The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ) (12:00): I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of Senator Muir's appointment as a participating member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for the committee's inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election, and the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:01): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 6 of 2014, addressing a referral made in July 2014.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mrs ANDREWS: by leave—Report No. 6 of 2014 considers a referral received by the committee from the Department of Defence in mid-July. At an estimated cost of $1,477.4 million, excluding GST, in dollar terms this represents a very significant project.

Defence sought approval from the committee to provide new air combat capability facilities to support the acquisition of 72 F35A aircraft. The F35A aircraft are being purchased to replace the RAAF's current fleet of classic Hornets. When integrated fully into the Australian Defence Force, Australia's F35A fleet will deliver the air dominance and strike functions currently provided by the classic Hornet.

The New Air Combat Capability Facilities Project will provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support the introduction into service and operation of the F35A aircraft at RAAF bases around the nation. The majority of the works will be undertaken at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory.

RAAF Base Williamtown will remain as the premier base for the train-and-sustain functions of Australia's air combat capability, as well as providing the staging point for deployment to forward operating bases.

RAAF Base Tindal will support the train-and-sustain functions as the home for the third operational squadron as well as being a forward operating base for visiting F35A squadrons.

The facilities works which are proposed at RAAF Bases Williamtown and Tindal include:

squadron facilities to support the operation and maintenance of the aircraft;

training facilities to develop and sustain pilots and maintenance staff;

airfield infrastructure;

and logistics facilities.

Minor facilities to accommodate squadron support functions are proposed at RAAF Bases in Townsville (QLD), Darwin (NT), Curtin (WA), Scherger (QLD), Learmonth (WA), Pearce (WA) and Edinburgh (SA).

Construction of additional explosive ordnance and countermeasure storage capacity is proposed at Defence Establishment Myambat (NSW) for the storage of F35A armaments.

In conducting this inquiry, the committee was mindful that it was assessing a project with a value of approximately $1½ billion and a timeframe of up to eight years until completion. As always, the Public Works Committee is bound by its act to consider and report on public works 'as expeditiously as is practicable'. The committee did its best to balance the need for an expeditious outcome with a level of inquiry commensurate with the value of the project.

The committee allowed five weeks to receive submissions from interested parties and it made two site inspections—at RAAF Bases Williamtown and Amberley in Queensland.

RAAF Base Amberley is not part of the project being reported on today but the visit to the RAAF base allowed the committee to inspect the modern fighter facilities which are being used by the squadron which operates Super Hornet aircraft. These high-security facilities were completed in 2010 and are indicative of the type of facilities which will be built at RAAF bases in Williamtown and Tindal for the F35A aircraft.

At RAAF Base Williamtown the committee inspected the existing facilities which are being used by the classic Hornet squadrons. These facilities were built in the 1960s and 1980s and contrast starkly with the modern Super Hornet facilities at Amberley. The facilities proposed to support the F35A aircraft when they arrive at RAAF bases Williamtown and Tindal will be similar to those the committee saw at RAAF Base Amberley.

The committee held public and private hearings for the inquiry in the town of Raymond Terrace near RAAF Base Williamtown and also in Parliament House in Canberra.

One of the issues of concern brought to the committee was whether the proposed extensions to either end of the runway in Williamtown could increase noise levels. The Hon. Bob Baldwin MP, federal member for Paterson, suggested in his submission to the inquiry that a less noisy option for some nearby residents would be to build a second runway instead of extending the existing runway.

However, Defence told the committee that there are a number of concerns with the option of a second runway, not least because it would need to go through the wetlands in the adjacent national park. The monetary and ecological costs would be significantly higher than extending the existing runway.

Defence acknowledged that issues relating to noise will remain a concern to some nearby residents but told the committee that the proposed extension of the runway at Williamtown will in fact reduce noise impacts. An extended runway means that afterburners will not be used during the majority of take-offs and this will actually minimise the noise impacts on the base and surrounds. The committee is satisfied that the runway extension as proposed is appropriate.

The committee questioned Defence about the level of consultation that had taken place with community and other stakeholders, particularly in Williamtown and Tindal. Defence assured the committee that it undertook extensive community consultation to ensure that the public was informed about the project and had every opportunity to raise issues of concern or seek further information. In Williamtown, Defence has introduced a 'fly neighbourly' policy which included, it said, 'a robust engagement process with the community.' One of the outcomes of the policy is that aircraft now turn and fly over Grahamstown Dam to avoid the townships of Raymond Terrace and Medowie. This reduces noise over residential areas substantially. Since this process began, Defence has seen a significant drop-off in complaints from the community. The committee has asked Defence to continue to consult with local communities and interested parties to implement measures to mitigate noise impacts where possible.

The committee did not identify any issues of concern with Defence's proposal and is satisfied, on the basis of information provided, that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost. However, given the scope, length and cost of the project, the committee has requested that Defence provide a project update at regular agreed upon intervals.

As I have already mentioned, this is a huge project in terms of both value and scope. The committee's inquiry was constrained by its obligation to report expeditiously. However, I believe that through the process of site inspections, taking submissions from a range of stakeholders and holding a number of public and private hearings that the committee has assessed the project to the best of its ability within the limited time available. Under these circumstances, the committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost, and recommends that the project proceed.

I would like to thank members and senators for their work in relation to this important inquiry and my thanks, once again, goes to the secretariat. I commend the report to the House.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:09): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee's report entitled, Same country: different world—the future of Norfolk Island.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr SIMPKINS: by leave—Norfolk Island has historically been part of this nation since the establishment of a settlement shortly after the First Fleet landed in Sydney in 1788. Since becoming part of this country the political and governance arrangements have changed throughout its history. This can be seen in the different iterations in the nature of successive settlements. Despite these continuous changes, what has never changed is the beauty and the unique nature of the environment. In these ways Norfolk Island will always be a different world and those that visit the island will know what I mean.

In March 2014, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the Hon. Jamie Briggs, referred an inquiry into the prospects for economic development on Norfolk Island. The reference followed an audit report into Norfolk Island's finances which found, unequivocally, that the Norfolk Island administration is failing. That failure comes at a cost to many residents of the island.

There has been a sharp downturn in tourism and employment in recent years and a declining population as residents seek work off-island. Progress on the Norfolk Island Roadmap—a process for reform—has been too little, too late. Yet change is necessary. Norfolk Island would now be bankrupt if it were not for the Commonwealth's ongoing financial support. The condition of infrastructure is close to critical failure. Service delivery is not commensurate with Australian standards. The Norfolk Island government is failing to deliver on a range of responsibilities which are beyond its budget and management capability. It is the island's 1,600 residents that suffer the consequences.

The key message to emerge from the inquiry is that there is an urgent need for reform to achieve improved economic stability. This was voiced by all Norfolk Islanders, irrespective of their position on self-governance. The committee has made eight recommendations addressing    the need for new governance arrangements, infrastructure investment and the framing of new economic opportunities.

The first recommendation is to end self-government by repealing the Norfolk Island Act 1979. An interim administration should assist with transition to a local government type body. The committee recognises that the Norfolk Island community will need to be on board throughout the transition process. To support this, we recommend mechanisms for community consultation to facilitate the reform process.

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government assume responsibility for the overdue Cascade and Kingston Pier upgrades. The Commonwealth should also assume responsibility for the purchase of multipurpose barges. The barges will increase passenger offload capacity from cruise ships and will facilitate safety matters. The barges will also allow for containerisation and introduce modern freight-handling practices. Improving the island's public road infrastructure is another critical need.

The committee recommends that officers be placed in the transitional administration to strengthen Norfolk Island's economic and human resources capacity. Tourism Australia and Austrade can offer advice and support to improve the existing tourist product, and to develop new products and services. More can be made, for example, of the Kingston and Arthur's Vale Historic Area and ecotourism.

In April 2014, when the committee visited Norfolk Island, we were impressed by the quality of locally produced goods, including fresh produce and artefacts. The committee recommends a dedicated officer to help local businesses with product branding and to set up a cooperative and visible shopfront.

Whilst on the island I found that the vast majority of people supported the end of self-government, but there is no doubt that some will resist the call to abolish self-governance. However, I am disturbed by reports that some supporters of self-government are now attempting to intimidate those that support change. There are those who will claim that ending self-governance will put Norfolk Island's unique history and culture at risk. I would argue the opposite is true. Working towards greater economic viability and sustainability is the surest way to keep Norfolk Island alive and vibrant for years to come.

The committee acknowledges those that made written submissions and gave evidence at hearings on Norfolk Island and in Canberra. I thank my committee colleagues for their strong bipartisan support. I also thank the secretariat for their outstanding organisational ability and excellent efforts through this inquiry. I conclude with the words of one young Norfolk Islander who told the committee:

Norfolk Islanders have the drive and passion to make the island succeed. The time has come for change.

On behalf of the Committee I commend the report to the House.

Mr SIMPKINS: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:14): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (12:15): On behalf the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr TEHAN: by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's report into the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014.

The b ill, as outlined by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, is intended to ' enhance the capability of Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and border protection agencies to protect Australian communities from the threat posed by returning foreign fighters and those individuals within Austral ia supporting foreign conflicts' .

In conducting its inquiry, the committee acknowledged that the b ill responds specifically to a request from security and law enforcement agencies for enhanced powers to deal with this threat. This was highlighted by the age ncies in their evidence to the committee, and in this context the committee has ful ly supported the intent of the b ill.

Th e short timeframe for the c ommittee's inquiry was due to the direct relevance of the b ill to keeping the community safe from an increased threat of terrorism. Notwi thstanding this time frame, the c ommittee received a significant number of submissions and conducted both public and private hearings.

The c ommittee has made 37 recommendations. A majority of the recommendations are intended to further st rengthen the provisions of the b ill , including its safeguards and transparency and oversight mechanisms. Other recommendations have called for more detailed explanation of specific amendments in order to assist debate of the b ill.

The recommendations include:

Further clarifying the terms 'encourage', 'promotion' and 'advocacy' with regard to the proposed 'advocacy of terrorism' offence .

Reducing the proposed extension of sunset clauses for a range of ASIO and AFP powers from 10 yea rs to two years after the next f ederal election, with mandatory reviews by the c ommittee and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor .

Replacing the definition of 'subverting society' with a cross-reference to the conduct contained in the definition of 'terrorist act' in the Criminal Code .

Amending the definition of 'engaging in a hostile activity' to constrain it to conduct that would be considered a 'serious offence' in Australia .

Requiring any further changes to the types of biometric information able to be collected by Immigration and Border Protection—suc h as fingerprints and iris scanning —to be made by legislative amendment, and for any proposal to b e referred to the c ommittee for review .

Changing the 'declared area' provisions : to reduce the sunset clause to two years after the next federal election, with mandatory reviews ; to remove an explicit provision for the foreign minist er to declare an entire country, and; to enable the c ommittee to review all declarations.

Additionally, the c om mittee has recommended that its own oversight functions be expanded to include the Australian Federal Police's counter-terrorism activities.

The c ommittee has also reiterated its previous recommendation that the position of Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be filled as soon as practicable.

I should highlight, however, that both the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman appeared before the c ommittee and gave evidence that they have sufficient authority to o versight the new powers in the b ill.

Following consideration of its recommendation s, the c ommittee has recommended that the bill be passed by the p arliament.

I w ish to thank all members of the c ommittee for their cooperative approach to the inquiry, particularly in the short time frames. The provisions of the b ill were intensely debated and there were a range of views expressed within the c ommittee.

Notwithstanding this, I am pleased that we reached bipartisan agreement on the issues of co ntention, and I trust that the c ommittee's report will help inform the p arliament in its consideration of the b ill. On behalf of the c ommittee, I thank all organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry by providing written submissions and , in many cases , appearing at hearings at short notice.

I would also like to express my thanks to the staff of the committee s ecretariat, who went beyond the call of duty to ensure this report was able to be tabled in the time frame that was requested.

Mr Ruddock: Working at 3am in the morning!

Mr TEHAN: On one night they worked until past 3am in the morning. They went beyond the call of duty. On behalf of all committee members, and I recognise two of them here with me today, I really do thank the secretariat for the work that they put in, in the very short time frame that was available.

Mr Ruddock: I congratulate the chair, myself.

Mr TEHAN: We will leave that for another time, Chief Whip.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Sorry, I missed the interjection from the chief whip.

Mr Ruddock: I was just commending the chair for his outstanding leadership on a very difficult task.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that intervention, Chief Whip.

Mr TEHAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the report to the House.

Mr HUTCHINSON ( Lyons ) ( 12:21 ): Indeed, it is important to remember that funding for children with disability should be sector neutral—it should not matter whether it is a government-funded school or whether it is an independently-funded school. Supporting children with disability, indeed, should be sector neutral and, in essence, much of the bill that we are debating here today goes to reinforcing that. Absolutely—as I was saying two weeks ago at 4.30, I think it was, on a Friday afternoon—funding is important, and funding is increasing over the next four years quite significantly. In my home state of Tasmania, the federal government's contribution to government schools over the next four years increases by nearly 46 per cent. So, indeed, from the federal government's point of view, we are doing our bit, remembering that the federal government's contribution is only 15 per cent of all of that funding that goes to the government school sector.

But there are other things that are important in making sure that children get the right sort of education. Teachers are very much a part of what makes great schools. The way that teachers are trained and the capacity for teachers to have the confidence and the competency to enter the classroom and feel that they can impart the knowledge that they have learnt through their training are very important. The whole issue of classroom readiness was highlighted recently. The Australian School Survey has been completed and reported on in the last couple of weeks and it confirms the concerns that many teachers have, particularly young teachers who have left training college and are entering the workforce for the first time. Many do not feel totally in control in terms of being able to confidently impart knowledge onto their students.

We have all seen wonderful teachers in our own experiences and the passion that they bring to their vocation—a vocation for many people that is a calling as much as anything else. But feeling unprepared in their ability to enter the classroom is something that we need to address. This is particularly the case for young teachers. Teacher quality is a critical thing alongside appropriate funding; as is school autonomy. That applies to the capacity of the school to be able to deliver the things that are often unique and relevant to the community where the school is based and the community where the students come from. That extends as much to the capacity of the leaders within that school community, not least of all the principal, to be able to make certain choices that are appropriate to the school environment. The best teachers in any system should be recognised and rewarded in the same way that teachers who are not up to the job—and they are a minority of course—should be appropriately dealt with by principals.

There is nothing more important than schoolchildren and making sure that our kids get the very best opportunities possible. That extends of course to the broader school community and to parental engagement. I was not necessarily engaged as much as I probably should have been over the course of my boys' school life, but my wife certainly did her share to participate and contribute to the schools where they attended over time. Having capacity within the school council and within the parents and friends association to support the school, the teachers and the academic staff is indeed very important. Finally, I welcome the work that is being done on the national curriculum. A strong and relevant curriculum is another component of making schools valuable. (Time expired)

Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (12:26): I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014, which has four major components. I want to deal in the first instance with the first of those: the support for Indigenous students in boarding schools. The bill will establish a new mechanism to allow the minister to make payments to schools for reasons prescribed by regulation. This will facilitate the payment of $6.8 million in 2014-15 to non-government boarding schools with more than 50 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarders or more than 50 per cent of boarders who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. This funding was announced in the budget. Of course, support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students attending boarding school is absolutely consistent with Labor's policies in government to construct new boarding schools and help students from remote communities access boarding school education. I want to go particularly to the issue of boarding schools in my own electorate.

In 2008, the budget allocated $28.9 million for three new boarding facilities in the Northern Territory to provide education support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary students. The Indigenous Land Corporation, the ILC, also committed the contribution of $15 million, bringing the joint investment to $43.9 million. We know that three were to be built. The first was to be in Wadeye in the north-west of my electorate—a large community of about 3½ thousand people where there was a Catholic high school but no boarding facility. So we agreed with the community to build a boarding facility adjacent to the high school to look after the needs of kids not only in that community but also in surrounding communities where there was a large catchment population. That building went ahead. In the end, I think, in the order of about $24 million was spent. It is open and doing its business as it should.

What of the other two? One was to be built in north-east Arnhem Land and another in Central Australia in what is euphemistically called the Warlpiri triangle—that is, the areas where Warlpiri communities predominate: Yuendumu, Lajamanu, Nyirripi and Willowra, and smaller communities in between. What happened was that we were unable to get final agreement around the siting of the one in the Warlpiri triangle, so that was put off. But we did get agreement in north-east Arnhem Land from the Yolngu people of Garrthalala to build a boarding facility there. Prior to the last election, contracts were let for that facility. Then when the Abbott government came into power, they stopped those contracts from proceeding. That meant effectively, despite the rhetoric which comes out of this government, that they had purposely and quite deliberately put a stop on the building of a boarding facility in a remote Aboriginal community dealing with Aboriginal kids in remote outstations of North-East Arnhem Land—quite deliberately. There is no excuse for it because there had been agreement by the communities that this was where they wanted this facility built. It meant that their kids would not have to go to Nhulunbuy or to some other facility in North-East Arnhem Land or, indeed, anywhere else across Australia to attend high school. They were denied access to years 11 and 12 unless they attended a boarding facility. That was to be understood because they come mostly from small homeland communities in North-East Arnhem Land. On 18 October 2012, Senator Scullion said:

Whether building these boarding schools in remote communities is of value or not is a question for another day.

It is not a question for another day; it is a question which he should have addressed then and which he should be addressing now by making sure that facility proceeds. The Yolngu people he met a number of weeks ago when he was there with the Prime Minister would have reaffirmed their desire to have this facility built at Garrthalala. The centre is also aware that a report commissioned by the Labor government in 2010 and conducted by KPMG recommended a boarding facility for remote students in North-East Arnhem Land be established at—where do you think?—Garrthalala. In answer to a question asked by Senator Scullion in a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on 31 May 2012, the department's response referred to a feasibility study. The answer included:

KPMG assessed seven main options for locating the facility—close to one of each of the five Indigenous communities, in addition to a homeland and non-community location.

The government's extensive discussions and consultation in the region clearly demonstrated a high-level of community buy-in and willingness to invest in the decision of placing the facility at Garrthalala.

The Garrthalala community has a well-documented commitment to education, and a strong desire to host the facility, building upon the small residential school program that it has been running successfully for homeland students for several years. It was this strong support from the local community for education, and the surrounding outstations, together with the secure environment, that led the Government to the decision to proceed with building the boarding facility in Garrthalala.

The key to the siting of this facility is the provision of a safe and secure environment where students can learn free of negative social issues and influences. Based on the report, Garrthalala was clearly the site that offered the best safety and security.

Why is it then that this boarding facility has not been built? How can, on the one hand, the government be arguing for kids going away to boarding facilities, yet when there is a community ready and willing to host a boarding facility for the region, to address the needs of the Yolngu Aboriginal kids of North-East Arnhem Land, they will not allow it to happen. This smacks of hypocrisy. The Prime Minister would have been told about this when he was in North-East Arnhem Land and Senator Scullion would have been told again and again.

We are told that Senator Scullion is to go back to North-East Arnhem Land to report to the North-East Arnhem Land Regional Economic Development Committee as a result of the visit from the Prime Minister. It was to be done by 17 October. Do you think he has done it? My word! Of course not. That I think is a further demonstration of the commitment that this government has, in reality, to those people of North-East Arnhem Land. The government go on about the importance of education and boarding facilities, yet kids are sent to Scotch College or to Adelaide, Melbourne, Darwin or anywhere else, while these people, who have a real hunger for education, are denied the opportunity to educate their kids in their home communities. What does that say about this government?

The Northern Territory is the site for a number of experiments by this government, one of which is the Remote School Attendance Strategy. We know that thus far this strategy has cost $46 million. As a result of that investment, in the first term there was an increase of 11 per cent in school attendance across Australia. In the second term, that dropped to six per cent on the baseline and in term 3, it has remained constant at six per cent. That tells us that the strategy is not working and it is not working for a range of reasons. We know that in some communities—I can name Yuendumu and Santa Teresa, Ali Curung and Thalia—attendance has gone backwards.

Last week, I met some of the school attendance officers and they are committed to doing their work. In some communities clearly they work very effectively. In one community last week school attendance was about 80 per cent but we know that, at the same time that this government is spending $46 million—I understand people in this government have become almost apoplectic at its dismal results, the flat-lining of this data—they have not achieved the outcomes they wanted.

