Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the national curriculum in principle. It is a good idea. It is necessary. Many people in my Riverina electorate have told me how confusing and frustrating it is when they move from or to another state and there is inconsistency with what is being taught and at what year level. This is particularly prevalent for children of transient workers such as those who work in some agricultural pursuits, who follow the picking seasons, and also those in military families who frequently move from base to base. As a tri-service defence city, Wagga Wagga has many people who fall into the latter category. For them, a national curriculum would be welcome.

The coalition's concerns regarding the national curriculum are not with the concept but rather its direction under Labor. When the Prime Minister was Minister for Education in 2008 she said a national curriculum would take three years to develop and be ready to implement by January 2011. Under the current legislation, non-government schools are required to put the national curriculum into place by 31 January 2012. As with anything Labor touches, the whole thing has been mucked up. Just like the rapscallion schoolboy who tells the teacher a dog ate his homework, the current Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth also gets an F for failing to deliver on Labor's commitment. The final version of the national curriculum is yet to be approved, and most states will not introduce it until 2013 or 2014. The original legislation therefore needed adjusting. The coalition sought to make the necessary amendments back in March, but the minister was apparently unaware that this presented a problem and did not support our amendment. Schools cannot put in place a curriculum which is not ready—not anywhere near ready. This bill is proof positive that Labor has not delivered on its commitment. During last year's election campaign the Prime Minister claimed, obviously falsely, that the national curriculum was finished. She made statements such as:

This nation's talked about national curriculum for 30 years. I delivered it.

When, Prime Minister?

The coalition's amendments have now been endorsed by the Independent Schools Council of Australia, the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Education Union. The coalition noted advice from non-government school sector authorities to the House inquiry into the Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 that the issue of appropriate representation on the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee is becoming increasingly important given the emerging task of the committee. This is especially so relating to the national curriculum. If adopted, the coalition's amendment would provide the government with an opportunity to provide non-government sector authorities with 'observer status' on the AEEYSOC instead of or in addition to membership. This could permit, for instance, non-government sector authorities to receive agenda and briefing papers for both the standing council and AEEYSOC in advance, as well as draft minutes in retrospect. We hope the government will adopt this necessary and reasonable amendment to enable non-government sector authorities to make much more informed and better targeted contributions to the national debate. Further, it would ensure that they would be appropriately consulted regarding time lines for introduction of the national curriculum. This is wholly appropriate. This amendment is significant given that the number of parents who have chosen to send their children to non-government schools are not represented on the appropriate bodies which make the decisions in relation to education in this nation. This is unfair and needs to be altered. The coalition amendment also provides for a broad, appropriate teacher development strategy for the national curriculum. Although this bill relates only to non-government schools, we also advocate that professional development to teachers should be available across the whole schools sector.

The draft K-10 curriculum for the subject areas of English, mathematics, science and history has been prepared by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, and Labor intends to present a final draft to education ministers this October for approval at ministerial council. The coalition is deeply concerned about some of the ideological undertones which are pervading the curriculum. The coalition is deeply concerned about the overly prescriptive nature of the draft document. Experts in education agree the content will swamp teachers, with no funding or backup for the required training for the rollout to succeed. These fears are shared by key stakeholder groups, including teacher representatives and professional associations.

As a result, the coalition has moved two vital amendments. Firstly, schools will need to be provided with the appropriate level of assistance and support to introduce an Australian curriculum. Secondly, we seek to include clear representation of the non-government school sector in the decision-making processes for future time lines of a national curriculum. Presently there is no national or consistent approach to making sure all schools are getting the support they so desperately need in teacher professional learning to be able to implement an Australian curriculum. Having adequate representation adds a safeguard that non-government schools would be properly consulted in the lead-up to decisions regarding implementation time lines. These two modest amendments will certainly help smooth this challenging reform process and bring some level of fairness to the debate.

For the Prime Minister to say that she has already delivered a national curriculum is a case of her getting ahead of herself—way ahead of herself. New South Wales Teachers Federation President Bob Lipscombe said only recently, on 10 August:

"The Australian curriculum's not ready to be implemented in NSW. We must be careful to ensure that when we do implement it we don't do it in a way that undermines the already high curriculum standards in this state … There are issues around the overarching framework it fits in and importantly there are also issues around the resourcing that will be put in place to support its implementation.

"Until these questions are addressed by the Federal Government, then a delay is quite appropriate."

Now we know that the decision to delay the new curriculum has irked the education minister. He accused New South Wales of 'letting students down' and walking away from its commitment. 'There is no justifiable reason for this 11th-hour backdown,' the minister said.

At the heart of this issue is the cost of getting teachers ready for the new curriculum. The New South Wales Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, said it would cost about $80 million over four years to implement the curriculum and to provide professional development of teachers. If Mr Piccoli said New South Wales is unwilling to run with the national curriculum agenda because federal Labor has not done due diligence on funding and support then that would be correct. The New South Wales education minister is the member for Murrumbidgee, much of which is in the federal seat of Riverina. He was a competent shadow education, skills and youth affairs spokesman from 28 December 2008 right through the dying days—excuse me—

See this speech in context