of whiteboard markers and chalk, a two-kilowatt heater from classroom to classroom. For anybody who saw me, it would have looked pretty funny to see a schoolteacher wandering from class to class with a little fan heater. I have to say that a two-kilowatt heater plugged in for 40 minutes in a stone-cold classroom did not really warm it up very much either.

I will never allow those experiences to depart from my memory because I will never forget the way those kids felt and the lack of learning that occurred because they were uncomfortable. It was a work site and a workplace. It was where I worked but, equally, it was where those 25 to 43 students worked—it was their workplace. No adult would tolerate working in an eight- or nine-degree classroom; they would not do it. But because they were children, I think there was a view that it could be allowed to continue without being challenged. I think that is disgraceful. We are taking away not just the comfort of life but an opportunity to do well and to learn such that, just as the member for Rankin explained, children with a good start in life can enjoy a prosperous and happy future. I will never forget that, and I never want to be accused of being in part to blame for providing conditions to children in classrooms such as I have described.

The Investing in Our Schools program has already invested $650,000 in schools in my electorate alone. I am very proud of this. These are not initiatives where the Australian government has walked in and said, ‘Hey, we think you should do this or that,’ or even where the state government has walked in and said, ‘We think you should apply for the funding to achieve this or that.’ They are initiatives which have come from the school community. Who else is better placed to identify the needs of the school community? Branxholm Primary School, a very small school in my community, has already received a $50,000 grant to redevelop the playground. Brooks High School will be investing $12,000 in an IT upgrade. Launceston College, my old college, has received a $48,000 grant to redevelop the old theatrette. Fantastic: at last Lilydale District High School will be able to provide some shaded areas to students with their grant. Mowbray Heights Primary School, one of the little gold nuggets in Bass—a wonderful school with wonderful leadership—will be making improvements to their outside shade structures as well. The list goes on.

Without naming the schools, I wish to read some examples that have been provided to me of comments which have been made in the application process. This school asked for a carpet to be replaced using the federal Investing in Our Schools program funding. In their application they said:

The age of the section of carpet relating to the project is over 30 years old. The condition of the carpet throughout this area is poor. In classrooms and office areas carpet is threadbare in high use areas and joins are coming apart. Badly worn carpet is difficult to clean, unwelcoming for students to sit on and at times can cause accidental falls.

Another school which has successfully received a grant said in its application form:

The classroom was built in 1965. The classroom is an outdated space which limits flexibility to deliver curriculum. Teachers work tirelessly to create a stimulating learning environment; however, the overcrowded nature of this classroom provides many challenges which simply cannot be overcome by outstanding teacher planning and creativity.

The third one I would like to read is, again, for carpet. Can you believe that we have schools crying out for funding for carpet? This school says:

The current carpet is hard and worn. It does not match the remaining carpet. As this is our infant block, the students are sitting on the floor a lot or are working in groups on the floor area. After lunch, the students have a rest time. They lay on the floor for this and again the current carpet is hard and uncomfortable. The existing carpet is old. New carpet will be healthier for our students, for example, dirt, dust mites et cetera. Safety—a new carpet will be less slippery because it will not be smooth because of wear.

This is a government school in northern Tasmania after nearly eight years of a Labor government which has constantly attempted to hammer the Howard government. It is one of the state government’s own schools, at a time of record state government income, largely due to the GST. The state government has allowed a school in 2005 to be confronted with an application form in which it can write words such as I have just described.

This greatly upsets me and I do not want to allow the state government to get away with it any longer. We have an opportunity in Tasmania, there being a state election very soon. I am very pleased with the shadow education spokesman, Mr Gutwein, who has constantly put the government on notice in regard to its lack of investment in its own schools. Indeed I am very hopeful that the people of Tasmania will take the opportunity on 18 March to send a message to the Lennon government with its warped priorities, which would rather spend $650,000 on a dud governor than to employ another 10 teachers, which it could have done for the same amount.

A key element of the Investing in Our Schools program is that the school community itself decides on what infrastructure projects should be a priority. The parents, the teachers and, most importantly, the students have an opportunity—which I think is a first—to be involved in deciding what initiatives will make their school better. I have already given some examples of that. I would like to think that the Tasmanian state government could not walk away from its past efforts of treating schools and students with contempt.

The Australian government is committed to education in ways that we have never seen before. I am proud to be a part of this devotion to school upgrading, but I am continually angry and frustrated at state governments who continue to overlook the needs of their schools. In Tasmania right now, at the beginning of a school year and a school term, the state government’s attitude even to special needs students is one of the clearest examples of how Labor has got its priorities utterly wrong.

Recently I attended a meeting of parents and friends who are quite concerned and, in many cases, angry about both the closure of special needs schools and the recent cutback in teacher aide time for students who have been involved in mainstream schools due to the inclusion policy. Instead of Minister Paula Wriedt addressing the meeting, she sent representatives from her department. They heard a long list of concerns, which included: the lack of ability of mainstream schools to provide support to children who have disabilities; poor application of processes for children who have special needs; and that parents feel as though they are at the end of the food chain and are simply subject to the decisions which are being made about their children. We have even heard an example of a quadriplegic child—a beautiful little girl whom I have met—who, at last report, will be left unattended for one hour per day. She is five years old. How can this be?

In the past we have had trendy decision making to move away from special needs schools. I have a personal view on this: it was a bad decision to move away from special needs schools. However, I do not want to say that all children with disabilities ought to be placed in special schools. But I do believe that, in the best interests of the child, the people who love that child the most—not the principals, the teachers or the government but the parents—ought to have a choice. I firmly believe that a key part of an inclusion policy should be a strong element of choice—they at least should have the opportunity to utilise a special school if they think it is in the child’s best interests.

I want to take the opportunity in the last moments of my contribution to call on the state government to give these students the support which they deserve and need so that they, too, like other mainstream students, can live their lives to their full potential. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context