Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before addressing the key features of the bill, I would like to remind the member for Rankin of one fact—that is, the reason that the high school retention rates were unreasonably high under Labor was that kids stayed at school because they had no chance of getting a job. When one million people were unemployed in the greatest recession since the Great Depression and unemployment was over 10 per cent, kids stayed at school because they had no chance of getting a job. Apprenticeships under Labor fell to a 30-year low. The reason some young people now do not aspire to go to university and are happy to leave at the end of year 10 is that they can get an apprenticeship, they can get valuable skills training that will lead them to rewarding and fulfilling careers in the trades. Apprenticeship numbers are now some 2½ times greater than they were when we came into office in 1996. The member for Rankin only tells part of the story.

The Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Amendment Bill 2007 does three important things: it adds funding significantly to the very popular and very valuable Investing in Our Schools Program, it provides additional funding for some major capital works in non-government schools and it provides extra funding for some national programs in literacy, numeracy and special learning needs. The most significant component, however, is the extra $181 million for the Investing in Our Schools Program. That is a program for minor capital works that lead to improving the quality of what is going on in schools across the country. A total of $1 billion has already been committed. Prior to the last election this government made the commitment that we would allocate $1 billion to funding these capital works. We have done that. Under this legislation, we are now adding an extra $181 million to this program.

Already over the last three years schools in my electorate have received a total of $5.6 million under this very worthwhile Investing in Our Schools Program. I would like to read into Hansard the schools that received funding in the last round of the program: Blackheath Public School; Blaxland Public School; Hazelbrook Public School; Katoomba North Public School; Megalong Public School; Mount Riverview Public School; Mount Victoria Public School; Springwood Public School; Wentworth Falls Public School; Winmalee Public School; Blue Mountains Steiner School; Blue Mountains Christian School; Blue Mountains Grammar School; Wycliffe Christian School; Our Lady of the Nativity, Lawson; St Columbus High School, Springwood; St Thomas Aquinas School, Springwood; Bilpin Public School; Cattai Public School; Colo Heights Public School; Freemans Reach Public School; Grose Vale Public School; Hobartville public; Kurmond Public School; Kurrajong East Public School; Kurrajong North Public School; Maraylya Public School; Pitt Town Public School; Richmond High School; Richmond North Public School; Wilberforce Public School; Windsor High; and Windsor Park Public School. All these are beneficiaries of this excellent Investing in Our Schools program.

In this recent round of funding, a number of schools in the new part of my electorate—the part of the electorate added under the last redistribution—will also benefit to the tune of $1.57 million. These schools are: Bathurst High School, Bathurst West Public School, Capertee Public School, Cullen Bullen Public School, Kelso Public School, Lithgow Public School, Meadow Flat Public School, O’Connell Public School, Oberon High School, Oberon Public School, Perthville Public School, Portland Central School, Rockley Public School, Laguna Public School, Trunkey Public School, Wallerawang Public School and Wattle Flat Public School. As well, the non-government schools to benefit are: La Salle Academy, Lithgow; McKillop College, Bathurst; St Joseph’s Central School, Oberon; St Joseph’s School, Portland; and the Assumption School, Bathurst West. In the new part of my electorate, $1.57 million has been provided under the Investing in Our Schools Program. This is a quality program that is delivering genuine improvements across a whole range of areas: air conditioning, new computer labs, shade cloth, sporting equipment and musical instruments. It is providing a whole range of improvements to our schools, both government and non-government.

It is worth pointing out the comparison between what this government is doing and what state governments are not doing for their schools. There was an alarming article today on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. The members opposite might have seen it. It is captioned ‘school maintenance fiasco’ and entitled ‘Ten years of stinking toilets’. This is referring to New South Wales public schools—the miserable, abject failure of the New South Wales government to adequately fund the basic maintenance needs of its public schools. It is an absolute disgrace. The article says:

Public schools have been forced to put up with 10 years of stinking, blocked toilets and threadbare carpets and four years of termite infestation and raised asphalt in playgrounds, the survey by the Public Schools Principals Forum has found.

What is worse is that the state government tried to hide this:

The State Government is refusing to release a document which reveals how school maintenance programs were suspended at a time it was pouring $1.6 billion into the Olympic Games.

There is nothing wrong with the Olympic Games, but they had to be managed and the state budget had to be managed properly—something the New South Wales government has obviously failed to do. The article also says:

In a document called the Asset Maintenance Plan, written in 1998, the Education Department estimated the cost of repairs needed in schools around the state and rated them in order of priority.

But it did nothing to fund things like leaking toilets and termite infestation. The article goes on to mention a school in the Blue Mountains in my electorate:

According to the survey of principals, Blaxland Primary School in the Blue Mountains has put up with leaking roofs since 2004.

How in the world do we expect our students to get on at school—to be able to focus on learning and skill development—when the roofs are leaking, the toilets are leaking and stinking, and there are termite infestations and other unsafe aspects? These are things that should have been covered under the basic maintenance program of the state education department, but it failed miserably. Despite massive GST revenues, record windfalls from stamp duty in the property boom in 2002-2003 and steadily increasing funding from the Commonwealth government, we have had 10 years of stinking toilets from a state government that is also badly on the nose.

What do we hear from the Labor counterparts opposite? Deafening silence. Where is the criticism from federal Labor of the failure of their state Labor counterparts? Where is their condemnation of state Labor? When will they stand up for the students, the families and, indeed, the teachers in New South Wales schools? They stand condemned as well for their silence.

This legislation provides additional funding for these very worthwhile programs, but it also demonstrates three or four things that are worth referring to. This legislation demonstrates the Howard government’s commitment to school education. We have a proud record of solid, substantial increases in funding—increases of 160 per cent over the 10 years of this government. Funding for school education has risen from $3.5 billion 10 years ago to $9.3 billion this year—2.6 times what it was just 10 years ago, a massive increase in funding for schools across the country under this government.

We all know that the school years are crucial to young people in gaining knowledge, in building their skills, in developing their creative abilities and in learning the values that are so important for making them productive and positive members of our community. The Howard government’s strong commitment is demonstrated by this funding. This government is putting its money where its mouth is and doing it far more effectively and far more substantially than the state governments have been doing.

The second thing this legislation demonstrates is this government’s commitment to choice. We respect the right of parents to choose the type of school education that they consider appropriate for their children. Whether they choose the local public school, whether they choose an independent school or whether they choose a Catholic school, we on this side believe that parents have the right to make that choice and that that choice should be supported with appropriate levels of funding. We do fund appropriately according to need. The formula assists parents who choose to send their children to non-government schools according to their resources and affluence and their ability to meet the fees. The wealthier non-government schools receive funding at a level of less than 14 per cent of state government schools and the poorer schools receive funding up to 70 per cent of the funding level that public schools receive—from 14 per cent to 70 per cent, a perfectly fair rate of funding. Parents who choose to send their children to non-government schools often make significant sacrifices to do so, and we believe that they deserve some level of support from government in those choices that they make.

This is unlike Labor, which for years have had a hit list of non-government schools from which they would remove funding. We are hearing suddenly from the new opposition that that is not going to happen and that they will promise to fund according to need. But there is no commitment to indexing that funding or to ensuring that that funding grows, so we will see a steady erosion of funding to some non-government schools driven by the politics of envy and the ideology of some of the teachers unions—an erosion by stealth. We saw from the other side, the last time they were in government, the new schools policy that prevented new non-government schools being established. If they ever get into government we will see—as we are seeing already—the Australian Education Union and the Teachers Federation once again dictating education policies to the Labor Party.

We see clearly in this legislation the commitment of this government to public schools. We hear a lot of nonsense from the other side about the so-called neglect of public schools by the Howard government. That could not be further from the truth. Since the Howard government has been in office we have increased direct funding for state public schools by 118 per cent. That is an increase from $1.5 billion a year to $3.4 billion—an increase of 118 per cent when the enrolments in public schools have only risen by 1.1 per cent.

We have substantially increased funding for state schools and done so more rapidly than the state governments have done for their own schools. Look at New South Wales for example. Last year, we increased funding for New South Wales government schools by 10.7 per cent. Did the New South Wales government match that? Did the New South Wales government come close to matching that? No. Their increase was 3.9 per cent, compared to our 10.7 per cent.

Yet we have the continued claim by teachers unions that somehow we are cutting funding for state schools. Last month, we had Pat Byrne, the Federal President of the Australian Education Union, in an article in the Daily Telegraph, saying that the Howard government is cutting funding for public schools. This is blatant, deliberate dishonesty. It is what we get time and time again from the teachers unions. How can they, in all seriousness, say that we have cut funding when we have increased funding by 118 per cent? This is deliberate dishonesty by the teachers unions. Sadly, it is deliberate dishonesty that is supported by the silence of the Labor opposition—their silent subservience to their union masters. This is appalling, and Labor’s quiet acceptance of this dishonesty, this deceit, does it no credit at all.

The fourth thing this legislation shows is this government’s commitment to quality in school education. It is not just that we are putting more money in—and we are putting substantially more money in—but it also shows a couple of those excellent initiatives that are being undertaken to lift standards to help ensure our schools are delivering the quality of education that their parents expect for their children.

These initiatives have included, for instance, national benchmarking for literacy and numeracy. Sadly, in 1996, national testing showed that 27 per cent of year 3 students and 29 per cent of year 5 students failed to reach minimum literacy and numeracy standards. So, as well as a whole range of initiatives to improve literacy and numeracy standards, we have extended the benchmarking and the testing up to year 7. Indeed, this year benchmarking and testing will start in year 9.

We have introduced the transparent plain English report card, so parents know exactly how their children are progressing, free of some of the educational jargon that often confuses the issues. We have introduced measures for improved school accountability, so parents know how their local school is performing compared to other schools in their wider region.

We have introduced measures to lift the progress of boys. I was pleased to chair the report on boys’ education some years ago, and a number of those recommendations have been taken up to lift the educational performance of boys who had been falling behind—programs such as the Boys’ Education Lighthouse Schools project.

We have a commitment to improving the quality of training—preservice and in-service training—for our teachers. It needs to be said—and let me say it very clearly—that the vast majority of the teachers in our state schools and in our non-government schools are committed, dedicated professionals who studied hard, who work hard and who desire only the best for the children in their care. But we are trying to support them in a way that perhaps their state education departments are not supporting them and in a way that is being frustrated by the teachers unions.

We have a commitment to vocational education and training—for instance, the introduction of school based apprenticeships. They have flourished under this government—except in New South Wales where, until the light dawned just before the run-up to the state election, school based New Apprenticeships were opposed by that state’s government. We have introduced school based apprenticeships to give kids in school a chance to get on-the-job training that will lead them into worthwhile careers immediately after school, to bridge that gap, importantly, between school and work.

There have been so many of these initiatives—yet, sadly, many of these initiatives and reforms were opposed by the teachers unions. They were opposed by the Australian Education Union and its New South Wales affiliate, the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Their opposition is at odds with the professionalism of the bulk of classroom teachers around this country. Their objections are at odds with the desires of parents and at odds, I would say, with public opinion. Yet the influence of the teachers unions is still holding sway with Labor governments at the state level and still dominating the thinking of the Labor opposition federally.

A very interesting report last month by the Centre for Independent Studies put it very simply:

If public schools are to thrive and flourish into the future, the power nexus between teacher unions and state governments must be broken.

This is not me speaking; this is not the federal government’s education minister speaking—this is the Centre for Independent Studies. ‘If public schools are to thrive and flourish into the future, the power nexus between teacher unions and state governments must be broken’—the power nexus that has hobbled the New South Wales government and prevented it from doing what needs to be done to improve standards in state government schools. The article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald to which I referred is indicative of that. Even the power nexus between teacher unions and the federal Labor opposition needs to be broken.

My time has virtually gone, so I will conclude by saying that this legislation is just a further demonstration of the Howard government’s commitment to quality school education, to supporting the choice of parents, to supporting our public schools and our non-government and independent and Catholic schools with record levels of funding, with increases in funding far beyond what state governments have managed to do. It demonstrates our commitment not just to increasing funding levels but also to improving the quality of education in our schools, to providing the support that our committed teachers need and the support that our children need to maximise their skills and potential so they can become productive, positive members of our community. This bill delivers, and it is a sharp contrast to the rhetoric and the failure of the state Labor governments and the empty posturing from the federal Labor opposition.

See this speech in context