During the last government, the Commonwealth government committed sufficient resources to fund 200 extra teachers for remote Indigenous schools in the Northern Territory. Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you would be aware of this because I know you were here, that you were listening. Would it surprise you to hear that the Northern Territory is committed to providing only 100 to 170 of those teachers, that 30 teachers are no longer to be put in bush schools? They have been relocated for some other function in headquarters or wherever they may be. Apparently, there is a plan to reduce that number by another 35. So, instead of 200 additional teachers funded by the Commonwealth working in remote communities to address the abysmal outcomes for education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in the Northern Territory, what are we going to see? We are going to see a reduction already of 30; now there will be another 35 potentially so that 200 becomes 135. That means that almost every significant school in the Northern Territory will lose a teacher, and you have to ask yourself: how fair dinkum can this government be, on the one hand blaming parents—because that is what they are doing about not having the kids go to school—while shifting bucketfuls of money out the backdoor and not providing the teaching resources that these schools require?

The formula does not work. It cannot work. You cannot, on the one hand, demand that you have more kids in the school and if you are lucky to get them there—and in some communities they come—then put additional pressure on the school. There will be kids who have not been to school for three, four or five years and they are put in next to kids who have been going to school regularly. What sort of demands does that place on the school community?

The Northern Territory government—what has it done? It has announced $250 million worth of cuts to education resources in bush schools over the forward estimates, and $50 million thus far. That means support teachers in schools. That means teachers in schools so, while the Commonwealth is blaming parents and trying to get kids into school—a good idea: we all want kids to go to school—these children rock up to some of these schools and cannot get the education they deserve because there aren't the resources. Why aren't there the resources? Because the Northern Territory government has withdrawn them. Don't blame Aboriginal parents for that; blame the Northern Territory government.

There are many ways in which you can look at this, but those of us who have been involved in education in the Northern Territory, as I was—as a teacher and subsequently as an observer and participant in the community—understand what this means. The first opportunity that Aboriginal kids in remote schools had to go to high school was in 2001, because when the Labor government was elected they introduced years 11 and 12 to these major communities—communities of 3,000 people where there was no high school. Now we hear the Northern Territory government is proposing to close them. They are apparently going to send all these kids off to boarding schools somewhere else. You don't have to be Einstein to work out what the results are going to be in many of these instances.

I saw that Fred Chaney put out a statement the other day talking about the new funding arrangement, the IAS funds—150 programs reduced to five; and 1400 organisations bidding for $4.8 billion in funds. Do you know what this includes? This includes bidding for school nutrition programs. This means schools in the Northern Territory who have had a nutrition program now have to bid to have those programs continue. Who in their right mind has thought of this?

The mind boggles—the inanity of what goes on in the public policy space in education within this government and their failure to grasp. They need to pounce on the Northern Territory government, bring them to heel and make sure they do what they should be doing for the communities of the Northern Territory and not doing what they are doing at the moment: selling Aboriginal people down the drain.

Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (12:41): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014 and in particular will be focusing on the measures to support boarding schools for Indigenous students. I am the member for all of South Australia's remote Indigenous schools: on the APY Lands—Ernabella, Fregon, Indulkana, Amata, Pipalyatjara, Mimili and Nyapari; in the west of the state—Yalata, Oak Valley, Koonibba; and in the north—Coober Pedy, Marree and Oodnadatta. I also have in my electorate a significant number of urbanised Indigenous populations at places like Ceduna, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and even Point Pearce on Yorke Peninsula.

In urban areas, while there is plenty more to do, we have come a long way in the last 10 or 20 years and are slowly closing the gap between Indigenous and mainstream Australia. As I said, we have much more to do. There are lots of specialised services in those communities, particularly in the health sector. But in the main, education is mainstreamed, and there are good option for students to, firstly, engage in primary school then secondary school and gain a good quality education as it should be in the local high school or area schools.

In remote Australia, it is different not because the schools we have are bad—in fact there has been a huge amount of money invested in the schooling system and teaching resources over the years—but the whole package is bad. It is just not delivering for those students, despite huge investments, as I have said, in housing and health. Children are born into communities where due to poor hygiene, for instance, most suffer some level of hearing loss by the time they start school.

I remember vividly visiting a community on the APY Lands about two years ago where the principal pointed out that they had recently had hearing tests done on the students. Out of 260, they found three good ears. How difficult must it be when you start school: you can't hear properly and are actually speaking in a different language, and so the gap is there before they start? In fact the teachers in these classrooms now use an audio surround fill-in system where the teacher wears a microphone. There is a speaker in each corner of the classroom just so the students can hear what is going on.

Children in these communities are born into households where no-one works, or at least not regularly, in communities where the only work is in government employment programs or being employed by the government to deliver services—often in the health sector and perhaps in the education sector, normally not at the top level but as assistants in the schools as SSOs and perhaps in environmental programs funded by governments. But it is not the norm to have industry operating in these communities and it is often not the norm to have somebody from that household going off to work each day. Violence, alcohol abuse and sexual abuse are, unfortunately, common—not in every household but in enough that the children can consider such behaviour to be the norm. It becomes the general form of the way that community operates. I have often been into communities and have seen violence occurring in the street and the children standing around watching.

There are many issues, and governments of all persuasions have tried to hard to address them. In those remote communities there are far more police now living on site. There is new housing, health centres, art centres, family centres, youth centres, employment programs, civil works, environmental programs and tourism. But, unfortunately, we are still losing ground. It is one of those great conundrums. When I go into these communities and I speak to the people who are delivering these myriad programs, they will all convince you earnestly—and I believe them—that they think they are doing a good job and are making a real difference, whether it be in education, health or family management. But, in fact, the overall outcomes are getting worse. So we are collectively losing ground.

In the APY Lands, which I mentioned earlier, there are more than 100 organisations and programs operating. Many of them do not know what the other is doing, but most of them are convinced they are doing a good job. But we are not making progress. So what do we do to break this cycle? I see absolutely no answer—and I know the minister concurs with this—but in education; a path to empowerment. I hope an empowered next generation will have the confidence to leave the remote lands and venture into mainstream society and take their place there full of confidence—that they will have, as I think Noel Pearson has said, the confidence and ability to walk in both worlds.

Once again on the APY Lands, about 2½ thousand people live there. They occupy 10 per cent of the state of South Australia on freehold title. It is not the most fertile ground. Most people would consider it to be desert. But it is valuable pastoral land. Probably 50 years ago, 200 or 250 people would have been employed to run the cattle properties—good grazing country. But, now, if those properties were operating properly you would probably need a staff of about 10 to 20—with modern mustering methods, motorbikes, computer and telemetry controlled operating water systems and automatic drafting yards on the watering spots. What this means is that this country can still be very productive but it is unlikely ever to employ hundreds of people to operate those industries.

Apart from that, there is no natural economy. We might get lucky. Perhaps a prospector will discover a major resource project and get it off the ground—but, considering how difficult it would be in that part of the world, it is not highly likely. So, generally, speaking there is no natural economy. As I said, most employment is subsidised by the government in one way or another. Probably the best operating private businesses out there are the art centres, which do provide an income for those who spend the most hours there and get the best at their job—so it is a very good signal—but they do not operate without government support.

So if the inhabitants, the Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara people, want real jobs for their children, like many parents in the country—like myself and my wife—probably the best option is to get them into a boarding school. It was not something I particularly enjoyed when our children were growing up—to send them away to school at the age of 15. Some have lived back at home in my community for short periods since, but it is highly likely that none of them will choose to settle there. I must say, too, that, as a third-generation farmer, in my family there is a strong feeling of affinity to our land. I do not claim to have the same religiously significant affinity as the Aboriginal communities, but it is certainly a tear for children to move away from their families and their land.

Coming from that point of view, I understand, as much as I can, these issues for those who live in remote Indigenous communities. They do not want their children to leave. But as parents we also had to make the tough decisions and say, 'The best opportunity for you is to go forth in the world and have a go.' In the case of my family, that has meant that three of them have professional qualifications and are spread from Canberra to the Riverland and to Adelaide, and they come home and visit us. I know it is a tough question for those who live on the lands. When I sit down with the elders there—with the women and the men—they say that they would really like their children to be employed and to come back to their communities. But, as I went through before, there is no natural economy.

It also concerns me greatly that so many of the programs of governments generally across Australia have been to maintain these communities in their natural environment. But, as I see the breakdown of culture, with another 20 years of what we have been doing, there will be no culture left to protect. In fact, it is being eroded daily. There is a lack of respect for the elders. Drugs, alcohol and violence are riddling these communities. The opportunity of boarding school not only is an opportunity to get a good education but also provides a circuit breaker. The kids can actually have a look at a different life—a life where they know they are safe; a life where success is the norm; a life where people go to work five days a week and maybe more. That is what these kids need to see. Then they need to think, 'I want a piece of that.' And when each one of them makes a move into the wider world and says, 'I am going to change my life,' I celebrate that as a great outcome. We cannot do that if we do not have good schooling systems, and we cannot get them into secondary school and into boarding schools where they can compete unless we can break the conundrum of getting them to a level at year 5. Once again Noel Pearson says, 'I want the children that go through the Cape York schooling system to be able at the end of year 5 to go into any school in Australia and be able to operate on an even standing with the other children as they approach year 6.' I think that until we can reach that level, we have not made it.

There has been some reference made to the school attendance officers on the lands in the remote communities around Australia. The minister has announced that in 200 communities next year a form of direct instruction, or basic phonetics education, will be introduced. I must say when I went to Cape York, Aurukun and Hope Valley I was greatly impressed with the direct instruction model; it seemed to me it was actually making a measurable and very large difference. If I can see that in my remote communities, I will be very pleased. The member for Lingiari said the school attendance model is not working as well as it should, but if it is six per cent or 11 per cent, that is six per cent or 11 per cent more than we had going last year. From what I have seen on the ground, these programs work where we have the right leadership, and they work less well where we have resistance from within the particular school or poor leadership on the ground for the school-attendance officers. We have to keep working at that. If we have resistant principals or resistant teachers in the school, then perhaps they are the ones who need to go. If we have poor leadership on the ground, let us get rid of the ones we have and find some new ones. Unless we can break this model we are consigning these people to an ever-worsening outcome for their descendants. For me that is simply just not good enough.

I have been to have a look at Wiltja in Adelaide, which is the government boarding school. This extra funding is not aimed at that particular facility at the moment. I must say I am impressed with the boarding school there, where the students from the APY lands in particular, but also those from other remote communities I mentioned earlier, are being well looked after. I do somewhat question whether a boarding school that has a 100 per cent Indigenous enrolment is actually preparing these kids properly for what they are going to find outside the school gate and the boarding house gate. I do like the model that sees students being enrolled in private schools—but they could be government boarding schools if we ran that type of arrangement—where they are mixed. When I say 'mixed' I mean mixed by background, mixed by race. I think the reality of the outside world is that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have to work together shoulder to shoulder. I applaud the minister for this move in supporting boarding schools and their ability to engage Indigenous students, and I hope it leads to more construction of boarding schools and higher numbers of students.

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:56): It is my great pleasure to be speaking on the subject matter of education and the Australian Education Amendment bill. I will say at the outset that it is not so much what is in the bill that attracts the attention of members on this side of the House, but the things that are not in the bill and the mess that surrounds it. If there is one thing that has been consistent about this minister and this government's approach to education—whether it is early childhood education or primary, secondary or tertiary education—it is this: they have buggered up everything they have touched. In the 12 short months that they have been in government they have absolutely made a mess of everything that they have touched when it comes to the education sector. I was at my own university—the University of Wollongong, a fine institution—in the Illawarra this week, where they are facing redundancies because of the 20 per cent cut in university funding. You have academics, students and community members up in arms because of the uncertainty surrounding higher education. This has been a critical institution in the Illawarra for giving kids from ordinary working-class backgrounds, like my own, an opportunity in life and a foot on the ladder of opportunity.

It is not so much what is in the bill that attracts our ire, although there are some things that do warrant some attention that are within the legislation—it is the stuff that surrounds it. It is the absolute mess that Minister Pyne has made in his 12 months in the job when it comes to higher education. The first part of the bill attracts our support—the support for Indigenous students in boarding schools, the provisions within the bill that will allow the minister to make payments of up to $6.8 million in 2014-15 to non-government boarding schools that have more than 50 Indigenous boarders or more than 50 per cent of their total population who are Indigenous students. This is something that we support—it is consistent with Labor's policies when in government to construct new boarding schools—particularly to support measures which will assist us in closing the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians when it comes to their life expectancy. There is bipartisan support for the Closing the Gap targets and bipartisan support when it comes to closing the gap between non-Indigenous and Indigenous life expectancy and mortality rates. But this goes to the issue of closing the gap in education and employment outcomes: ensuring that we have access to early childhood education for all Indigenous students four years old in remote communities by 2013—that is a bipartisan proposition, initiated by Labor; halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements; and halving the gap in year 12 retention rates for Indigenous students by 2020. All of these are designed to ensure that Indigenous students are able to enjoy the same life opportunities as non-Indigenous Australians. Sensible measures which are directed at these propositions will enjoy our support, and this part of the legislation does.

The second part of the legislation is a solution to a problem of the government's own making. This is the provision which will change the funding transition rules so that funding is indexed by at least three per cent per annum. Without this change, around 38 schools would face funding cuts in 2015. I stress this point: we would not need to be in parliament today debating this provision if the government had not stuffed it up, if the government had put in place the election promises that they went to the 2013 election with. If they had done what they promised to do, we would not be needing to debate this provision within the House today. It is because the government have broken their pre-election promises that we need to put in place this workaround, this fix-up. Had they honoured their bipartisan commitment to the Gonski reform arrangements, we would not be needing to pass this amendment here today.

The third proposition is about delaying the implementation of the school improvement plans by one year. They are going to be delayed to January 2016. What are the school improvement plans? Quite simply, they are the requirement on schools who are receiving additional funding from the federal government to put in place measures to prove that they are actually addressing those educational outcomes that the funding is in respect of. I have got to say that this is the part where the minister has absolutely jumped the shark. We have a proposition by the minister that he does not believe in command-and-control requirements for school funding systems. So he is essentially tearing up that part of the Gonski school funding agreement and saying, 'We need to start again.' In light of their history on this issue, you really do have to be a little bit cynical about a proposition from a Liberal Party Minister for Education that rejects command-and-control propositions when it comes to school funding by the Commonwealth.

All of us on this side of the House remember the 2004 plan by the then Liberal minister, Brendan Nelson, to tie the requirement for receiving school education funds—the $33 billion in Commonwealth funding—to sticking a flagpole in the schoolyard. That is right: these enemies of command and control were saying, from 2004-05, that, if a school wanted to receive any of its Commonwealth government funding, it had to stick a flagpole in the yard of the school. I have no problems with—in fact I support—the proposition that schools have flagpoles, and I support the provision of flags to schools, as most good members do. But, when you look at the coalition's history, you have got to ask yourself how genuine they are when they say, 'We're not into this command-and-control stuff; we'll just hand money out to schools without any conditions upon it; we won't ask what they're doing with the money.'

These are the guys who started the culture wars when it came to school curriculum. These are the guys that could not find enough opportunities to bag the schoolteachers in the public school system. They required that schools have a flagpole in order to receive Commonwealth government funding, and yet they stand here today and say, 'We need to put this legislation before the House because we do not like those provisions of the Gonski school education plan that require some conditionalities upon the additional funding.' You have got to ask yourself: is this just a ruse for the government to once again back away from what was said before the election about a bipartisan commitment to the Gonski school education plan? We all remember Chris Pyne saying that you could not put a cigarette paper between the Labor Party and the coalition parties when it came to school education funding and the Gonski plan. We know they have torn up the funding agreement. You have got to ask yourself whether this is just another ruse to enable them to completely back away from every and each part of that funding plan.

I know the minister likes to stand up and say they are still honouring their proposition, but they are the only Liberal government in the country which claim that they are honouring the Gonski school education funding agreement. In fact, last week we had the National Party Minister for Education for New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, say quite clearly that they signed a six-year funding agreement, a contractual arrangement, with the Commonwealth, and they signed it because they could see that this was to the benefit of every student in every school in New South Wales, and they think that the federal education minister, Christopher Pyne, has reneged on that agreement, has torn up the agreement, and they will be taking steps within their power to ensure that it is honoured.

Why is it important? We know that the Gonski school education review was the most comprehensive review of school education in over 40 years. At its core the proposition was this: public or private does not matter; we want to ensure that as a Commonwealth and as state governments we are funding schools on the basis of need. Schools with higher need students, whether they are students from low-SES backgrounds or students from Indigenous backgrounds and whether they are schools with a higher proportion of students with disabilities, are the schools that should attract a greater amount of state and Commonwealth funding, and we will put in place a funding formula to ensure that that occurs.

It does not make sense if the Commonwealth is putting more money in the top of the bucket and state governments are putting a hole in the bottom of the bucket and draining it out for other programs, so it is absolutely critical that you have a joined up response from federal and state governments and from the non-government school sector. That is what Labor managed to do, and it was not easy getting around the table an reaching agreement with the first ministers of all the states and territories around the country. But do it we did with all but one exception, and agreement was reached.

But almost the first act—in fact, one of the quickest retreats from a promise—was this minister, Christopher Pyne, breaking his promise to the Australian people and tearing up the Gonski school education plan and funding agreement with the state and territory ministers. If it were not for that act, the legislation before the House today would not be necessary.

We will not be seen as standing in the way of a provision which is going to provide more funds to Indigenous students who are attending boarding schools, particularly those boarding schools which have a high proportion of Indigenous students. We will not stand in the way of ensuring those independent schools have their funding indexed so they can continue to operate over the next two years without funding cuts. We also will not do anything to stop the rest of the schools receiving their increased funding under Labor's improvements to the school education funding arrangement. We will not do it in a way that lets those opposite get off scot-free. People need to know when they go to the next election which side of politics stands for education in this country; which side of politics can be trusted when it makes a promise in relation to early childhood, primary, secondary, university or TAFE education; which side of politics is truly committed to investing more money in our kids and universities; and which side of politics cannot be trusted to keep their promises, because, every time they have made a promise when it comes to higher education—every time they have made a promise when it comes to school education-they have broken their promises. The people of Australia will not forget that.

The people of Australia will not forget that the Minister for Education cannot be trusted when it comes to education. If he has made a promise on it, you can be guaranteed that, if he is re-elected, he is going to break that promise. The people of Australia need to be and will be reminded of that. They will not forget.

As I said at the outset, the students from my region at the University of Wollongong will not forget that. They are red hot with anger because they know that this government which is cutting funds to schools is also now cutting funds to universities. It is going to mean higher fees for them. It is going to mean fewer academic staff teaching them. It is going to mean a reduction in the number and quality of services. So we support the legislation but not without reservations.

Mr BROADBENT (McMillan) (13:11): It is a pleasure for me to contribute to the debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. It must be confusing for those listening to the presentations made by members with regard to what is being said in the chamber. What I do know is that the passionate response of the member for Lingiari to proposals in this bill reflects his electorate, as did the member for Grey when he spoke very wisely about how this bill affects people in his electorate and took the opportunity to explain to the House how his electorate and Indigenous communities work and where he saw it going. He wanted to break the cycle through education.

Education has been an issue in this House for the whole time that I have been here. It has been contentious. Everybody—each government, each community—has their own view about how education can best be delivered to our generations of children and adults. Having said that, who is right in the chamber? Is it the member for Throsby, who gave the atypical political speech about education? Is it the member for Lingiari, who passionately talked about his electorate and the effects on the Indigenous community? Is it the member for Grey or any other person making a contribution here? Who is right? Certainly the public listening to the debate would not have the faintest idea who is right.

The member for Throsby must have forgotten or have some amnesia with regard to the $2.3 billion they took out of higher education in their last budget before they were defeated. Is that forgotten? Come on; it cannot be. Yes, the nation has been left with a fair amount of debt. This government has to address it in every area.

But I especially wanted to talk about education as it affects you whether or not you are an Indigenous person, whether you are red, yellow, black or white. It does not matter. It means that our kids are important. We not only have to send a message to our children; we have to send a message to their parents about their dedication. The member for Lyons in a candid admission today in his address in this House said he was not heavily involved in his boys' education. He said his wife was. She carried the burden for the family with regard to the education for the boys. I would fit that bill myself. I think that, though I have sat on a number of school boards over the years and contributed locally—my children went to secondary college at Pakenham and have done well—I have to say I was not around a lot. Often the burden is taken up by your partner.

I wanted to find a way to send a message to the whole of my community about the importance of education, and I have to take every opportunity. As this year roller-coasters towards Christmas and the New Year and soon will be into another year and all the thankyous will have been said; and the HSC results would have come out, and the futures would have been written, they think, on just that result—and it is not the truth. That result is not the be all and end all of a life given and life's opportunity. But education creates the opportunities. Not in every case. Not in mine, for sure. I think my education began with the bumps and scratches of life, as I stand here today with more bumps and more scratches. So I wrote:

This Christmas we the people of Gippsland from North, South, East or West, recognise that education is the greatest gift we can give our children. Universal access to learning, the Christmas present that keeps on giving, empowers our children to reach their full potential.

What more can we do to enhance our collective national progress, building a cohesive society based on tolerance and respect, than through the best education for our children our nation can afford.

Life-long learning reduces poverty, creates better jobs and increases the health and well-being of every Australian. As our children are one third of our population and all of our future, it is right and just that we gift in full measure to the next generation. Through the precious commitment of our teachers we claim for our children greater heights and success than we of this generation ever dreamed.

I put that to the House in all the consideration on education, all the blaming of the other side for what they have not done, let us encourage those in this House in tertiary education, in TAFE, in secondary college, in primary school, in early development education. They talked about day care providers being educators now; I think let the kids play. But let not this be a playground in this House. Let this not be a playground. Let us debate sensibly education in this place, in a bipartisan manner that gives the best opportunity for future generations—our children—the best opportunity to reach their full potential we as parliamentarians can possibly give them. I thank the House.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:17): I am pleased also to be speaking on education, and I acknowledge the member for McMillan's contribution. Before I start addressing the bill I would like to say one thing in response to him: it would be wonderful if this House could be bipartisan at all times, but the unfortunate truth is that we on this side of the House to not agree with the direction that the government is taking on education. We do not agree with the walking away from the full Gonski reforms, we do not agree in the cuts to early childhood education, and we do not believe that the approach the government is taking to education is going to put our children in the best possible place in the future. It is our duty as members of this place to say so. That is actually what we do here. I would love for us to be able to be bipartisan. We thought we were on Gonski. Immediately prior to the election the opposition of the time, now the government, were saying they supported Gonski in full. We had a moment, we thought, of bipartisan support for what had been tens of thousands of hours of consultation and a program of improvement that had the support of stakeholders all around the country. We thought we had that immediately prior to the election. But immediately after the election the government walked away from its bipartisan commitment to Gonski. The government broke its promise. We are here today debating a bill which exists because the government broke its promise. It exists because the government said one thing before the election and walked away immediately after. If they had kept their promise to implement the Gonski loading for students with disabilities, for example, in 2015 and provide extra resources—a very clear promise—we would not be here today looking at a makeshift, short-term answer to compensate schools for cuts in funding because the government walked away, ran away some would say, from that commitment.

Let us now look at the bill in a bit more detail. The bill does provide extra support for Indigenous students in boarding schools, and that would have to be seen at face value as a very positive thing. Boarding schools play an incredibly important role, particularly for Indigenous students from remote communities. They provide access to curriculum flexibility that students need in order to go on to higher education. So they are incredibly important for remote students.

This new mechanism will allow the minister to make payments to schools for a reason prescribed by regulation and it will facilitate the payment of $6.8 billion this financial year to non-government boarding schools with more than 50 Indigenous borders or more than 50 per cent of boarders who are Indigenous. Again, it must be seen as a positive thing for the students who will actually attend what in most cases are very large private schools such as grammar schools. There are a couple of schools in my electorate that would meet those requirements.

It is consistent with the policies by the previous Labor government, except that we were also constructing new boarding schools to help students from remote communities access boarding school education. Again, nobody in this House could argue against the provision of $6.8 million to the larger boarding schools to assist Indigenous students who are attending school there. From the man who wanted to be the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs, $6.8 million for Indigenous children who are largely going to large private schools cannot be criticised, but, in light of the half a billion dollars in cuts to Indigenous funding, there is a great deal that needs to be said about this. Closing the Gap needs more than just finding a few of the larger boarding schools. In fact, it needs a great deal more, and what can be criticised other cuts to Indigenous funding that rip away other support that help children prepare for school, do well at school and go on to further education.

Cuts to Indigenous funding at up to well over half a billion dollars and it includes $9.5 million from support for Indigenous languages in schools. So we have lost $9.5 million for support for Indigenous languages, which must be seen as incredibly important also, and we have $6.8 billion going into boarding schools. So, again, you compare what has been cut in order to fund this. The questions must be asked about the wisdom of cutting programs which assist Indigenous children in many other ways.

The government has also ripped $46 million from the Remote Jobs and Communities Program to fund a truancy army in remote Australia. We have lost $46 million from the Remote Jobs and Communities Program, also an incredibly important program. In the case of early childhood, which the member for McMillan also referred to, the previous federal Labor government invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development. The purpose of that money was to make sure that young Indigenous children would get the best possible chance at life by establishing 38 children and families centres around the country. We know from all the research that the work that is done in that zero to four age group sets a child up for school. The improvement in a child's capacity to learn is greater than the entire first seven years of primary school. It is more important to the outcomes of education than perhaps any other part of a child's life, and yet the Abbott government has abandoned those centres. It refused to fund them when the partnership expired on 30 June this year, and we know from talking to those centres that many of them face a real prospect of closure.

We have had hundreds of millions of dollars ripped out of early childhood services for Indigenous Australians. Again, what has been cut in order to fund this $6.8 million for Indigenous students in boarding schools? On the subject of Gonski, before the election there was not a cigarette paper—not a sliver of light—between the two parties. There was bipartisan support for Gonski, but the Gonski model provided a special Indigenous loading to ensure that those schools with Indigenous students were properly resourced to provide the best possible education for Indigenous students—and the government, of course, has walked away from that.

Universities are incredibly important. In my electorate of Parramatta, the University of Western Sydney surprised me when I first ran for parliament in 2004. They told me that the number of Indigenous students enrolled at the University of Western Sydney had decreased under the 12 years of the Howard government. Rather than seeing an improvement in the numbers of Indigenous students attending university, we actually saw a decline during those 12 years of the Howard government. But, under the former Labor government, there was a 26 per cent increase in Indigenous students going on to and graduating from university—again, quite a big change in what is a relatively short period of time and, again, we have seen the Abbott government cut the funding from those programs. Where is the actual commitment to Indigenous education? We are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars cut out of Indigenous education by this government. You cannot argue with the positive side of $6.8 million going into boarding schools that house Indigenous students, but we need to look at it from the helicopter view of what else is going.

Also in this bill are some changes to funding for students with disabilities. Under the Gonski model, there were six areas of need that received extra loadings: small schools, remote schools, Indigenous students, students with poor English, disadvantaged schools and students with disabilities. The first five were fully funded; disabilities, though, the sixth one, required extensive consultation and was delayed. If you look at it, states have different approaches and current state models range from $4,000 to $40,000 per student depending on a broad range of factors. So it was an incredibly hard policy area and we wanted time to implement it for 2015. As an interim measure, though, Labor funded the $100 million transition program, which was called More Support for Students with Disabilities. The minister says that the $2.4 million which is going to special independent schools is required to prevent a funding cut because the safety net will disappear. But the safety net that he is talking about is actually that Labor transition program, More Support for Students with Disabilities, which the government have decided not to continue. So they cut the safety net and then, because the safety net is cut, provide an extra $2.4 million to ensure that schools do not go backwards.

How far we have fallen in the debate on education. How far we have fallen from just a year ago, when we were talking about lifting every boat and making sure that every child had a better education. How far we have fallen from standing in this House, looking at providing $2.4 million so that independent schools that deal with children with special needs do not actually go backwards in 2015. By 2015, the Gonski loading for children with disabilities was supposed to be in place, and the government, then in opposition, prior to the last election promised it would be. They promised that in 2015 it would be ready because they would do the work required to implement that loading. Instead, we are standing in this House today voting on a bill which provides $2.4 million to make sure that those schools do not go backwards.

This week is the National Week of Deaf People. Putting aside the debate that I know goes on in my community about whether deafness is a disability, these are young people in the early stages of their lives who need the extra assistance that the Gonski loading would have provided. They needed it; we promised it; the opposition, now the government, promised it—and they have walked away from that.

The member for McMillan called for bipartisanship, which would be wonderful. If we want bipartisanship in this House, there is a very easy way to get it, and that is for the government to honour their election commitments and fully fund Gonski, as they promised to do, and do it in the timetable in which they promised. Then we would revert to the bipartisan position that we were in just over a year ago. That is how long it has been—a year ago, we were in agreement. A year ago, schools were expecting to get their loading. A year ago, schools were making plans. Now they are not and we are in this House looking at ways to ensure that schools do not go backwards. We are looking at a bill that provides $2.4 million to ensure that schools do not go backwards. We are looking at a bill that provides $6.8 million for Indigenous students attending boarding schools, but we are doing that in the context of billions of dollars in reductions of funding to schools because of the decisions that the government have made since they came to office.

I say to this government: we would love bipartisanship. Please come to the table and do for education in Australia what we as a nation need and what our students need. We need an education system which can compete with the world. We do not need to be in here looking at ways to ensure that funding does not go backwards as an interim, bodgied-up measure because you could not keep your election promises.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (13:30): Order! It being just on 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.

The SPEAKER (15:21): Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2013-14.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:24): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. I would like to commence by talking about a few points in this debate that have been raised by members of the opposition in which they continually talk about so-called 'spending cuts' to education. It seems to me that they have a policy that, if they continue to repeat this mantra with all their talking points about these so-called cuts, it will somehow become the truth.

Rather than taking my word for it, let's look at what the facts actually are with these so-called cuts to education—remembering that this is during a time when we are under significant budget pressure and for the last six years the government has spent on average more than 10 per cent more than they have actually raised in taxes. Against that background, the problem that we have with the debt, the ongoing obligation to pay the interest on the debt that Labor has run up and which now runs at $13.5 billion this year, the coalition government is still increasing education spending across the board by eight per cent this year, eight per cent next year and eight per cent the year after.

In fact, if we drill down to the figures in my home state of New South Wales, the figures for what we are doing in the education space are even more impressive. For this 2014-15 financial year, education spending from the Commonwealth to all New South Wales schools increases 6.7 per cent. Next financial year it is up a further 7.8 per cent. In 2016-17, on top of that is another increase, this time 9.4 per cent. In what would be the final year if this coalition government runs its three-year term—the final budget this government would hand down, which would be the 2017-2018 budget—it would be another 5.7 per cent increase. That amounts to $1.354 extra Commonwealth spending in New South Wales. That is a 33 per cent increase from 2013-14 to 2017-18.

When coming from a public school background the news is even better. In fact, from Labor's 2013-14 last budget to what would potentially be the coalition's last budget in 2017-18, federal government spending to New South Wales public schools will increase 49.6 per cent. I say that again to dispel some of the myths about how we are cutting education. Spending under this government will be 49.6 per cent higher in our last budget than the last budget of the previous government.

Yet we still have all this discussion about cuts and cuts and cuts. Perhaps the last word on these so-called cuts belongs to ABC Fact Check. We know the ABC always gets it right, so I am very happy to quote from them. This is what they had to say about these so-called cuts:

The verdict: The Government did not cut $30 billion from schools in the May budget. The $30 billion figure—

referring to the claims by the Labor party—

is calculated over a 10 year period starting in 2017. It adds up the difference between the increase in funding that Labor says it would have delivered and the increase the Government may deliver. There is too much uncertainty for such a long-term estimate to be reliable measure of either cuts or savings.

Ms Ellis is 'spouting rubbery figures'.

When we talk about cuts or increases that Labor may deliver, we know that pigs may fly, because they have simply no idea where this money is coming from. I am very proud to be part of a coalition government that is delivering such substantial increases to New South Wales schools, especially New South Wales public schools, which will see almost a 50 per cent increase in their funding from the federal government. That is even more impressive during such times of difficult budget arrangements.

To the specifics of the bill, the first purpose of the Australian Education Amendment Bill is to amend the Australia Education Act 2013 to allow payment of additional funding in 2014 to schools with large numbers of Indigenous boarding students from a remote areas to meet an identified resourcing shortfall. The Indigenous boarding initiative announced in the 2014-15 budget will provide a further $6.8 million to eligible schools and regulations will determine school eligibility and amounts of the funding initiative. Yet another $6.8 million going into education funding.

Secondly, this bill will provide funding cuts to students with disabilities and other students in some independent special schools and assistance schools to actually prevent those cuts that would otherwise occur from 1 January 2015 by ensuring transitional funding arrangements for these schools that are consistent with other schools under the act.

Thirdly, the bill makes a number of minor corrections to errors and omissions that occurred during the original preparation of the act prepared by Labor and which undermine the intended operation of the act and correct funding and regulatory—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Mr CRAIG KELLY: That is right, fix uncertainty for schools. These amendments will ensure, amongst other things, the correct calculation of Commonwealth government entitlements for all schools. The financial impact of this is $6.8 million in additional funding for eligible non-government schools in 2014-15 under the Indigenous boarding initiative and an additional $2.4 million for special independent schools.

It is not only money that goes into education; what is also very important is what is taught in our schools. That is why I congratulate the education minister for his review of what was in our national curriculum. We had those cross-curriculum priorities embedded across all areas of the curriculum. They were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture, Asia and Australia's engagement in Asia, and, of course, sustainability. While they may all be very important in their own respect, embedding them across every area of the curriculum can only cause enormous problems.

Mr Frydenberg: Mathematics!

Mr CRAIG KELLY: My good friend the member for Kooyong mentions mathematics. That is what I would like to raise, because the sustainability priority across the curriculum is actually embedded in all the mathematics subjects. It actually says here that in the Australian for mathematics:

… the priority of sustainability provides rich, engaging and authentic contexts for developing students' abilities in number and algebra, measurement and geometry, and statistics and probability.

It goes on:

The Australian Curriculum: Mathematics provides opportunities for students to develop the proficiencies of problem solving and reasoning essential for the exploration of sustainability issues and their solutions.

Firstly, it could be very good that this is going to. But I think there is potential in mathematics, especially when it comes to economic sustainability. I would like to propose that we should have some of these economic sustainability concepts embedded in our mathematics curriculum. It could start with basic addition. We could ask children to add up the six Labor budget deficits.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Mr CRAIG KELLY: I know it would be a big number. It would be $27.1 billion, $54.8 billion, $47.7 billion $43.7 billion $19.4 billion and, of course, the last doozy, $48.5 million.

Mr Frydenberg: You can only do that in year 11 and year 12!

Mr CRAIG KELLY: That is absolutely right: it is a year 11 and year 12 course. This is one way that we could assist our children in mathematics. We could also assist them with the mathematical concept of simple interest. We could take Labor's debt and we could get our students to work out what the annual interest repayments would be. The answer at the moment is $13.5 billion. We could take that further, since economic sustainability is embedded in our curriculum, and on to the concept of division. Yes, our interest payments are $13.5 billion a year, but how much would it be a month? That could be a question for our students. That would work out at $1.125 billion. We could get them to further divide that. How much a week? Our interest payments currently are $260 million every single week. That is how much this nation must find. What about a day? It is $37 million. Or an hour? It is $1.5 million. In fact, in the 15 minutes that we are allocated here as our speaking time on each bill, the interest repayments that this nation must pay on its debt is $375,000. In the 15 minutes I will speak on this bill this nation will have to raise $375,000. That is just the interest on Labor's debt. The scary thing is that we have to do that forever—every 15 minutes of the day, every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year forever until we start paying back the principal debt. What is even worse is that 75 per cent of that has to go overseas.

Of course, the other mathematical concept that we could embed in our educational curriculum is that of probability. The question could be: what is the probability of a Labor government delivering a surplus in the next 50 years?

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Mr CRAIG KELLY: Yes, I know there is a lot of debate on this. It is going to be very tough question for the students to answer. We would simply go back to history. We know that there was one that they fluked about 25 years ago when the member for Longman he was not even born. They fluked one 25 years ago. So, maybe in the next 50 years there is a very good chance that lighting might strike twice and we may actually have a Labor government delivering a second budget surplus in 50 years.

Mr CRAIG KELLY: Not with Chris Bowen as the shadow Treasurer.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Mr CRAIG KELLY: I know there are a lot of doubters in the chamber. There are a lot of people willing to take money on that. These are some of the economic sustainability concepts that could very well be embedded in our education curriculum.

I congratulate the Minister for Education for what he is doing, but I just want him to make sure that we are actually doing the right thing and not taking some of these things out, because these are very important things, all jokes aside, for our students to understand. They need to understand the damage that was caused by a reckless and wasteful government with reckless, wasteful and politically motivated spending for the last six years. That is one thing that we need to make sure our students are aware of. I commend the education minister for the fine work is doing not only on this bill but on many other areas in education policy. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (15:37): The previous speaker, the member for Hughes, made mention of the fact that he wanted Australian students to take part in some sort of pop quiz to test their mathematical abilities; their abilities to create sums and test their addition skills. I am very interested in the quiz that the previous speaker proposes because in my view I think those students should turn their attention to the actual cuts that have been made to their education—cuts that have been made to their schools; cuts that have been made to their primary schools, cuts that have been made to their high schools—by the Abbott government. It is my view that the attention of young Australians' mathematical skills should be focused on looking at the billions of dollars worth of cuts that are going to take place to Gonski as a result of this government, focused on the impact of the billions of dollars of cuts to Gonski and the impact of that. Essentially, what that means is that 20,000 teachers will potentially lose their jobs, will not get their jobs funded. Why don't young Australians turn their attention to those sorts of figures? Billions of dollars worth of cuts as a result of the cuts to Gonski during the last two years, and the impact that will have on them. The figures I have seen show that potentially 20,000 teachers will not be employed. We could also get the students of Australia to turn their attention to the impact of the cuts to the schoolkids bonus and, most importantly, the impacts of the cuts on trade training centres.

Here again we are talking about nearly $1 billion of investment in trade training centres gone—not just here in Canberra but right across the nation. We have a suite of trade training centres here in my electorate, in Tuggeranong in the south of Canberra, and we have our sustainable learning centre down in Tuggeranong where a number of colleges and the high schools have got trade training centres. Those opposite have condemned the whole trade training centre notion; those opposite have abolished future funding for the trade training centres. I find it galling when members of the coalition government, when members of the Abbott government, come along and open these centres and talk about the importance of trade training, the importance of developing pathways between high school and a vocational education, the importance of providing options to students—options where students can actually go and get a degree in carpentry or a cert IV in hospitality or a cert IV in mechanics while, at the same time, continuing with their year 12 and continuing with their English and their French and gaining a breadth of experience and knowledge that trade training centres provide.

I find it particularly galling when those members opposite—I am sure they have been running around opening trade training centres. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the minister at the table, is smiling: how many trade training centres have you opened since the election last year, Parliamentary Secretary? How many trade training centres? And what have you said? 'Gee, these trade training centres are fantastic. These trade training centres provide great pathways for young Australians; they provide pathways and give options to people who may not necessarily be suited for university. These are great things, these trade training centres.' And yet, with their next breath, they say, 'The future funding for these trade training centres has been abolished.' It has been breathtaking.

I also suggest that young Australians turn their attention to the fact that the secular chaplaincy scheme is being scrapped. Just think about the impact that is going to have on the mental health and wellbeing of young Australians in a range of schools throughout Australia. So rather than taking the previous speaker's arithmetic pop quiz, I suggest that young Australians take this pop quiz and look at the impact of not having those last two years of funding for Gonski, nearly $3 billions worth of funding; look at the impact of the potential loss of 20,000 teachers out of the system; and look at the impact of the loss of the schoolkids bonus on low- and middle-income families. Low- and middle-income families no longer get the opportunity to have the schoolkids bonus; it provided them with a chance to go out and get computers, school shoes, uniforms. It encouraged people to stay in education; it was a great scheme, a great bonus. It is gone as a result of those opposite.

But most importantly there is the impact as a result of cuts in funding to the trade training centres. What is the future cost to young Australians who have had that door closed to them?

Mr Tudge: Is this relevant?

Ms BRODTMANN: It is relevant. I am just taking up the suggestion of the previous speaker; I am countering his quiz with my quiz, which I think goes into far more depth about the true impact of your cuts on the future of our education system. As a result of the $1 billion cuts to the trade trading centres, a number of pathways are completely shut off for young Australians throughout the country in addition to secular chaplaincies.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. I am pleased that I have got the opportunity because it gives me the chance to voice the concerns of millions of schoolchildren and their parents, as well as tens of thousands of teachers throughout the country who will be worse off under this government. Overall this legislation represents another example of the Abbott government's betrayal when it comes to education. It is yet another example of the government walking away from Gonski. The Gonski reforms were the most comprehensive reforms to be introduced in 40 years. They came after years of lobbying, years of advocacy, years of consultation, years of research by those in the education sector. They had the support of teachers; they had the support of principals; they had the support of parents, of students, of the states and territories; and they were supported by the Catholic sector, the independent sector and the public sector. As a result of those years of consultation with a range of individuals—of actually going out to schools and consulting with the teachers, the staff, the students and their parents at the schools in my electorate—I know that the Gonski reforms had very strong support among the people of Canberra, which is why I am a passionate believer in those reforms.

To the legislation: the first part of this legislation will provide support for Indigenous students in boarding schools. The government has announced this will facilitate payments of about $6.8 million in support to boarding schools in the 2014-15 financial year. At this stage, the funding has not been provided beyond that period. We on this side of the House believe in helping students from remote communities access boarding-school education, which is why we allocated extra money to every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student in every school. We will rally behind any move that will help close the gap in school education. That is why we strongly support this measure.

The second part of this bill ensures continued funding for independent special schools and we are pleased to see that independent special schools will be no worse off next year. However, we would not be debating this measure if the government had kept its promise on Gonski; I referred to that in the earlier part of my speech. I am particularly talking here about the Gonski element of the disability loading and the extra funding which comes from that. We funded the $100 million per year More Support for Students with Disabilities program to ensure that funding was allocated to students who needed it most, while work continued to finalise the full Gonski disability loading in 2015. In this year's budget the government cut that program and failed to replace it with the promised additional funds. In our view, the Abbott government is again failing students with a disability by reneging on a pre-election promise to increase funding from next year. I quote the words of the now education minister, prior to the election:

If elected to government the coalition will continue the data collection work that has commenced, which will be used to deliver more funding for people with disability through the 'disability loading' in 2015.

To those opposite I say: this is the worst type of promise to break. These people need this funding and they need this support, and you have let them down.

Aside from breaking a funding promise when it comes to the finalisation of the Gonski disability loading, stakeholders say the government has rushed the consultation process and that, where consultation has occurred, it has been incredibly secretive. The bottom line here is that students with a disability will have $100 million in support cut next year and we on this side of the House—Labor—will continue to fight to provide support to the students who need this funding the most. Labor will not stand in the way of measures in this bill, but promises that were made to students with a disability have been broken.

That brings me to the next aspect of this bill which I wholeheartedly oppose, and that is the delay to the implementation of the school improvement plan by one year. This plan is about ensuring that the money invested in schools by the federal government actually reaches the classrooms. It is a vital part of the reforms and of our school system. Accountability is central to the Gonski reforms. Funding should be needs based and it should be driven by improvements in the classroom. We outlined a school development plan for every school; they were developed in consultation with the school community and designed to help improve school results. This part of the bill facilitates further changes to the improvement plan, but we have significant concerns with what is proposed in this element.

I am conscious of the time but I just want to make a few other comments. I am very concerned about what this government has planned for primary education, and education more generally, for the people of Australia. I am particularly concerned because when I go out to parts of my electorate, I am exposed to students in need. People tend to think that Canberra is an incredibly well-off community, and we are in many ways; but there are significant pockets of disadvantage and I have made that clear in many of my speeches in this place.

I particularly see these areas of disadvantage and these students in need through a program I have implemented called the School Legends program. Last year I was going around awarding some of the School Legends awards towards the end of the year, either at presentations or by going to schools on the last day of school. I noticed, and was greatly concerned by, some significantly disadvantaged students. One who really sticks in my mind was a young Indigenous boy who had overcome significant adversity over the course of last year; he was well and truly deserving of the School Legends award. This young boy was in year 1. He turned up at the beginning of school and could not talk. He had been through a very, very difficult time at home. He was not terribly well nourished. He was taking part in the school's breakfast program and their after-school care program so he could get fed before he went home. His uniform was in a pretty bad state; his shoes were falling apart. In a way, he epitomised to me an extraordinary individual who had overcome significant adversity. He also epitomised those elements of disadvantage both in the Canberra community and throughout the country, and how we need to reach out and help those disadvantaged. The reforms that Labor introduced with Gonski targeted disadvantaged students, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, Indigenous students, students in remote areas and students who do not have English as a first language. They targeted those areas of disadvantage. That was what I most admired. I was so proud of the Gonski program. I admired it the most; my community admired it the most. They could see that through targeted funding at people experiencing disadvantage we could give them help, a hand up, and that through education we could transform their lives. This is why I condemn those opposite for discontinuing the last two years of funding for Gonski. It is designed to target the disadvantaged, to assist them and to give them a leg up to break the cycle of disadvantage.

Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (15:52): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. I like the member for Canberra and I think she is a good person, but can we all, please, stop talking about Gonski as though the Labor Party implemented what Gonski said. Labor implemented what they thought they could get away with. They did not implement Gonski—Gonski cost way more money than that—that was just their version. It is like the NDIS. They do not deliver what is recommended. The education funding that we agreed to was not Gonski; it was what Labor took to the last election. They can backhand it as much as they want and I will come back to those points later.

The Australian Education Act 2013 is the principal legislation by which the Australian government provides financial assistance to approved authorities for government and non-government schools. This bill amends the Australian Education Act 2013 to allow payment of additional funds in 2014 to schools with large numbers of Indigenous boarding students from remote areas. The Indigenous Boarding Initiative was announced as part of the 2014-15 budget and it provides approximately $6.8 million of additional funding to eligible schools. This bill will prevent funding cuts that would have occurred on 1 January 2015 to students with disabilities and other students in some independent schools and special assistance schools. These changes will result in an additional $2.4 million being paid to these schools in this financial year.

The bill also addresses other errors and omissions that occurred during the preparation of the act. One of those amendments will ensure the correct calculation of Commonwealth funding entitlements for all Australian schools. I will detail some of these later on in the speech.

The amendments put in place by the previous government mean that some independent schools and special assistance schools will have their funding reduced from 1 January 2015. This cannot be a good thing. We must provide certainty for these schools, their students and the families who send their children away to get a first-class education. The Australian government funding for schools is provided to state and territory governments, and the funds are then distributed to the schools in line with the act.

In 2014, around $14 billion will be paid to government and non-government schools. The bill's regulations will contain the type of information that the minister must have regard to in exercising the new terms of eligibility and calculation of the funding, and be subject to review and disallowance by the parliament. We must enable payment of the Australian government's Indigenous Boarding Initiative. The initiative will provide interim support for non-government schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarding students from remote or very remote areas or where 50 per cent or more of their boarding students are Indigenous and from remote or very remote areas. This additional funding will assist non-government boarding schools to provide students with high-quality education for Indigenous students. This bill will also ensure that certain schools or special assistance schools will not have their funding reduced in 2015.

The current safety net that is in place will disappear and that would mean that funding for these schools would be immediately reduced from 1 January 2015. This is because the current work with the states and territories to develop national data has not been completed. This amending legislation will not only protect funding for these schools but also ensure that these schools transition to the schooling resource standard in a manner consistent with other schools until the revised student-with-disability loadings are available.

There are many people across the sector, from state and territory governments to the non-government school sector, who believe that the Commonwealth has overreached its role into the daily running of schools. If we are to have a quality outcome, all stakeholders must be on the same page—as much as we can all be on the same page when it comes to education between state and territory and federal governments. We will continue to consult so that we can provide certainty for schools. We need a proper command-and-control requirement structure under the act so that any changes are handled well.

The amending legislation will also allow the minister to take action, if required, under this act where a school has failed to comply with requirements under the former Schools Assistance Act 2008. This will provide greater flexibility by allowing the noncompliance to be managed by delaying future payments as opposed to requiring a debt to be raised under the former legislation. If this is to work properly we need to be expeditious on all sides to get the best possible outcome. We are not talking about a building infringement here; we are talking about the lives of students.

This bill also corrects errors in the formula that is used to determine funding entitlements by the Schooling Resource Standard. This will mean that the Commonwealth will pay only its share of the funding entitlement, whereas previously the federal government could pay the entire Commonwealth and state share of the entitlements.

On 26 February 2014 in this place I made my contribution in response to the Prime Minister's statement on Closing the Gap. I said:

There is a belief in my community that there is enough money in the system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, that there is enough money in the system to house them and that there is enough money for the education of their children but it is just that it does not get through to the people who need it the most.

I stand by those words. If this country is going to move from a hand-out to a hand-up then it must start early, at a time when our Indigenous population is at school. The Prime Minister stated that education is the key. In his speech he said, 'We need full participation in education in modern Australia.' There would never have been a truer word spoken in this place.

I want to also add a little bit about Minister Pyne's direct instruction funding, as I do feel that it fits with this bill like a hand into a glove. The $40 million he announced in Townsville for remote education is a great start. What he has recognised is that people learn differently. People from remote areas start their formal learning experiences at different ages, meaning that, problematically, you can have multiple problems in achieving the square peg in the square hole objective of our primary schools and that is a serious challenge. Direct instruction does not recognise the age of the student nor the grade in which they are supposed to be. It only looks at how we can get the student to learn at their level and improve. We need to get that straight from the start.

At present, we seem to entice children of all ethnicities to school with the prospect of an engaged learning experience. We promise sport, music, art and drama. But when we get them there, even in prep, we tie them to a desk and suck the life out of them. Music and art are fantastic ways to engage students and get them to understand learning. Indigenous students born in remote Australia stagger their entry into our schools system. We have to understand that they do not do things the same way that we, non-Indigenous, city based Australians, do, and have different expectations and experiences. That is why we need to understand that it takes more money to get many of our Indigenous students to a level where they can understand the need for education and the joy of learning. I do not speak down to anyone, but there is a gap in education and that leads to poorer life outcomes. If we are truly to close the gap, we just have to get this right.

When I was first a candidate in 2010, I struggled with what was more important—health or education. It quickly dawned on me that, when dealing with disadvantage and poverty, education is the key to better opportunities, better options, better life choices, better diet, better health and more self-respect. I truly believe that there are a large number of Aboriginal and Islander young people out there yearning for this. The message must be delivered by them. It is pointless for someone like me going out to tell them that their diet is wrong. It must be delivered by the men and women who have made their choices and stuck to the path.

I often speak about Matthew Bowen, the mercurial fullback for the North Queensland Cowboys. His is from Hope Vale in the north of our state. His parents knew that if they wanted an outcome for him he had to go to school. He is what we need to show kids what is possible no matter where you live. He boarded at Abergowrie College outside Ingham. He joined the Cowboys, and on his first away trip he was handed a beer after his debut. He took a swallow and he said, 'I do not know how you drink that stuff.' His life choices centred on his wellbeing. He had a family which reinforced those values. My wife is a preschool teacher and I often speak to her about the benefits of using Matthew Bowen as the role model for Indigenous children. My wife says the real role model is Matthew's mum. While Matthew could go out and play with the kids and tell them about his journey and what it is like playing for the Cowboys, Queensland and Australia, and what he had to eat, his discipline and what he had to do, his mum should be sitting down and speaking to all of the other mums about how she did it for Matthew, because that is the real role model.

Similarly, with education we have to understand that we cannot fix everything by just funding boarding schools—or having a footballer tell kids about how they did it. We have to be engaged with not only the successful people who come through the system but also their network who gave them the opportunity, who set their values and instilled their work ethic. Those people, many of whom would not have had the opportunity to get a great educational opportunity afforded their children, are the major part of the puzzle that we need to harness. For me and my family, education is a natural right. My three children have been bought up in a house which values educational opportunity. Not only that, we fully understand and we expect that it is our right to demand such a thing. We have to make that a right—an expectation—for all Australians.

The coalition is committed to supporting the delivery of quality education and quality schooling, and providing funding and regulatory certainty for all Australian schools. I am certain every person in this place wants exactly that. Minister Pyne said:

This Government is committed to making sure every Australian child has the opportunity to reach their potential through a great education, that’s why we’re investing a record $64.5 billion in schools over the next four years.

He also recognised that people learn differently, and he is funding those programs. This government is also committed to ensuring that the country's Indigenous students living in remote locations across this country get the support they need to face the challenges of obtaining a quality education. Every dollar we put into improving Indigenous education is a dollar well spent and will be returned to our economy in the long term if it is used correctly. I will warn, however, that investment in funds must be matched with investment in activity and investment in the drive for better outcomes. That is what this government wants. It is pointless to brag about the quantum of funding if we do not drive the outcomes of the students with as much passion. The key to this is that this place, and everyone in it, wants better outcomes for every student. We must drive the results, as the Prime Minister says, by demanding full participation in education in modern Australia. We must be driving the outcomes just as hard as we are driving participation. To do that, we have to get our starting point—our foundations—right. Nothing is more important than that, and that must be the motivation for all in the sector.

While I have time, I want to address some of the things that some speakers opposite have been talking about. They have been saying that they had funded the Gonski model past the forward estimates. There is a big difference between making an announcement and paying for it. Anyone can make an announcement, but it is the funding of it that you have to deliver. That is the key. Anyone can make an announcement. We could just stand there and say, 'Sixty-eight billion dollars,' or, 'Another hundred thousand trillion dollars.' But if you do not back it up with how you are actually going to fund it, then it is not worth the paper it is written on. The last government was just so terrible at following through with this. What they delivered was not Gonski; what they delivered was not the NDIS; what they delivered was their version of it—the thing they thought they could get away with. They did not deliver it. They did not fund it and they back-ended it so that it was outside the forward estimates, so they did not have to be accountable for it. Going into the last election, we said that we would commit to funding for the next four years—that we would commit to Labor's plan for next four years. In fact, when we came in we actually put back in the $1.2 billion that Labor pulled out in the PYEFO. My state of Queensland is the major beneficiary of that to the tune of $958 million. So, please, I know it looks good on everyone's things to put out to your electorates, and to send it around and to be good and all of that sort of stuff , saying, 'This is what we are sticking to; this is why the Liberal government is no good and why the coalition is bad.' But you have to back it up with something; you have to have a plan.

We had some school kids up in the gallery before. They are at school now but they will be paying for this when they start work. It is the same as the schoolkids bonus. You funded it out of the minerals resource tax—the mining super profits tax. It did not raise any money, but you committed the funds. And you do not have to spend it on education; you just give to someone the cash. If they want to spend it at the local pub or if they want to go to the bottle-o, they can do that. What we used to do, and what there used to be by everyone on both sides of parliament, was we had to produce receipts that said it went to education. When you did that you got your money back on your tax. What we do now is just a splash for cash, because the only constituency Labor has left are those people willing to take cash for no other reason. I am really disappointed with some of the words coming from those opposite because I would have thought that education was a bit more important than that. I stand by this amendment; I stand by making the thing work. I thank the House.

Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:07): I rise today relishing the opportunity to speak from an informed position on education but a little wearily, having to speak on yet another amendment bill. This Australian Education Amendment Bill is making changes at the edges of current legislation, changes that are acceptable and necessary when you are working at the edges without a view to deep reform. In fact, most bills introduced into the parliament during my time here have been amendment bills—not new nor progressive, innovative and forward-looking pieces of legislation but amendment bills; bills that either implement cuts, tinker at the edges like this one and delay programs, rather than drive the reform needed to improve educational outcomes for students across our diverse communities.

The bill has three components—all of which, under the circumstances, I and Labor support. First, the bill establishes a mechanism to allow the minister to make payments to schools for a reason prescribed by regulation. The government has announced that this will facilitate the payment of around $6.8 million in support to boarding schools in 2014-15. This will assist schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarders from remote communities or where more than 50 per cent of boarders are Indigenous and come from remote communities. We, of course, support this measure. We know that this is just one of many steps that the government must take to close the gap in school education for Indigenous children.

This bill also changes the funding transition rules for independent special schools so that their funding is not worse off from next year. Finally, it seeks to delay by at least a year the implementation of school improvement plans.

The amendments we debate today to ensure funding for Indigenous students and students with a disability would not be necessary if the findings of the Gonski review were being implemented as promised by this government. This government inherited a national agenda, an expectant school sector. The work had been done. There was consensus. The country was reform ready.    All sectors were on board.

The detailed research and consultation processes across the country that created the much-needed reforms that would ensure equity across our schools through the student loadings were delivered by Labor. In it were six additional funding loadings: one for small schools,    one for remote schools, one for Indigenous students, one for students with low English, one for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and, importantly, one for students with disability.

That is why this bill is such a disappointment. It highlights this government's failure to deliver on the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity the Gonski review represented. What this bill highlights is that the expectation and readiness for a national approach to education is being unpicked one layer at a time. And in doing so, this government and this minister are breaking solemn promises made before the election to all school sectors and all states. Minister Pyne said, 'You can vote Labor or Liberal and you'll get exactly the same funding for your school dollar for dollar.' The Prime Minister said he was on a unity ticket on school funding. Now, the Minister for Education suggests that education is not the federal government's business, that the SES model was working well. Despite the review finding that more investment was needed, the minister said that 'schools are awash with money'. Clearly, what the Gonski review found was that it was not serving this country and our students well.

It is the federal government's business because we cannot improve learning and outcomes across the country with a piecemeal, often ill-informed and a state-by-state, sector-by-sector funding approach. The case of the students with disability highlights why we need a national approach. Definitions of the disabilities that attract extra support vary significantly across the different states and territories, and so does the average level of support which is delivered in those jurisdictions. There are ranges from $4,000 to $40,000 per student. The Gonski review highlighted this and the previous government acknowledged that further work needed to be done before this could be addressed nationally.

Labor funded the More Support for Students with Disabilities program to the tune of $100 million a year to make sure that those students who need the most assistance got the assistance that they needed, and to allow time for data collection and further collaboration with the states and school systems on disability funding to ensure that the final loading would give students the resources they needed with the planned implementation of the loading for 2015. Now, this bill confirms that this will not happen and we are rushing through an amendment to make up for the fact that the work has not been done.

The variations reflected across the states and between the sectors in the disability area are similarly reflected in other areas of resourcing. Victoria is a case in point. It has long used a needs-based funding model while other states did not, nor did the private sector. Victoria decentralised and enshrined school autonomy over 15 years ago while other states did not. The state-by-state difference is the reason we need a national approach to improve student outcomes in every school in this country. This government was left with not just the findings of the review but plans for implementation, and sector and state agreements in principle. The hard work had been done. The research supported the need and provided many of the answers, beginning with a model that focused on student need and provided the resources at the school level to minimise inequity and drive improvement.

The bill before us for debate today highlights this government's and this minister's lack of understanding. He should be embarrassed to bring this bill before us. If he understood the urgency on the ground, if he understood the link between education and endeavour, between a skilled community and an innovative future, and between equity and outcomes, he would be embarrassed. But I fear he does not understand these things.

In Victoria, indeed probably in most states, school improvement plans have been a feature for years. A positive outcome of the Gonski funding review was to ensure that school improvement plans were a feature in all schools. Schools take their role seriously and welcome the ability to show improvement—the schools I know in Victoria do. They love to show how additional funding has been utilised, to reflect and review current practice and to plan next steps. That is what a school improvement plan delivers. Putting off school improvements plans for another 12 months just stalls our progress.

This bill does not innovate; it seeks to delay the introduction of school improvement plans. What could more markedly demonstrate this government's lack of passion when it comes to school improvement? I cannot remember a time when we had a less interested education minister. Where are the major education speeches by this minister? Where do you see him seriously engaging with teachers, principals, parents, carers or indeed school children? When do you see him meeting with international experts or key education researchers? Where is his vision for the future of our students? I would accept a minister driving education change based on strong-held beliefs, based on quality research and deep discussion with the industry. However, I regard this tinkering at the edges approach as an insult to the educators and it must be a real disappointment to parents. Those I feel most for are the students.

The minister's record to date is poor. Indeed, as a former teacher I would probably mark him—unlike the Prime Minister—with an 'F' for fail. His report home would read, 'Must try harder and stop obstructing the class. We assume he is bright; he talks all the time!' Minister Pyne's record to date has been to cut the fifth and sixth year of the Gonski funding; to cut $80 million from schools and hospitals over the next decade in partnership with the Minister for Health; to lock school funding increases to CPI from 2018, meaning that instead of a 5.1 per cent increase per annum it will drop to 2.5 per cent; and he has reverted to throwing crumbs in program plans for schools to scurry after, rather than delivering the nationwide promise that was Gonski.

What I hear on the ground from my former education colleagues in Victoria paints a very depressing picture. When I ask principals about their budgets for next year I hear about a lack of transparency. I hear that there is no acknowledgement of an increase in funding, that there is no evidence of the loading based model that was supposed to be in place. Premier Nap   thine and Victorian Education Minister Dixon seem to be deliberately keeping schools in the dark. Funding allocations for next year are presented in an obscure and confusing way, making it very difficult for schools to determine if they are receiving the Gonski money as promised. TheAge reported on the weekend Minister Pyne saying that 'Commonwealth funding for the 2014 to 2017 funding period it is settled', while Victorian officials claim they cannot release details under FOl because 'they relate to ongoing negotiations between the Commonwealth and Victoria'. I worked in education for a long time. I have seen a lot of federal and state ministers for education come and go but I have never seen an education minister shy about spruiking funding. It is usually done with great fanfare and bold number headlines. That is not what is happening in Victoria with Minister Dixon.

In conclusion I will support this amendment bill because I would not see a student in this country go unsupported. I would conclude, however, with a final observation. This amendment bill is indicative of this minister's agenda to wind back the Gonski reforms, to prevent the equity-driven reform he inherited. This minister seeks to break the cross-sectoral consensus on a fairer and more effective way to fund schools—a consensus hard won and hard fought, unknown in this country, where all sectors are united behind improving our schools and the way to do that. He seeks to wind back the clock to the Howard years of dissent and argument. I offer, as a case in point, the latest review of the curriculum.

I say as a former teacher in this place that this obsession with politicians about the what of curriculum over the how is breathtaking. An article this week in The Conversation by Misty Adoniou is at pains to explain how teachers plan and how to tear the national curriculum apart, to put content on one side and then say that general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities should be cut because the curriculum is cluttered is a complete misunderstanding of the way classrooms operate and the way teachers, as professionals, pan for education. I recommend that those in this House read this work. We did not need a review of the national curriculum; we needed the national curriculum to be worked on in classrooms and to have professionals give feedback on it.

As a previous educator, this minister has disappointed me in that he seeks to perpetuate privilege and to undermine equity and improvement. I would in this place use this opportunity to call on those concerned with education, on those who work in any of the sectors across our country to resist the temptation to divide and fight over the crumbs being offered to us by this government and to continue to speak with one voice to continue to demand what was promised.

Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:21): There can be few more important topics for us to be debating in this great chamber than the quality of education and schools in this country. I welcome the opportunity and, while this bill addresses some relatively minor measures, it is an opportunity to review what has been achieved by the coalition over the last 12 months.

I want to acknowledge the previous speaker with her extensive experience presenting her point of view to the chamber, although I was a little disappointed: I would have liked a little more detail regarding her concerns around curriculum review. It would have been a good opportunity to elaborate on her skills and background in this chamber but, unfortunately, that was not the case. What I did manage to divine from her comments was that she did not support a review of the curriculum thinking that it wasn't required; a sense that it is really all about the how, not about the what—which I think most people would probably disagree with; and, finally, a very, very veiled criticism of the current education minister saying that he was in some way not devoted to the task—a comment that even some of his most virulent opponents would probably struggle to sustain.

Today's debate is about Indigenous boarding initiatives and making sure that schools, mostly non-government schools that take large numbers of Indigenous students, are appropriately compensated through the system; and, secondly, to look after the special schools and special assistance schools that, without these amendments today, are faced with a potential fall in their funding in 2015.

Those two relatively minor elements of the overall education picture open a door to examine how we are performing in Indigenous education in general. I made the observation two years ago with the ABS population data of indigeneity that we were in many cases failing to tease out two cohorts within Indigenous Australia's population: the first, the predominantly urban Indigenous Australians who are living surrounded in many cases by opportunity but are unable to access it and that represents about two-thirds of Australia's Indigenous population; and then the 100,000—or even more—Indigenous Australians living remotely. They have completely different outcomes. They follow a completely different life course, and it would be wrong for authorities, entities, departments and those of us in here to average the two and talk about improvements in Aboriginal outcomes. I can guarantee that is not the case in remote Australia. When we come forward today with legislation, our job is to ensure that it supports those remote families just as much as it does those who choose to live in the regions or cities.

Let us talk about some specifics: if you go and visit an East Arnhem community of 1,000 people today, you will find that fewer than five per cent of children finishing school go on to find a job—five per cent. If you visit an average Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, just 15 per cent of the community have a job. All of those jobs, bar none, are public sector jobs funded by the taxpayer. I have made this observation before: we have created a remote Australia utterly devoid of a private sector, and this is the only place in the world where that is the case. Through our systems we have created the virtual absence of a service economy, bar publicly funded services that are dropped onto or into communities—that is right: there is virtually no inter-Aboriginal service economy. There is no payment for services, so in a context of goods and services where there are no services all you can do with your money is purchase goods. That is at the heart of the dysfunction that we see when we visit: imported rubbish, food and a few other items that are trucked in are pretty much the only things one can spend money on. Until we have a more developed system of opportunity in communities, there will not be much connection through the education system to drive ambition and connectedness.

I thought Noel Pearson put it so well when he said: 'We have a future where we can walk in two worlds as Aboriginal Australians: the Aboriginal world and the mainstream.' In fact, when you think about it, Aboriginal Australians have a pre-eminent place, because they can walk in two worlds, unlike mainstream Australians who cannot. So there is the challenge: that young Aboriginal Australians can aspire to succeed in both worlds. The Pearson argument of course is that the best way to succeed in both of those worlds is to be literate, healthy with a functional family structure.

I would add to that: there is no need to be tied and anchored to land in order to love it. As long as you can be the custodian of that land for some part in your life journey, it involves leaving. This is the element of the Indigenous boarding school initiative. The realisation that, just like people all over the world who do not live in major tertiary centres, at some time you need to leave your small town to fill your life, gain an education, an experience, in order to return it to the community where you were born. That makes complete sense to the rest of the world but, no, no, no, here in remote Australia, mainstream Australia has decided that that is not what Aboriginal Australians want.

You need to talk to families. Of course they want to make sure that they are close to their loved ones. They want to be close to seniors in the final years of their lives, like everyone. They want to know that, if there are cultural obligations, they can get back to their communities. But, beyond that, they are just like everyone else in the world: loving of their family and looking for opportunity for their young ones. They are no different to anyone else, so let's work about creating the opportunities.

I have said one thing very clearly and for a very long time: the greatest human rights violation in this country is not sending your children to school. As long as we have roughly 50 per cent of Aboriginal Australians going to school, we have a massive problem. That is not to say that quality is not important, but a child not turning up to school is getting zero per cent quality.

We need to have those little kids sitting in seats in order to drive the political obligation to educate them well. Where those children do not go to school, you can understand a state or territory government saying, 'There're only 20 kids in that class, not 40. We'll only give them one teacher, not two,' and the funding is withdrawn because the children are not in the classroom. Attendance is everything, and I am delighted the coalition government is 100 per cent focused on that task.

When we look at education reform, we have acknowledged teacher quality, principal autonomy, parental engagement and the quality of the curriculum. I think the work by Kevin Donnelly and Ken Wiltshire in not ripping it up and starting again—no, looking at the curriculum that was an honest piece of work by the previous government—but simply saying: 'There can be some modest but significant changes to make it even better' was almost universally applauded by both sides of that ideological spectrum. They need to be congratulated and not talked down as they were by the previous speaker.

Donnelly and Wiltshire, thank you: you made the obvious observation that sustainability and Indigenous Australia are vital parts of our curriculum but it should not be automatically and mandatorily woven into everything we do. In some cases, Aboriginal history and sustainability are not relevant areas to that part of the curriculum. It belongs where it belongs and it should not be forced where it does not. It is such a commonsense recommendation and, among hundreds of pages of those great suggestions, virtually all of them have been generally agreed to by both sides of a very wide ideological spectrum—from the left and the intense views about collectivism right through to these who are insisting on individualism and a free market. Well done to both of those gentlemen, who achieved such a breathtaking outcome in the education space.

We have a minister who is fiercely engaged in education. I make the simple point that we will be measured for our time in this chamber today and this electoral term on how we go with Indigenous Australia. We will be harshly judged if, as occurred with the previous government, we leave the place pretty much unchanged from how we found it. That is what happened in Indigenous education over the last six years of the Labor government. Let me answer why that was the case. What we had, of course, was a fear of the remote. We had a real sense that most political power being centred in cities was where most of the Labor attention was focused. It was very hard to get Labor focus out to remote areas and remote education. The evidence I put to you is the attendance rate at school, which flatlined. There was no change in six years. I can guarantee you one thing: that will not be the case under a coalition government. You will see an increase in school attendance—because, as long as kids are not at school, they lose that connectedness to the real economy.

Those two key areas at either end of your school experience—the zero to five-year issue of getting kids ready, capable, fed, dressed and able to emotionally self-regulate and sit in a classroom—are, as we all know, vital. Just two or three children can tear a class apart. Imagine having the entire class of children who have auditory inability to even hear a teacher. The solution is not loops, implants and large speakers; the solution is to eliminate the ear disease. Once those kids can sit and enjoy a class, then we have the luxury of talking about quality and the luxury of talking about what will engage kids and keep them coming to school.

The third element of the coalition's approach is to engage parents. My argument is a simple one: if you are a principal of a school, public or private, you are the CEO, but you have a board of directors—and it is not your private school directors; it is your parents. They are the ones you are answering to. Let's see parents directly engaged, cheek and jowl, in Indigenous communities and having a say about what is taught in the curriculum. Over the last 10 years we have swung too far—expunging Indigenous language from the curriculum. That was the wrong thing to do. We simply looked at the literacy outcome, saw that it was poor in Indigenous communities and said, 'It must be the teaching of Indigenous language that is making the English bad.' That was a short-sighted decision. It is rubbish. Educators know that a child can learn two languages at the same time. A child can speak a language at home and be taught another one at school with no problem. They just have to be fit, healthy, motivated and actually turning up every day.

So let's go from attendance—and this Indigenous boarding initiative is one element of that—from just turning up, to turning up every day, starting at breakfast, being well fed, and staying all day and not vanishing after the roll gets called. Let's make sure they go all day, every week, all year and make sure there is an appropriate celebration for that achievement. Finally, when that time comes and school can offer those children no more—and, let's be honest; that is at different ages according to the individual—it is the government's responsibility to connect every one of those individuals with opportunity. We can talk a lot in here, but the one thing we are ultimately responsible for is provision of opportunity. I am not here to guarantee any sort of outcome or output, other than fundamentally give every individual the opportunity they deserve in a great nation—and we can do that.

At the moment it is absolutely limited in Indigenous Australia—where, as I said, 95 per cent of children know that there is nothing after graduation. Well, why go to school at all? We have a situation where we have not even audited the job opportunities within a community to work out what local Indigenous people can do. We have not even set up the complex arrangements to allow people from Indigenous communities to travel in a fly in, fly out arrangement to our regional centres and cities. That does not even exist yet. It works in the mining communities but it is yet to be adopted in this case.

So, ultimately, these boarding initiatives are the future. They are the segue between a complete education—or as complete as you can get in a remote community, where often you only get newly graduated teachers with limited experience—and being shipped out and completely expropriating the responsibility for education to an expensive boarding school down the road. In the middle there are a range of initiatives that are exciting. We have the opportunity to partner up schools, to have classes travel down, for instance, to a major city and reciprocation—acknowledging that, as a young mainstream Australian child, you can learn a whole heap by going to an Indigenous community. These arrangements can be achieved, but we have to think way more creatively about how we promote and support education in remote areas.

Why have I devoted 95 per cent of my conversation to this? It is because that is the ultimate test of our system. It is how it looks after the most disadvantaged. In this bill we are looking after the special schools and special assistance schools and making sure that they do not go backwards. But the boarding initiative is also extremely promising. But I know one thing: you cannot pick out one or two Indigenous children, dress them up in a fancy private school uniform and say you have succeeded, because you have got another 98 children left behind there with nothing. Those two people lifted out of poverty may well have a career in the arts, in sports or in academia, but there is nothing left behind for the other 98. And I do have my doubts that a successful Indigenous Australian coming back to the community is going to transform that community. I do not think that is the case. I think we have to look at the denominator and lift everyone in the tide of opportunity and not rely on the stars coming back to tell people that there is a better life out there—a life that seems absolutely untouchable and unreachable. So, please, I do not want to see too much focus on the stars. We need to have a complete focus on whole classrooms of children.

In finishing, there is no point educating without opportunity at the end. There is no point educating without parental support. That will involve engaging parents who have no faith in the education system. But I rely on the expertise of teachers and attendance officers to bring those parents along at some point in that school year to sit and listen to their children read for the first time and see the trickle of a tear go down their face as they see their young kids achieving something that they never in their own life managed to. It is that transforming moment that can happen in the arms of an Indigenous teacher. That is why it is so truly special to practise in remote Australia. We can do it one by one with the children. Some of them will be travelling to boarding schools; others will choose other pathways. But the quality of the education in that community will rely, firstly, on attendance; secondly, on motivated teachers; thirdly, on autonomy for those principals; and, finally, on quality curricula—something that the coalition is delivering.

Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:36): I too rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. When it comes to education, this government has in fact quite a disgraceful record at all levels of education. At the moment we are seeing some of the higher-education cuts and an increase in fees to go to university. We also see those cuts extended through to primary schools, secondary schools and even right through to child care as well. We are seeing massive cuts right across the board when it comes to education, and we are especially seeing many broken promises.

Let us remember the only reason that we are all here today debating this particular bill is another broken promise by this government to the Australian people, this time specifically on education. The fact is that the Abbott government reneged on their commitment to honour the Gonski funding agreements, and at the same time they introduced the biggest-ever cuts to our schools. We know that before the election they were all running around saying, 'We are all on a unity ticket when it comes to Gonski.' We had all the candidates running around saying that. I know that in my area in Richmond on the north coast of New South Wales all the National Party candidates, some of whom are now National Party members, were all running around the place saying, 'Yes, we are on a unity ticket. We will be funding it.' That, of course, turned out to be completely untrue. Not only has all the additional funding for the vital fifth and sixth years of Gonski reforms been cut but also $30 billion has been stripped from our schools over the next decade. This is the same as sacking one in seven teachers, and will mean an average of $3.2 million less per school, or $1,000 less support per student per year.

Cuts like that will be devastating, particularly to regional and rural areas like my electorate in terms of those massive cuts, and it will really impact the educational opportunities for our children into the future. The fact is that if the government had simply kept their promise of this unity ticket on Gonski there would be no need for this debate, and the benefits would already be flowing. They would already be in place. Let us have a look at it. Before the federal election the government promised full disability loading for education funding in 2015. Now that they have reneged on their promise to the Australian people we need to consider amendments relating to funding for independent special schools. That is why we are here. The fact is that this government shows no concern about equality in education or the future of our children, and it has been confirmed by their lack of funding commitments and their complete lack of creating an effective, sustainable, long-term education system. In fact, the coalition's policy when it comes to schools and education has been all over the place since the Gonski report was released, leaving the public with very little confidence in their ability to deliver when it comes to any educational reforms. Certainly the community has shown a lot of distrust and concern about the whole range of their cuts.

Compare all of that to Labor's massive commitments to education when we were in government—not just in terms of Gonski, but also our Building the Education Revolution and what that meant for our schools. I know that in my electorate there was over $100 million for 90 schools—it really transformed the infrastructure for our schools and made a big difference. I truly stand with my community in supporting the Gonski reforms, as this really was the mechanism for greater accountability and transparency in the delivery of funding for our schools. Indeed, many parents tell me how important they felt it was, and it really was an absolute game changer when it came to education funding. In fact, the Gonski reforms got it right when it came to students, particularly with disability students from Indigenous backgrounds or from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

We had commissioned this review into school funding, led by David Gonski, when we were in government, and in preparing the Gonski report there were more than 7,000 submissions received, over 39 schools were visited and 71 key education groups across Australia were consulted. It was the biggest review this country has had into education funding in over 40 years, and it was the most extensive. The review identified the problems facing the education sector and the issues that many schools face, particularly with growing inequality, falling results, increasing numbers of lower-performing students and, concerningly, decreasing numbers of some high-performing students. The report was thoroughly researched, and it was backed by very extensive and involved transparent evidence. When the Gonski panel handed down their independent report, which really was a fantastic opportunity to genuinely reform our schools, it not only outlined the problems and challenges but also identified many of the solutions that could be put in place. Those solutions just cannot be thrown aside because this government does not believe in proper funding for our education system. They need to be looking at it closely to see how they can really reform our education system, and it is very disappointing that we are now here today because they have not properly funded our schools.

This bill has four main components. The first main component is providing support for Indigenous students in boarding schools. This is welcomed, as it is entirely consistent with Labor policies in providing greater support for our Indigenous students. Labor strongly believes in the need to close the gap for Indigenous students, and understands that this is specifically connected with the raising of educational outcomes. Unlike when the other side were in opposition, we are not going to oppose worthy legislation just for the sake of political grandstanding, as they do. We have demonstrated that we are a fair and constructive opposition examining government plans on merit and putting the needs of Australians first and, in this case, putting the needs of Australian students first. We have widely acknowledged, here today, on this side that this debate has been brought on unnecessarily because of the broken promises made by the Liberal-National government but that we will be supporting this measure so as to maintain the funding for education. We recognise how important it is. The initiative also creates the instrument for the minister to make necessary payments prescribed by regulation and allows the payment of $6.8 million in 2014-15 to non-government boarding schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarders or more than 50 per cent of boarders who are Indigenous.

The second main component of this bill is to enable continued funding for independent special schools—another catch-up measure that would not have been needed if they had not broken their election promise on Gonski. Because the government has not finalised the loading for students with disability or provided the additional funding it promised from 2015, this bill has had to be introduced. Essentially, this bill will apply a bandaid to a problem of the government's own making by allowing changes to the funding-transition rules for independent special schools. Under this bill their funding will now be indexed by at least three per cent a year. Approximately 38 independent special schools will no longer face prospects of significant funding cuts under the Act in 2015. Again, this all could have been avoided if they had honoured their election commitments. If we look to some of those election commitments, and we look particularly to one made by the now-education minister, who said before the election, and I will quote him:

If elected to government the coalition will continue the data collection work that has commenced, which will be used to deliver more funding for people with disability through the disability loading in 2015.

That was said on 23 August 2013 by the now-education minister. This pre-election commitment has been totally broken by the government failing to extend the $100 million per year More Support for Students with Disability transition funding in the budget, and with the minister now claiming that additional funding for students with a disability was not promised and that the disability loading would be funded from within the existing funding envelopes. We see yet another broken promise.

The third main component of this bill is to delay the implementation of the school-improvement plans by one year to January 2016. In fact, the school improvement plans were developed by the independent Australian Council for Educational Research. They were supported by the states and had enjoyed bipartisan political support. The school improvement plans are not particularly onerous. They were designed to make sure that the money for resources for the students who need it the most is delivered and that the extra Gonski investment Labor made in our schools actually makes a difference in classrooms. This bill is to facilitate further changes to school improvement plan requirements in 2015 as a consequence of the minister's review of the command and control requirements of the school funding system.

At a school level, the school improvement plans ensure there is accountability for the additional Gonski investment and that reforms to teaching and learning are in fact being implemented. Schools already make improvement plans and track their progress. The vast majority of schools will have to do absolutely nothing more in order to satisfy these requirements. So the government has been caught out yet again, with absolutely no idea when it comes to schools and no idea as to the educational needs of our children to ensure their futures. In fact, in most states and territories and, indeed, in the Catholic system plans that satisfy the requirements of the act are already in place and functioning well.

We need an appropriate level of reporting to make sure that these reforms do what they are supposed to do—help every child in every school to improve their results. However, the changes foreshadowed as a result of the government's command and control review are likely to significantly weaken accountability under the Gonski reforms. That is indeed disappointing. Such changes would require further amendments to the act and/or regulations. A year after the government broke its promise about the Gonski agreements we are here trying to fix its mistakes. It is unfortunate but that is the reality we face here today.

The fourth main component of this bill is to address a number of errors and omissions through some amendments to cater for transitionary provisions. The government talks about the need to ensure certainty and to make sure that transitional recurrent funding can continue, but the changes that this bill seeks to introduce to the act to supposedly deal with errors and omissions would not have been needed if it had simply kept its word and honoured its commitments to the Australian people. Yes, I am repeating that but that is because it really goes to the heart of why we are all here today. They are absolutely playing catch-up when it comes to education and the vital importance of education for our younger people.

The government should be keeping their promise to honour the Gonski agreements and work to improve schools. That is what our communities want. It is what my community is always telling me. It is what parents are saying as well. They have particularly grave concerns when it comes to this government's lack of investment in education throughout all the years of their children's schooling. Lately they are particularly concerned about higher education funding. Many people in rural and regional areas like mine now say that university is not an option for their children because of the proposed deregulation of university fees. It is hard enough for kids from the country to access higher education, but with the deregulation of fees many have told me it will be off their radar as it will not be possible for their kids to get to school.

They are angry and disappointed that that is on the agenda. They are also upset that there are funding cuts as well. That is what we have seen from this government. We have seen cuts to the vital additional funding for the fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms. We have seen the $80 billion of cuts, which we refer to a lot, from schools and hospitals over the next decade. It will be absolutely appalling for the services that are required. Let us look at the cuts to future school funding through fixing the indexation rate to the lower rate of the CPI. As we know, the budget papers are predicting the CPI to be at just 2.5 per cent, whereas the current ABS education price index currently is at 5.1 per cent. So we know there will be a cut.

Before the election the government was running around promising that there would be no nasty surprises—you will not see any cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions and no changes. People now feel very betrayed. They feel they have been misled by the government across a whole range of issues. Before the election we did not have any government members telling anyone the truth about what they were in fact proposing. There was no mention of the GP tax, which is devastating for areas like mine, particularly for many elderly people and many families that are struggling. There was no mention of hurting families and pensioners with their proposed petrol tax. There was no mention of any cuts to the age pension as well, which will also be devastating in areas like mine.

When it comes to education, families are very concerned about what the future will hold for their children in accessing all levels of education. In New South Wales we also have the state government cutting education and TAFE funding, making it doubly hard. We are seeing Liberal-National governments at both the state and federal levels making it incredibly difficult for people from rural and regional areas, who do feel those cuts a lot more harshly. They are very concerned and angry that what they have here is a government of broken promises that cannot be trusted. They do compare it to when we were in government and we invested so much in education. We had detailed and complex plans through the Gonski report and flowing from that to make sure that those people who are vulnerable and disadvantaged are able to access decent and fair education systems. We know all reports say that education is the great equaliser and provides great opportunity for people to excel. We know how important that is.

In regional areas like mine we saw firsthand how important that investment was. As I said earlier, there was more than $100 million through the Building the Education Revolution invested in nearly 90 schools. Many of those schools had been neglected for many years so to have that level of investment has been absolutely astounding in terms of the infrastructure improvements. That massive level of investment, combined with our plans through Gonski, meant that those people from disadvantaged backgrounds were going to be able to get access to very good education systems.

As I said, people are devastated that this government essentially misled them by saying that they were on a unity ticket. I recall at many forums during the election campaign the National Party candidate telling people that. I can tell you that people are pretty angry about that. They are angry about the Nationals for a whole range of reasons, including all their broken promises. I think education is one of the top ones up with the GP tax, the petrol tax and the cuts to pensions as well. As I have said many times in this place, you cannot trust the National Party. When it comes to the cuts to education you can certainly see in areas like mine on the north coast of New South Wales that the Nationals cannot be trusted. Their policies and plans are hurting the people of the north coast of New South Wales. They will certainly be punished for that, because people are very much aware of the very cruel and harsh nature of this budget and what the National Party's actions have done to people living in areas like my electorate of Richmond.

Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (16:52): I am pleased to speak in support of this bill which in effect addresses a number of errors and omissions in the original bill when it was rushed through parliament by the previous government. This bill also provides the mechanisms for the government to deliver the Indigenous Boarding Initiative, which was announced in the budget. I intend to speak at length on Indigenous education later in this speech because it is by far the most important tool we have when it comes to addressing the disadvantage that has existed for far too long.

The bill ensures that the government delivers on our election commitment that schools would certainly not be worse off under our government, by ensuring continued transition arrangements for special schools and special assistance schools. In effect, this bill prevents cuts of approximately $2.4 million in 2014-15 that would have occurred under the legislation to certain independent special schools and special assistance schools. I point out that our government has been very serious about our commitment to improving education outcomes and delivering on our absolute commitment to education funding, despite the budgetary challenges we inherited from the previous government.

I think it is worth mentioning that just last month we found out the true extent of Labor's economic mismanagement. Having previously promised a surplus, in his last budget Wayne Swan admitted a budget deficit of $18 billion. That would have been bad enough, but now, with the final budget outcome for 2013-14, we know that it in fact ended up being a $48.5 billion deficit—a deterioration in excess of $30 billion. That is the real figure, not the fiction that was promised every budget night. In fact, Labor never got it right; every single budget estimate turned out to be so much worse.

The final budget outcome confirms that Labor delivered six successive deficits, totalling $240 billion with many more to come. So I think it is a bit rich that, no matter what the legislation—and we have seen it again today—we always witness a conga line of Labor MPs talking about funding cuts and decrying the fact that we are not spending more money on X, Y or Z. The fact is we do not have money to splash around. Thanks to Labor, we have a huge debt to pay back—and it is costing us more than $1 billion every month to service that debt. Just imagine what we could have done with that money had Labor not been so reckless. So members opposite ought to be honest enough to admit that the reason we have considerable constraints on government spending is because of their own inept economic management. The reality is that we have to prioritise—and we have a responsibility to ensure value for money, but we will always make sure that our approach is fair. That is exactly what our government is doing with the Students First education policy.

I want to report to the House that I have had very positive feedback on the recent review of the national curriculum. The curriculum is one example of how we can improve education outcomes without necessarily having to spend a lot more money. The feedback I have had from local parents—and I did a series of listening posts in my electorate late last week—is that the issues identified in the review are concerns that parents share: overcrowding of the curriculum and not enough focus on getting the basics right. So I think identifying those issues is a step in the right direction. Just as this bill is an important step in the right direction.

We want to make sure that special schools which provide support for students with a disability have the resources they need, and we want to ensure that our Indigenous students have the best possible opportunity, including when they attend boarding schools. Again, when it comes to Indigenous education, this government has already shown how serious we are about improving outcomes.

Part of the problem with the delivery of a range of Indigenous programs has been the complex layers of bureaucracy. The Australian National Audit Office reported that in 2011 there were 210 Indigenous-specific Australian government programs and subprograms included in its Closing the Gap activities, administered by more than 40 agencies, across 17 separate portfolios, with the best estimate of expenditure totalling $4.2 billion in 2011-12.

As promised, our government has delivered a new Indigenous Advancement Strategy, IAS, which began on 1 July 2014. Most Australians are probably unaware that under the IAS more than 150 individual programs and activities have been replaced with five flexible, broad-based programs based on the policy areas of: jobs, land and economy; children and schooling; safety and wellbeing; culture and capability; and remote Australia strategies. The objectives of the IAS reflect our strong belief that education is the key to truly closing the gap and improving the lives of Indigenous Australians.

The particular focus of the new strategy is: getting Indigenous Australians into work, fostering Indigenous business and ensuring Indigenous people receive economic and social benefits from the effective management of their land and native title rights; ensuring children go to school, improving literacy and numeracy and supporting families to give children a good start in life; increasing year 12 attainment and pathways to further training and education; making communities safer so that Indigenous people enjoy similar levels of physical, emotional and social wellbeing as that enjoyed by other Australians; increasing participation and acceptance of Indigenous Australians in the economic and social life of the nation; and addressing the disproportionate disadvantage in remote Australia. The new flexible program structure supports a new way of working with Indigenous people, communities, industries, business and service providers, allowing for joint development of solutions that will work over the long term, including through regional or local solutions.

I note that an open grant funding round of the IAS opened on 8 September, and applications closed last week. This new approach provides a simplified framework for government funding of programs that genuinely assist Indigenous Australians. But I note, especially in the area of education, there is also much that can be achieved with community and business support.

I wanted to make mention of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation which is a private-enterprise-led organisation that does tremendous work. It is chaired by Warren Mundine and offers scholarships to schools as well as tertiary education. I also note that earlier this month BHP Billiton, which is already a major partner of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation, announced it was providing $28.8 million to the CSIRO to establish a new education program to support Indigenous students in science, technology, engineering and maths.

As chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Science, and having a degree in engineering, encouraging people into these disciplines is a subject very dear to my heart and on which I have spoken many times in this place. I think it is tremendous that this special five-year program, designed by the CSIRO and building on already successful Indigenous education programs, will encourage more Indigenous Australians to study in these fields and improve their career opportunities. I congratulate BHP Billiton and the CSIRO on their commitment to this new program.

It is clear there is so much good will and determination from within all levels of government, community and in business to help improve educational opportunities for our Indigenous students, and that is to be commended. In the years to come, we need to remain vigilant, to ensure that the good will and the funding provides real, sustainable outcomes which can be reflected in the Closing the Gap report, that has become an annual report card to the nation on Indigenous disadvantage.

The Indigenous Boarding Initiative, which was announced in the budget and is facilitated by this bill, is another $6.8 million investment that aims to meet an identified resourcing shortfall for those boarding schools with large numbers of students from remote areas. In 2013 a joint review was undertaken to analyse the costs borne by non-government boarding schools with substantial numbers of Indigenous students from remote communities. The review's report was the basis for our decision to allocate around $6.8 million in 2015 as an interim measure while a broader review is conducted. So this bill is very much a practical measure to address identified problems, and in that sense it reflects the common sense approach of our government.

We could debate all day the shortcomings of successive governments when it comes to Indigenous education. There have been failings all round despite a plethora of good intentions. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his Closing the Gap address earlier this year, last year in metropolitan areas, only 81 per cent of Indigenous year 9 students met the national minimum standards for reading. In very remote areas, just 31 per cent of Indigenous students reached the same minimum standard. As the Prime Minister pointed out, one of the worst forms of neglect is failing to give children the education they need for a decent life.

Our job, particularly in relation to remote Indigenous communities, is to break the tyranny of low expectations. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister indicated that Indigenous school attendance data will be part of the next Closing the Gap report and all subsequent reports under this government. Studies clearly show that the lower the attendance rate, the more likely it is that a school will have problems. That is why truancy laws exist. But we have not applied the same principles and expectations to Indigenous children and that is why there remains a significant gap between education outcomes.

But there are some very positive examples of how change can be implemented and produce outstanding results. The Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy has overseen a high-expectation education approach in a number of communities. Primary school attendance has radically improved as a result. In 2008, the school attendance rate in Aurukun was 36 per cent; now it is 73 per cent.

We have to keep striving and implementing policies that work, and we have to ensure that the expectations that we hold for the wider Australian community are also applicable to Indigenous communities. This bill, in ensuring funding to facilitate and support those students attending boarding schools, is just one example of how this government is working to close the gap. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (17:03): I rise today to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. Labor believes that every school can and should be offered the opportunity to support and to nurture their students to the best of its ability. Schools have a right and an obligation to offer the highest standard of education and support, just as students have the right to expect a quality education, tailored to meet their needs, attributes and abilities.

It sounds too good to be true, but believe it or not, such a program was underway and becoming a reality under the previous Labor government. The needs based school funding model, known as the Gonski model, provided this support and care to our schools and students by allocating funding and resources where they were most needed.

Before the last election the current government promised that they were on a unity ticket with Labor on a needs based funding model but, unfortunately, they have since broken this promise to the Australian people and have refused to fund years 5 and 6 of the program. Not only have they breached the trust of the Australian community but they have also breached the signed agreements with the states and territories. They signed a six-year agreement, not a four-year agreement with the federal Labor government.

One can imagine that Labor Party members and Labor Party governments would be upset with this broken promise but, indeed, we do not have to look too far to see that it is Liberal state governments who are also very upset about this broken promise. When it comes to school funding, we have seen Premier Napthine still demanding answers from the Abbott government regarding its decision to scrap years 5 and 6 of the Gonski model. And Minister Piccoli from New South Wales has been on the record on many occasions, raising the issue of the Abbott government abandoning the Gonski model and the funding that goes with it.

So if the government acted as the adults they profess to be and if they said what they meant and did what they said, then we would not necessarily be in a situation where schools are facing uncertainty into the future, state governments are facing uncertainty into the future and—what is worse—students in areas that need resources the most are potentially going to miss out.

And if the government had kept their promise to deliver the full disability loading in 2015, we would not need to debate amendments relating to funding for independent special schools. We have heard nothing from the government about their progress in the rollout of the full disability loading. We have not heard a new time frame or a schedule; all we know is that it seems the disability loading will not be on schedule or on time. Indeed, there does not seem to be replacement money. While Labor was in government, we put funding in for that gap for students with a disability. Not only have the government broken their promise to rule out the full disability loading by 2015 but they are offering no extra support for schools in state systems or indeed for independent and Catholic systems to actually assist those students with a disability.

The government had a coherent schools policy and if they cared about classroom outcomes I would not need to stand here and fight for students with a disability or defend Labor's Gonski reforms and argue for greater transparency and responsibility in school funding. All in all, when it comes to real reform within our schools, better support for students with a disability and better support for those students that need the extra support, this government has no record to defend except a litany of broken promises.

The bill in front of us today enables the minister to make payments to schools for reasons outlined in regulation. The government have already announced that they will facilitate the payment of around $6.8 million in support to boarding schools in 2014-15. This will assist schools with more than 50 Indigenous boarders from remote communities or where more than 50 per cent of boarders are Indigenous and come from remote communities. Labor supports this and supports any reasonable measure that closes the gap in school education. But supporting boarding schools cannot be used as an argument to leave other schools in rural and regional communities behind.

Every child in every school must have the resources they need to enable them to do their best, not for four years but ongoing. This is what the Gonski school funding model is all about. It absolutely applies to schools in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities throughout Australia and, indeed, all rural and regional communities throughout Australia.

It is disappointing to see the Nationals when it comes to the Gonski funding model, again roll over and accept a bad deal for rural and regional students. Because we know that under the Gonski funding, there would be loadings to help rural and regional schools, to help schools in lower socioeconomic areas, to help those with higher enrolments of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's, and to help those students with a disability. What we have seen is this government walk away from that. A key priority for the government—and what you would expect—is: regardless of where our students live and whatever school they attend, they can get a world-class education.

Closing the gap in educational attainment of Indigenous Australians requires a lot of effort. Really, we need to see resources go to every single school right across this country. Labor is fundamentally committed to this goal. Boarding schools are part of the solution for students in communities who want to use them. Boarding does play an important role in helping our predominantly high school Indigenous students access subject choice and opportunity that otherwise might be unavailable. Support for Indigenous students attending boarding schools is consistent with Labor's policies in government and we therefore support it. But we call on the government to reinstate years 5 and 6, as I already mentioned, of the Gonski school funding that would give extra funding to schools that need it, particularly in rural and regional areas, and would attract all those different loadings to support students with the resources they need.

Before the last election, the government promised to implement Labor's Gonski school funding reforms, including the loading for students with a disability in 2015. Instead, the government have cut support for students with disability and are delaying changes that would make sure every student with a disability gets the support they need to achieve their best. Days before the election, the now Minister for Education promised:

If elected to government the coalition will continue the data collection work that has commenced, which will be used to deliver more funding for people with disability through the 'disability loading' in 2015.

Since the election, however, students with a disability together with their parents and carers have been somewhat ignored by this minister and by this government.

In the Treasurer's budget, the government cut $100 million from the More Support for Students with Disabilities program and has since failed to replace it with the promised additional funds. Stakeholders are now also reporting the government has dropped the ball when it comes to the finalisation of the full Gonski loading. Consultation is thin on the ground and when it does occur, it seems to be rushed, sloppy and secretive. Because of this, the government will not deliver the promised additional funding together with the full Gonski loading for students with a disability by the beginning of next year. We will not see the $100 million in support of More Support for Students with Disabilities from 2015.

The Australian Education Amendment Bill seeks to change the funding transition guidelines for independent special schools so their funding is indexed by at least three per cent a year—coincidentally the same level of guaranteed indexation under Labor's Gonski reforms. Yet again we see before us another change that would otherwise be irrelevant if the government implemented the full disability loading for 2015 as promised.

Under the Gonski reforms there were six additional loadings, including for: small schools; remote schools; Indigenous students; students with low English; students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and students with disability. Each of these loadings, with the exception of students with a disability, were fully defined when the Australian Education Act was introduced.

The full implementation of the loading for students with a disability was scheduled for 2015. This was to allow time for data collection, along with further work with the states and schools to ensure the final disability loading would give students the adequate resources they need to achieve their best. Current definitions of disabilities that attract extra support vary significantly between jurisdictions. The ongoing collection of data is designed to create a streamlined and uniform system across Australia, where the same or similar disability in different states is treated with parity.

In the interim, Labor had funded $100 million per year for the More Support for Students with Disabilities program, ensuring those students would have access to assistance they required while the state, territories and the Commonwealth worked to finalise the full Gonski disability loading in 2015.

This matter does need attention by government to ensure that we see the rollout is properly done, that the data is collected, that consultation has occurred, and that this work is done thoroughly and not ignored and put to the side. We support the funding of independent special schools next year but we reject the government's broken promises that they cannot deliver a loading for students with a disability. I urge the minister not to put this on the backburner. Do not put this to the side as you have done for the last year. Put it back on the agenda and give some attention to it rather than adopting a piecemeal approach that does not reflect commitment and drive. That is what this matter needs and I urge the minister to do so.

Another key component of this bill will delay the implementation of school improvement plans by one year to January 2016. We know that the government likes to advertise that this is all about tackling bureaucracy, but in reality it about the watering down of accountability and transparency in our schools. We have all heard in this place the Minister for Education tell us how money alone will not improve our schools, but what we are now seeing from this government is a sneaky move which will not improve student results. It was the school improvement plans that worked with schools on how to improve results and how to spend the money to improve results. With this delay the government are taking the education sector down a path of hands-off and a no-strings-attached approach to school funding. Quite frankly, this is a backwards step and, despite what the government will argue, these plans are really important. They are really important to parents. I do not know if the minister has spoken to a parent any time recently but parents are saying that they want to know what the plans are for their schools. They want to know where the school is being taken. They do not want someone in Canberra to overly manage them. We know that school communities can manage themselves but parents want to know what the plan is for the future and how their school is going to get better. These were a very important part of a nationally consistent approach. It seems, once again, that the government are walking away.

The school improvement plans are making sure that money invested in our schools by the federal government actually reaches the classrooms and improves results, a critically important thing. One would think that a minister who professes to care about education would want that. The evidence that sits behind these plans has been independently developed and enforced by all states and territories, both Liberal and Labor, and by the Australian Council for Educational Research. We need an appropriate level of funding to ensure these reforms do what they are designed to do, to help every child in every school improve their results and performance. I am very pleased to say that the vast majority of schools are already making improvement plans to track their progress. Most schools will not have to do anything in order to satisfy these requirements. Once again, it seems illogical but it seems as though it is the federal government that is not interested in ensuring that we have every school performing well. It is very disappointing.

In conclusion, there are elements of this bill that Labor does support, but we certainly will not be sitting back and taking these cuts in years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms. We will hold the government to account.

Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:19): I rise today to speak in support of a bill that has a national focus but which brings extremely positive benefits in Northern Australia and particularly across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.

The Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014 is a much-needed piece of legislation that boarding schools in the Territory and nationally, which house Indigenous students, have been waiting for. It signals changes to the Australian Education Act 2013, on which I have been working closely with my friend and colleague, the education minister, Christopher Pyne, to have introduced. It is with great pleasure and a measure of pride that I am able to speak to these amendments today.

The amendments have a number of provisions, but it is the one that relates to Indigenous boarding schools which I am particularly interested in and which will be the focus of my comments here today. During the time they spent together in the Northern Territory's East Arnhem region last month, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs put special emphasis on improving educational outcomes for Aboriginal people, particularly across Northern Australia. One of the key focuses was on school attendance, which varies between one community and another but in some cases can be as low as 30 per cent. My Northern Territory Country Liberal Party colleague Senator Scullion has been doing some great work in that space around trying to cut truancy numbers in communities, but this legislation is part of a suite of measures to improve Indigenous education outcomes.

Around Australia, boarding colleges provide accommodation for Indigenous students who, in many cases, travel hundreds and hundreds of kilometres from remote communities to continue their education. In the Northern Territory thousands of Indigenous students have attended boarding schools over many years and have been the recipients of a learning stream that would not have been available to them in their communities. In my electorate of Solomon, which encompasses Darwin and Palmerston, we are fortunate to have Kormilda College, Marrara Christian School, Northern Territory Christian College and St John's Catholic College. These outstanding institutions have been providing vital learning and accommodation services for Indigenous students for many years. These services are not limited to my electorate. Other educational institutions providing these vital services across the Territory include St Philip's College, Tiwi College, Woolaning Homeland Christian College and Yirara College in Alice Springs. Some of these institutions have been financially impacted by the former Labor government's policies. One Labor minister after another came to the Territory and promised to fix their wrong. But they never did. It is this government, the Abbott government, that is yet again fixing the mistakes of the former Labor government.

By way of background, the Australian Education Act 2013 is the principal legislation by which the Australian government provides financial assistance to approved authorities for government and non-government schools. The act was a product of the previous Labor government but only took effect from January this year. Under its requirements, state and territory governments distribute funds to approved authorities to public, private and independent schools, in line with the requirements of the act. This year alone, around $14 billion will be paid to government and non-government schools under the Australian Education Act, and the Commonwealth is investing a record $64.5 billion in schools over the next four years.

The amendments being discussed here today will create a mechanism that enables payments to be made under the government's newly established Indigenous Boarding Initiative, which is required to provide additional recurrent funding in 2014 to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students at non-government schools. The Indigenous Boarding Initiative was announced in this year's budget to rectify a shortfall in funding that had been identified in an independent review. Under the amendments before the House today, more funding is available to schools if they have more than 50 Indigenous boarding students from remote or very remote Australia or more than 50 per cent of their boarders are Indigenous and from remote or very remote Australia.

The Indigenous Boarding Initiative will provide around $6.8 million in additional funding in 2014 to non-government schools that meet the criteria to provide boarding students with the essential services and support they need to achieve a high-quality education. This initiative recognises the cost pressures faced by schools that support Indigenous students from remote areas and will address a resourcing shortfall. When I was in opposition a number of Territory schools with a large number of Indigenous boarders contacted me to outline their concerns. In particular, they were concerned that what was currently being provided was not enough and that additional funding would be required to enable them to meet the costs of providing boarding and tuition to cater for the additional needs of these students.

Former Labor ministers Garrett and Crean, and other former Labor ministers such as my fellow Territorian the member for Lingiari, promised to fix this funding issue. But that never came about. This issue stems back to the 2010 election—before I was elected. Labor were big on promises and slack on delivery back then, and this is a classic example. It has been left to this government to deliver on this very important issue—and I thank Minister Pyne for listening and for making sure that occurs. I want to thank in particular the principals and school councils of Kormilda College and St John's College, who worked with me to put the case forward to Minister Pyne. I know that, when he visited the various schools across the Territory, he was able to see firsthand the implications of not fixing this issue.

I brought to the attention of the House in May last year that Kormilda College, which has around 220 students from outback communities across the Territory, was considering cutting its Indigenous programs if the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government did not attend to serious shortfalls in funding. Labor, loves to claim—falsely—that it is the champion of the disadvantaged and of Indigenous Australians, but the school was running at a shortfall of $500,000 as a result of the previous Labor government's funding cuts. This prompted the then principal of Kormilda College to state: 'We're in financial difficulties based on the change in funding that is taking place'.

In developing the Indigenous Boarding Initiative, the Abbott government also considered the findings of an independent review that identified significant additional costs faced by non-government schools with a large number of Indigenous boarding students. In response, and as I have already mentioned, the Abbott government provided an estimated additional $6.8 million in the 2014-15 budget for the Indigenous Boarding Initiative. This will support eligible schools; and a broader welfare review, including a review of Abstudy, will be conducted.

This extra funding has turned a serious fail into a very strong pass for boarding schools and Indigenous students, particularly those in the Northern Territory. The eight schools I mentioned earlier are among 21 eligible non-government boarding schools in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. The extra funding will allow eligible schools to provide improved services to Indigenous boarding students from remote or very remote areas and provide effective additional support to boost school attendance and engagement.

It is remarkable to me that the previous Labor government was so uninterested in issues associated with remote education that they allowed such a funding shortfall to have such an impact on Indigenous students and boarding schools across the country. The member for Jagajaga, the member for Adelaide and the member for Lingiari all cannot wait to jump up on their soapboxes and spread misinformation about coalition policies, but at the same time they were quite prepared to leave Indigenous boarding schools and Indigenous students high and dry. It is absolutely outrageous. It was a pretty sorry effort by the Labor government, and it took the coalition government, with its determination to bring lasting benefits in all areas of Indigenous development, including education, to fix up this mess.

On the subject of the Labor Party and the misinformation it is spreading out in the community, I want to take this opportunity to put on record the full extent of the coalition's funding profile in the Northern Territory. The deception from those opposite is incredible. The Labor Party love to talk about cuts. Those over there are as mad as cut snakes, and they are about as trustworthy as cut snakes too. They are a sinister crowd who are trying—and, I hope, failing—to spread their poison into the broader community. In the Northern Territory, for instance, there is $272.5 million more funding, and this point has been acknowledged by the Territory Minister for Education and Deputy Chief Minister, Peter Chandler. The total Commonwealth funding to all schools in the Northern Territory will increase by $108.9 million, a 53.9 per cent increase, over the forward estimates. The annual increase for all Northern Territory schools, government and non-government schools, for recurrent and capital spending, in 2014-15, will be 28.6 per cent; in 2015-16, it will be 8.1 per cent; in 2016-17, it will be 9.1 per cent; and in 2017-18, there will be an increase of 1.6 per cent. The first-year funding is extremely high, and this is to redress issues associated with the Territory's historically low funding base. The total Commonwealth funding to government schools in the Northern Territory will grow by $66.3 million by 2017-18, which is a 72 per cent increase from the 2013-14 to 2017-18 financial years, while the non-government sector will grow by 38.8 per cent over the same period.

I want to once again congratulate Minister Pyne for his commitment to improving education outcomes in the Territory. I want to close by briefly touching on other components contained within this amendment bill. The bill provides funding certainty for 16 independent special schools and special assistance schools that would otherwise see their funding reduced from next year. These schools will now transition towards the standards consistent with other schools. This government has already extended the More Support for Students with Disabilities funding in 2014 which was cut by the previous government. The bill extends the commencement of school improvement planning requirements. This extension will provide regulatory certainty for schools while we continue to identify command-and-control requirements with states and territories. We are also ensuring that schools moving between approved authorities will not be financially advantaged or disadvantaged. This bill also corrects the location loading that applies to major city schools, ensuring the right approved authorities attract the location loading needed and that funding entitlements can be correctly pro-rata-ed where a school does not operate for a full year. There are also a number of smaller yet equally important amendments brought by this bill that I stand in support of this afternoon. These amendments are transparent, wide-ranging and necessary. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (17:34): I would perhaps like to offer a bit of antivenom to deal with the member for Solomon's very 'snakey' comments! I think we can be pretty mature here and recognise that representatives of all parties in this place are very, very enthusiastic about the agenda to advance the position of Aboriginal people in this country and to address the endemic problems that we have seen emerge over the last few decades in Aboriginal education. Difficulty in education really has been undermining Aboriginal people being able to take their rightful place in our economy and our society. I think we have got to get a little bit beyond this sort of absurdity of pretending that only one party is interested, and indeed we would very much like to be recognised as being great promoters of this.

The difficulty is that these issues in relation to Aboriginal education and the advancement of Aboriginal people are very complex, and it has been established over many years that there are no easy answers here. It is very much a case of black and white Australians having to work to together to explore all of the opportunities. Labor took its commitments under Closing the Gap very seriously, and I think we can demonstrate that there were some achievements. But no-one would ever argue that anyone has taken the view that we have resolved all of the problems. This is going to be something that will require many decades of dedication to deal with.

My colleagues have outlined many of the shortcomings of the legislation, but, like a number of members, I really want to focus on the Indigenous education aspects of this and, in particular, the Indigenous boarding initiative. My engagement in Aboriginal education has gone on for some time, but at the moment I chair a group called the Martu Education Advisory Group. The Martu are a group of Aboriginal people who occupy parts of the Western Desert and eastern Pilbara regions. They have asked me to become involved in helping them progress their educational agenda.

It has been a great honour to be involved in that. The chairman of the WDLAC board, the native title group for the Martu, Brian Samson, says that he and his community really understand that they were left behind in the mining boom because they did not have the education to seize that opportunity. Indeed, we had a meeting a month or so ago on a Saturday up in Telfer to work out how we were going to take the education agenda forward. Telfer has regrouped now as a company town. The goldmining company employs some 1,000 people, and we would be lucky if 20 or 30 of those people were Aboriginal or Martu people, whilst there are hundreds of Martu people who would benefit from those employment opportunities.

Clearly we have a real disconnect. Here we have an area where there is indeed a big employer, and the ability for the Aboriginal community to access that employment is very limited. Part of the problem—not all of it—is the ability of Aboriginal people to access education and really be in a position where they can be competitive for this employment.

I am very pleased to say that the community has been very interested in the explicit-instruction model that we have seen working pretty well in Cape York. There is a view that attendance at the school and the achievement of the schools, despite the best endeavours of a great many dedicated teachers, has really not been good, and we cannot keep doing more of the same. The community has had considerable interaction with the work on the Cape York Peninsula. Indeed, a group of them visited the four schools on the Cape York Peninsula and came away very much convinced that this was the path that had to be tried. We had to get a more intensive, explicit instructional method that would be more suited to the needs of the Martu students and at the same time recognise that there had to be an enhanced commitment from the parents to ensure that their children attended school because, no matter how good your methodology is, if the children are not at school, that methodology is not going to assist them. It has to be something that works together.

One of the problems, in my experience working with quite a number of schools in disadvantaged areas over my 20 years of public life, is that, when children fail at school, they do not want to go to school. Failures in the instructional method feed into absenteeism because no-one wants to go to a place where they feel they are dumb, unable to keep up with the work that is being presented and that they are getting nothing out of it. So these are complex issues, but I am very pleased to say that the Martu now are working very constructively with Cape York and with the direct-instruction initiative. Cape York Academy, which is administering the new federal program, has agreed to involve the Martu in that next phase of the program.

This whole embrace of explicit instruction in these remote communities very much is a bipartisan approach. Noel Pearson will recognise that it was the direct intervention of Jenny Macklin and Julia Gillard that ensured that this model was able to get up in those Cape York schools. I think we have to keep that bipartisan support going for this initiative.

When it comes to secondary school, it is the view of the board that we would be very much better, rather than sending children away to secondary boarding school in Perth, where many students struggle with homesickness, keeping up with the general standard at those schools and social isolation, to focus on establishing a residential college in one of the larger towns in the Pilbara. For example, we are looking particularly at Newman. The idea there is that you would provide a college or residential facility that would provide not only the accommodation but the pastoral support and also the additional instruction for students who would then go off and attend the state government high school.

This seems to me to have many benefits. It would ensure that we had the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities in those areas of the Pilbara really interacting strongly at school and forging the friendships that one does across the cultural divide. We see that as more positive than taking a few of these kids out and putting them into boarding schools down in Perth and separating them from their communities. We also see that, for many of these kids who struggle with homesickness, the ability to go home on a weekend or long weekend is going to be something extremely beneficial. They will be in an area where they are still connected with their friends and their family.

I think the model of supporting private boarding schools, good that it is—and I accept that, as the member for Solomon said, there is a real need there and in some places this works very well. I urge the government to be prepared to look at this other model, which certainly is going to be much more beneficial model I think for Western Australia. We have very small communities. In the communities I am talking about we have seven schools: Punmu, Parngurr, Kunawarritji, Strelley, Warralong, Jigalong and Nullagine. So these are seven really quite small communities. Jigalong and Nullagine are a little bigger, but the others are very small schools. We accept that we cannot deliver secondary education in those communities and the students will have to come to a larger centre, but we want that to be a centre within the Pilbara that gives these kids the sense to be with their family and their friends but at the same time to have that opportunity to step up to higher academic standards. They will be in a strong, supported environment, giving them the opportunity to go out there and forge their way forward in an environment that will be much more nurturing for their culture.

I just want to comment on some matters made by the member for Bowman about language instruction. Look, I think perhaps he is right in part that there has been a bit of an overcorrection on this issue of the introduction of instruction in the local language. But the balance I have seen best placed is that out in some of these schools like Hope Vale, where certainly the medium of instruction is English. I think parents in Aboriginal communities strongly support that. They want to make sure that their children have a very strong grasp of the English language. But we should not shy away from at the same time ensuring that there is also taught the written form of the language which they speak at home or more generally in the community. In places that we are dealing with in the Martu lands this is going to be very complicated, because there are, indeed, so many different languages spoken in any one community that it is going to be somewhat difficult getting an agreed language and an agreed orthography. But I do think it is important that the medium of instruction be English but that we fully embrace introducing students to the written form of their first language.

I am keen, I am wanting to support the Indigenous boarding initiative, but I do urge the minister to consider whether or not he could broaden that funding to take into account the sorts of facilities that the Martu are keen to set up, because certainly in the Pilbara we do not have any non-government boarding schools and we do want to do what we can to allow the children coming from these very tiny communities to remain in the Pilbara where we believe they will prosper and achieve more educationally than being sent down to Perth.

Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (17:48): This bill, as we know, will create a mechanism to enable payments to be made under the government's Indigenous boarding initiative, an initiative designed to provide additional recurrent funding in 2014 to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students at non-government schools. I know from my former school days as well as on-going contact I have had with my former school that the Indigenous boarding students at Immanuel College have made some great contributions to the school over the years and also to their local communities when they have returned.

A school in my electorate that caters for indigenous Australians is Warriappendi. Their main purpose is to support young Aboriginal people to re-engage in formal education processes. The school provides a valuable role in providing a safe, challenging learning environment for young people who have previously had significant difficulties in traditional secondary schools. I attended their graduation service last year and witnessed the joy of some of their students in achieving. I want to acknowledge the work of Principal Chris Brandwood and his staff.

I note with interest in a recent newsletter from Warriappendi that there have been many great examples of students setting goals and taking the steps to achieving them. Well done to those students for taking advantage of a range of opportunities: Michaela McLaughlin-Liddle, for achievement of a school-based traineeship in Certificate III in Business Administration with QANTAS; Shane Weetra, who participated in a tyre-fitting course at the Youth Education Centre and completed three units from the Certificate I in Automotive; and also Shannon Richards, who completed a pre-employment program with Woolworths via a Certificate II Retail and is now employed. These are fantastic outcomes for these students.

Still on the topic of Indigenous Australians, last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Alan Tudge, visited my electorate and we had a very productive meeting with the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council, an organisation that runs drug and alcohol programs for Indigenous communities. I want to commend Scott Wilson and Jimmy Berry on the good work they do helping thousands of people, mainly Indigenous, with drug and alcohol issues. Whether it be identified in the Forrest review, which I will speak about shortly, or in other discussions with bodies like ADAC, drug and alcohol and school attendance are major challenges for these communities. They are challenges that must be addressed, however, to obtain a better future for Indigenous Australians.

Returning to the bill, it will also provide funding certainty for certain independent special schools and special assistance schools. Since the act was passed by the 43rd Parliament, a number of errors and oversights made during the original drafting have been identified which affect the proper administration of the legislation. This bill will correct these and provide greater certainty for schools about their funding entitlements. Taking action to fix these problems will strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian government's significant investment in schools and contribute to improving the quality of school education in Australia.

I would like to say a few words about recent visits I have had to schools in my electorate. I recently attended Henley High School in my electorate to congratulate Leon McCalla on being selected to participate in the ConocoPhillips Science Experience program. I am proud to support the program, a great initiative between a major international company and universities—also involving school students. Leon and his science teacher, Tracy Moore, both demonstrated a great passion for science. I enjoyed talking to Leon about his interest in many things, whether it be his science subjects or politics. I was also impressed with Tracy's promotion of science at Henley. I want to congratulate them both on their work and achievements. I look forward to returning to Henley High this Thursday night for their graduation ceremony. It was a great night last year and promises to be a fine night this year.

While on school services and graduation ceremonies, last Friday I attended St Michael's College. It was wonderful to hear, during the ceremony, of the impressive work students had undertaken across so many areas including community service, leadership and sport. I congratulate all students who received awards, especially Ella Kearsley, the first winner at St Michaels of the Hindmarsh Award, an award I proudly provide to schools in my electorate. St Michael's was also recognised in the world of music as one of 50 schools across Australia to take part in a national music initiative, SongMakers.

On education more broadly I want to make a few points about the government's commitment to a number of important reforms. As we all know, funding for higher education is actually going up. In 2013-14, Labor's last budget, the total higher education funding was $8.97 billion; our budget shows higher education funding growing to $9.47 billion by 2017-18. In South Australia, importantly, there is an increase of $275 million over the next four years. This is $275 million more for specific needs, for better teaching resources. For the first time ever the Commonwealth will provide direct financial support for an uncapped number of students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. This will include students from low SES backgrounds and from regional Australia and sometimes those from Indigenous communities. The government's reforms will provide better access and more opportunities for low socioeconomic status students and those living in regional Australia. As part of this package, we require universities to invest $1 of every $5 of additional revenue in new Commonwealth scholarships for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds.

Securing Australia's place at the forefront of research will also be vital. There is money dedicated to those causes, with $150 million in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, close to $140 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme, $26 million to accelerate research in dementia, $42 million to support new research in tropical disease and $24 million to support the Antarctic gateway partnership. And still on tertiary education, we learnt recently that a number of Australian universities had improved in the Times Higher Education world university rankings. This is what we need to hear more of. I want to congratulate the University of Adelaide, which moved from outside the top 200 to 164, and the University of South Australia, which improved as well.

I want to return to some challenges and opportunities in education. Whether it be greater school autonomy, more training for teachers or increased parental engagement, there is considerable upside to some of these reforms we are working on. Last week I had the opportunity to meet the principal of Brighton High School. A significant number of Brighton High School's student population are from my electorate. It has a strong reputation for excellence in many areas. It was good to hear the principal's views on the importance of having good leaders across school management. We also agreed on the vital role that parents play in the education of their children. And when meeting with school councils—whether it be Underdale high, Star of the Sea, Cowandilla primary school, William Light or the many more I have visited over the last year—and with parents who are governing council members I have been continually impressed with their passion, interest and commitment to their children's education. This is no different to my children's school, West Beach Primary School, where the members of the governing council are also committed parents who want to see the best for their children's education.

The role of parents is discussed in some detail in the Forrest review. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs because I think it is important to the debate we are having now, and the ongoing debate about how to get better education outcomes not just for Indigenous communities but also for all other school communities. Andrew Forrest says:

Parents who send their children to school every day accord this fundamental human right to their children. Children who are not sent to school regularly are denied this right, the right to a normal standard of education and the skills to become capable citizens. Without these, they will be unable to enjoy the standard of living of other Australians.

He goes on to say:

… parents must also play their part and send their children to school at least nine out of 10 school days.

Remember, he is talking about Indigenous communities. He says:

Only wholesale change of community attitude has sufficient potency to create the change which will see every Australian child given a fair go in life.

He says:

Whichever way you look at this, only employment will end the disparity, and employment is only possible if we remove all impediments to parity in education.

Finally, he says:

It doesn’t mean more money—

as we have heard so often—

it does mean we empower our education and training institutions with expectations and the tools to remove the disparity in results between first Australians and other Australians.

They are very pertinent words. School funding is naturally important, and I understand the concerns of schools who raise funding certainty with me. I will continue to listen to their views and understand their perspectives.

In closing, this bill provides necessary funding for specific areas and has a positive benefit for many students. Together with the commitment of parents, teachers and school leaders, we will work together to achieve better education outcomes for our children and our society. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:57): In mid-August this year I was quite fortunate to visit the remote Northern Territory community of Ntaria, where I volunteered at the local school. I was in Ntaria as a volunteer and a guest of the National Aboriginal Sporting Chance Academy—or NASCA—as part of their role models tour. It was my job to not only help promote and encourage healthy living, education and employment for the young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students but to also experience firsthand the challenge of improving educational standards in remote Aboriginal communities. And what a challenge that is. Over the course of the week that I spent in Ntaria I was fortunate to meet some very special people: the hard-working teachers and staff, whose dedication to Aboriginal education was nothing short of remarkable; the elders and community leaders, striving to give their kids more opportunity through education; and, of course, the wonderfully bright students whose smiles would enliven anyone's day.

As part of my responsibilities that week I was fortunate to sit in on the classes and assist the teachers who were stretched to the limit by some very spirited students.

I also helped out with the school sports and healthy lifestyle activities. It is wonderful to see these young kids communicating with each other in their native Western Arrernte language. They all speak it and they all understand it, and for many of them it is their first language. Many of the students who come to the Ntaria primary school come without ever having spoken or learnt a word of English so naturally, when they begin school, they struggle with English.

Many of the teachers expressed their frustrations to me and to other members of the party travelling with NASCA. Their frustration was at students making progress with reading or maths who then disappeared from school for weeks, to return once again behind the eight ball. That is the challenge of Indigenous education in remote communities. The challenge of how we best deliver education to remote Indigenous communities is not only momentous but also complex—exceedingly complex. How do we, as a nation, provide these kids with a decent education that offers them all the opportunities other Australian kids are afforded through their education? At the same time, how do we allow them to maintain that very important connection with their land, their heritage and their culture? How do they maintain their connection with their identity and who they are as people?

There is no easy answer to that question. There is no silver bullet resolution for that. But for me, having experienced this firsthand during my week of volunteering at this school, there is little doubt that a truly needs-based funding model would go a long way to improving the educational outcomes for these kids in remote communities and many more throughout Australia. All the problems with the current system, which have been perfectly highlighted by the Gonski panel, were acutely on display to me during the week that I spent in Ntaria. The teachers were stretched to the limit, often working in classes without trained teachers' aides, and they simply could not devote the necessary time to those kids who were falling behind. As a result, those kids are receiving a substandard education—a substandard education in Australia, one of the leading economies in the OECD.

When Labor came to government, the results that were coming from certain schools clearly demonstrated this. The literacy and numeracy results from some schools clearly demonstrated that in many areas—particularly low socioeconomic areas or areas where there is a high Indigenous population, a high population of kids from a non-English-speaking background or a high population of kids with disabilities in schools—they were falling behind and getting substandard educations. In a developed nation—a wealthy nation—like Australia it is simply not good enough for us to sit on our hands and do nothing about that. That was why the Rudd and Gillard governments instigated and implemented the Gonski process to inquire into the deficiencies in our education system and, more importantly, to recommend a national system for funding schools in this country. They undertook the most comprehensive and thorough investigation of, and consultation on, the issues associated with childhood education in this country. They consulted experts—the academics who work in the field. Most importantly, they consulted the people who work at the coalface: the principals; the teachers; indeed, the beneficiaries of education, the students; and those who all want better education results for their kids, the parents. It was the widest consultation on education that had ever been undertaken in this nation's history. It was one of the most comprehensive reports or detailed studies into the deficiencies in our education system and, importantly, a road map for reform—a blueprint for better results in our education system.

That is what the Gonski panel undertook and that is what the panel unanimously recommended in their report. That is what the Labor government sought to implement. Peter Garrett, as the education minister, undertook an extensive process of consultation with the states, explaining the benefits of the additional funding and signing those states up to the new model for education in this country—an unprecedented partnership between the Commonwealth and the states to improve student results and outcomes in schools in this country, based on a new funding model.

The Ntaria School's needs, and its teachers' needs, would have been catered for—and should be catered for—under this model which requires more funding from the states and territories and the Commonwealth. Having seen the deficiencies in the education system in Ntaria, the Abbott government's abandonment of the Gonski funding model and their harsh education cuts in the recent budget may condemn many Indigenous students throughout Australia to continued poor outcomes and a continuation of the tragedy that is Indigenous remote education.

Remote Indigenous education requires needs-based funding and it requires it now, if we are going to have any chance of reducing the gap when it comes to educational standards. Under the Abbott government, based on research my office has undertaken, in my electorate we are facing the prospect of cuts to the tune of $144 million over the next 10 years to schools in our local area. We face $144 million in cuts to programs such as trade training centres and to support for kids with disabilities, support for Asian languages within schools and support for the funding of years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms. It will have an effect on the opportunities that kids have to a good education, to better themselves and to become more productive members of our community. The cuts announced in the government's budget mean that there is no funding for the vital fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reform and restrict indexation to CPI from 2018. With the ABS education price index currently at 5.1 per cent, this is a significant and compounding cut in real terms.

The real tragedy of the Gonski reforms and the government's refusal to fund them in years 5 and 6 is the fact that over the last four to five years we have undertaken this journey as a nation. As I mentioned earlier, this is the most comprehensive study and detailed analysis of the issues associated with education in this country. It includes reasons for the deficiency and, importantly, how to rectify them. It is not a study that has been undertaken by mugs. It has been chaired by one of the most respected businesspeople in the country. The panel included the likes of Ken Boston AO, who has worked his whole life on education reform, and Kathryn Greiner AO, who is very passionate about education. The members of that panel were unanimous in their recommendations to the government. They put aside partisan political interests and, for once, worked collectively and collegiately on a roadmap for education.

The previous government undertook the pain of working with the states on reforming the Australian education system, getting the agreement of some of those states, explaining the benefits to the wider community, and having some of those states allocate that funding in their budget through their forward estimates and beyond: To their credit, the New South Wales Liberal government was one of those. When criticised by Tony Abbott in opposition, they were saying, 'No, Mr Abbott, you are wrong when it comes to this issue.' They stood up for kids education in the state of New South Wales. They did the right thing and they deserve credit for that. But despite all of that good work and the journey that has been undertaken as a nation, the Abbott government says, 'We're only going to fund it for four years and then we're going to go back to the old model.' It does not make any sense at all. It is one of the biggest wastes of resources and time in this country's history.

The great shame about it is that the victims of this are going to be the kids of the future. The victims of this mean-spirited, short-sighted and insular approach are going to be Australian students. That is what is unconscionable. It is like building an extension on your house and paying all that money for it, having the extension for four to five years and then knocking it down for no apparent reason. It is an ideological obsession with going back to the old model of having the states determine their own futures when it comes to education. That is the great shame of this government's approach to education. We are undermining the good work that is being done and, in so doing, we are undermining the futures of many kids in this country.

On one hand the government claim that money is not the answer, but at the same time they are trying to undo reforms, backed by experts, that will improve student results. One of the impacts of this bill is to delay the implementation of the school improvement plans by one year to January 2016 to facilitate further changes as a consequence of the government's review of command-and-control requirements of school-funding systems. This legislation is designed to make sure that money reaches those students who need it most and that the extra Gonski investment Labor made in our schools actually makes a difference in classrooms. School improvement plans are not about bureaucracy; they are about accountability. It is about ensuring that the money that is spent by the Commonwealth and the states is actually delivering results as intended. It is additional auditing to ensure that the schools are delivering results for students, being delayed by one year by the operation of this bill. The Independent Australian Council for Educational Research has developed a guide for school improvement plans and it has been signed off by the states, Liberal and Labor. We need appropriate levels of oversight to make sure that these reforms do what they are meant to do: help every child in every school improve their results.

Before the last election the Abbott government declared many things. They declared that they were on a unity ticket with Labor when it came to school education. That promise has been broken. They promised to implement the Gonski loading for students with disabilities in 2015 and provide the additional resources. Instead, they have cut support for students and are delaying the changes that have been universally endorsed for the betterment of Australia's education system. Today's amendments to funding for independent special schools would not be necessary if the government had kept their commitment to introduce the Gonski full disability loading in 2015. This bill is a wasted opportunity. If the government stuck to their election commitment we would not be in this situation.

Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (18:13): I rise to lend my strong support to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014, which will provide additional funding to schools participating in the Indigenous Boarding Initiative, maintain funding levels for special purpose schools and correct certain errors and omissions in the initial drafting of the Australian Education Act 2013.

This government understands that access to education is the cornerstone of each child's future. Every child has a different vision for what their life will be and a different set of skills, but it is so important that each and every child is given the start that they deserve at a central point of equal access to primary and secondary education.

The Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council's first aim is to improve school attendance and educational attainment. It was agreed in their meeting of February this year that engagement with schooling was a main early focus of the council.

Living in remote or very remote communities comes with many challenges, including geographical barriers to school attendance and a pattern of poverty. A report by the Australian National Audit Office found:

Limited access to schools is recognised as a primary driver of Indigenous disadvantage in education affecting student attendance, retention rates and academic performance.

During the Prime Minister's recent visit to north-eastern Arnhem Land, the Indigenous Advisory Council met for the fourth time and received a briefing on the Empowered Communities initiative. A key belief of the initiative is that social norms must be established and insisted upon if cycles of impoverishment and disadvantage are to be broken.

One of the first and most emphasised social norms was the imperative nature of school attendance and engagement in training and work. If the key to solving Indigenous disadvantage is access to these opportunities, the government and its allies in Indigenous advancement must be steadfast in delivering Indigenous Australians the very best of training and educational institutions, and persisting with creating these new patterns of engagement. Truancy officers are doing vital work in this area, as the Prime Minister has consistently recognised. But an alternative and complementary initiative is that of boarding in metropolitan areas. The Indigenous boarding initiative is all about creating new cycles and new patterns to really make a difference to Indigenous disadvantage.

This bill will fund $6.8 million on top of already allocated funds to eligible schools with over 50 Indigenous borders or to schools where 50 per cent or more of the school's borders are Indigenous students from remote or very remote backgrounds. This initiative will allow additional recruitment funding in 2014 to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students at non-government schools. This initiative, which has been legislated into the act as a component of 2014-15 budget, is just one of the measures as part of our Economic Action Strategy to ensure a brighter future for all Australians. The key theme of the action strategy, in partnership with the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, is access to opportunity. Equal opportunity has always been a key coalition value, and is well understood to be the driver for a better life. The coalition believes that lives are transformed by high-quality education. Our society speaks a lot about the cycle of disadvantage. But great educational opportunities produce a new cycle of inspiration, where students who have received the opportunity to have a go and unlock a world of knowledge go on to inspire others from similar backgrounds to do the same.

Last year, almost 3,000 Indigenous students were enrolled as borders in great schools all around the country. The government is passionate about the best and brightest schools in Australia partnering with Indigenous students in order to grant them the opportunities that they deserve. Some non-government schools, such as The King's School, Parramatta, and Saint Ignatius' College, Riverview, have had enormous success in their provision of boarding places to Indigenous students. The government has considered special-purpose boarding facilities and enrolment into boarding initiatives as important contributors to fulfilling key Close the Gap objectives, which were agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in the National Partnership Agreement of 2008. These objectives centre on resolving the disparity in numeracy and literacy outcomes as well as significant gaps in year 12 graduation rates of Indigenous students.

The work that Mr Warren Mundine has done as chair of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation and as part of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council has delivered a clear vision in the government's direction for educational advancement. When discussing the resolution to the cycle of Indigenous disadvantage, Mr Mundine said:

… the solution is not a mystery. If marginalised Indigenous children have access to some of Australia’s best educational opportunities and receive the support they need to pursue meaningful careers then they will enjoy the same quality of life as other Australians with access to these same opportunities.

Similarly, respected advocate for Indigenous a dvancement Marcia Langton AM has been quoted as saying that the key to a successful education is :

… discipline, constant attendance, learning element by element and putting together the system of literacy, the sounds and associations between the symbol and the sound. And all those things have to be built up consistently and according to a curriculum, brick by brick, in a classroom.

One effective way to ensure discipline and constant attendance is to provide Indigenous students with an immersive experience that a world-class boarding experience can ensure. A no-distractions approach , which allows students to be absorbed in their studies and extra-curricular activities , has been found to improve retention rates and form a genuine pathway to further study at a tertiary level. However, the unique challenges that accompany a fundamental shift in environment — from a remote or very remote area, from an Indigenous to a non- Indigenous setting— must , in some cases , be addressed with additional support. This support may be used to equip schools with appropriate tuition and accommodation services for Indigenous support. That is the support which this b ill seeks to make possible by legislating our 2014 - 15 budget initiative.

The g overnment recognises the unique challenges which face Indigenous boarders when they leave their communities to enter a whole new environment. These challenges should not become barriers to opportunity, but , instead , our institutions must be equipped to tailor each educational experience to an individual student. Schools participating in the Indigenous a ction s trategy by making scholarships and boarding places available to Indigenous students have consistently indicated to the government that they require additional assistance in order to meet the additional needs of their Indigenous boarders. Schools with large numbers of Indigenous boarders have indicated that current levels of funding are inadequate to meet the costs of providing boarding and tuition to cater for the additional needs of these students . Accordingly, the g overnment has listened and is providing this amendment to the a ct.

The other significant measure of this bill is to amend the Australian Education Act to ensure that the level of funding for students with disabilities does not reduce in volume. Instead, the government will provide funding certainty by providing $2.4 million in funding for 2015 and ensure that funding for special or special - assistance schools will not automatically drop to the schooling resource standard. Funding will transition to this standard in a consistent manner until revised student - with - disability loadings are available, ensuring that schools which cater for students with a disability are not subject to funding cuts. As the member for Barton, this is particularly heartening. Just around the corner from my office is the St George School for Specific Purposes in Kogarah, where passionate teachers are expending every last resource available to them so that they can provide personalised learning plans to severely physically disabled children and strive for the best practice in special education. This g overnment is ensuring that schools like the St George s chool can continue to be at the cutting edge in meeting each student's special needs. The government is determined to ensure the integrity of the legislative framework for schools funding and the provision of additional levels of funding for Indigenous students or students with a disability.

This amendment can be seen as a natural part of our Students First plan, a vision for educational excellence in Australia of which the Minister for Education has been a passionate and effective advocate. The Students First initiative is all about improving teacher quality, increasing school autonomy, engaging parents in education and strengthening the curriculum. These goals for our education system as a whole can be related to the government's aims for Indigenous advancement.

When we employ great teachers with the skills to engage positively with their students and when they possess the persistence and the drive to encourage hard work in their students, they command respect and attention from each and every student in the classroom. When schools have autonomy, they can effectively tailor their programs to the student and parent bodies, and make sure that those closest to the situation and closest to the students have the strongest say. When parents are engaged in education, families can advance in opportunity together and entire communities can be engaged in better pathways. Finally, when we have a strong curriculum, students can be truly engaged in the comprehensive knowledge which is afforded them by a robust and evenly focused system of understanding.

The opportunity to board at a great school in a metropolitan area does not detract from the strong Indigenous identity that Australia's Indigenous students possess. In fact, when students gain a sense of themselves as competent, successful and worthy individuals, they gain an even stronger understanding of themselves in relation to their communities and their Indigenous identity. An alumna of Loreto Normanhurst in North Sydney, Sarah Treacy, said:

Going to boarding school helped me work harder, focus on my studies and take a genuine interest in myself doing well at school ... Along with this, I gained a stronger pride of being a young Aboriginal woman and I continue to take that pride, maturity and knowledge into my life today.

Considering the words of this bright young woman, a proud Indigenous Australian and a proud participant in the educational opportunities afforded to her, I am determined to be a supporter of this and all initiatives to improve access to opportunity for the next generation of Australians. I am certainly proud to be part of a government which believes in Indigenous empowerment and advancement. This bill will ensure that we have a strong legislative framework to achieve these aims.

With the knowledge that educational opportunity is the key to a brighter future, I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Ms KING (Ballarat) (18:24): The very fact that we are here debating the Australian Education Amendment Bill is evidence of this government's absolute deception when it comes to funding for primary and secondary schooling in this country. The government was elected on a promise of no cuts to education and a claim that its policies on school education funding were absolutely identical to Labor's. This bill is evidence that that is simply not true. Here we are today debating a bill which has in fact been made necessary by the Abbott government's broken promises when it comes to our primary and secondary schools. Far from 'honouring' the Gonski agreements, the Abbott government and the education minister have abandoned families, students and teachers across the country, just as they have abandoned patients and public hospitals.

The Prime Minister solemnly promised the Australian people that he would not be cutting school education, just as he promised them there would be no cuts to health and no new taxes. Instead, we have seen in this government's first budget a $80 billion cut from schools and hospitals over the next decade, a new tax on visits to the doctors and massive hikes in the cost of getting a university degree. They have abolished all additional funding for the fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms. Everybody knows that they were the years of the greatest expansion in funding for primary and secondary schooling. This government are leaving our children and their children's future education behind and, just as it seeks to do with health care, are trying to introduce a more user-pays model, where a decent education depends not on ability or need but on ability to pay.

The facts are that if the government had kept its promise to deliver the full disability loading in 2015, we would not need to consider amendments to fund independent special schools. Here we are debating this bill which is requiring the funding for independent special schools, something which I support, but we would not need to do this if the government had kept its promise of introducing the full disability loading by 2015. There is no guarantee in this bill that we will ever see the disability loading that was part of the Gonski reforms introduced into primary and secondary schools in this country.

Labor will not stand in the way of the measures within this bill that ensure that funding will flow to independent special schools next year. This is an important guarantee to make for those schools. But, again, this change is only necessary because the government have not finalised the loading for students with disability nor provided the funding they promised from 2015. And they have form on not sticking to commitments to students with disabilities, having also failed to extend the $100 million per year in additional support for students with disability transition funding that was in this year's budget—very important funding that was providing the opportunity for many schools for the first time to actually work more systematically about how they provide support for students with disability in their schools and how they can actually increase the capacity of their schools to work with children with autism spectrum disorder and other forms of disability right the way through their school system.

The Australian Education Amendment Bill also provides support for Indigenous students in boarding. This is consistent with our policies when we were in government to construct new boarding schools and to help students from remote communities access boarding school education.

I also note that this bill changes the funding transition rules for independent special schools so their funding is indexed by at least three per cent a year.

So Labor are not opposing this bill because we understand the importance of ensuring that funds reach Indigenous students in boarding schools and that funds reach independent special schools. But much of this bill would not be necessary were it not for the ripping up of the Gonski reforms and the broken promises, which are the hallmark of this government's education policies.

Let's go to the heart of what the Gonski reforms were trying to do. Basically, they were looking at loadings for schools not based on post code, which is the current system the government uses and which is very flawed, and has seen a real discrepancy in the amounts that schools actually get;

they were looking at a base unit per student and then looking at loadings. In fact what you would see under the Gonski reforms for schools with higher numbers of Indigenous students, higher numbers of students with disability and higher numbers of kids from economically disadvantaged areas is resources to those schools increasing, regardless of whether they are public schools, independent schools or Catholic schools, or some other form of private school, and funding would depend on the types of students. This is a really fundamental change in the way in which funding goes to our primary and secondary schools.

The disability loading in particular is critical. I am very concerned that the measures signalled by this bill in essence show that the government has abandoned its attempts to look at disability loading in schools. I know a number of schools have been working hard to measure just what that will mean in their schools, but there are some very serious implications in the way the government has put this bill together, so that they are not going to honour all of the disability loading in all of the years through the Gonski reforms.

There is nothing more important than the education of our children and there is nothing more important than how we provide good resources for kids in our schools with disability, particularly in primary schools where kids in their early years of education—they are six years of age when they enter primary school—have a huge opportunity to really learn, to be provided with a supportive structure to enable them to get the best they possibly can before they start to experience some of the really awful things that happen to many kids with disabilities. As they fall further and further behind in their schooling, they suffer self-esteem problems, disengagement with school and bullying. A real opportunity is provided if you put money into the early primary years for kids with disabilities, really supporting them with speech pathologists, with social learning and with other aids and equipment. If you do that really early in a kid's schooling, you provide a great opportunity for that young person to not necessarily fall behind but to achieve their full potential.

We know that students from disadvantage backgrounds are still slipping further behind and we know that the gap between students will continue to grow if we do not act now to improve our schools. