Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We seem to be having an argument about equity, and I note that Senator Carr seems to think that the solution is to just give more money and it will make everything okay. I think, Senator Carr, the answer to that is: more money does not deliver equity. We have to remember that equity is not just about equity in inputs; it is about equity in outcomes. So we need to look at the outcomes that we are trying to achieve and, if we can get equity in those outcomes, then we should stop worrying about how much we are putting in and make sure that everybody has an equal chance of a good education.

I note, once again, that this argument is about money—and we have talked about the Program for International Student Assessment that was recently released, and it is the subject of the question we are supposed to be taking note of today. The assessment produced some extraordinary results suggesting that Australia's education standards have been slipping significantly. I note that these are the worst results that Australia has ever had since this particular test has been in place to measure student outcomes. I would suggest that adding money is not going to deliver better standards.

What will deliver better standards is to make sure that the teaching children receive is exceptionally good. If we can get high quality and equity in teaching standards, we will go a long way towards achieving equity in the outcomes that we are seeking, rather than throwing a whole heap of money at the problem and not worrying too much about where it goes. I truly believe the premise to better education is to better teaching standards. We have to work out the best way to achieve that. Without doubt the people that are at the grassroots, at the coalface, the ones delivering education, the parents, the students and the communities where they live, are in a far better position to determine what is in the best interests of their particular community, school and class of students than we are, standing here in Canberra.

If we want to start looking at the issue of equity, then we also have to recognise that every school will have something different, something special. A school in remote Australia is not going to have the same conditions, circumstances and methods as a school in a CBD. As has been rightly pointed out by both sides of this chamber, people in different circumstances will be in different socioeconomic groups because of the location of schools, whether they be in cities, rural and remote areas. So we have to accept the fact that centralised control from Canberra is not in the best interests of delivering equity outcomes for our students. For us to be standing here and suggesting that the Commonwealth and the people in this place know better and know best about what is right for students living in outback New South Wales, Darwin, the Riverland, the area that I come from, or Western Australia is the height of conceit and arrogance.

If we are talking about equity in outcomes, we have to give all jurisdictions and states the same access to achieving these outcomes. Denying three jurisdictions—Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland—access to the funding to achieve some of these outcomes does not strike me as even trying to achieve equity. In fact it flies in the face of equity, and the $1.2 billion that was removed from the budget that would have otherwise gone to these states absolutely underlines the fact that equity cannot be delivered if you exclude some groups from getting access to the things they need.

In the report that was handed down from PISA in the recent past, it was obvious that money does not deliver equity; in fact, all of the evidence shows that better outcomes are achieved by lifting the quality of teaching, ensuring we have a robust curriculum, expanding principal autonomy and encouraging more parental engagement. (Time expired)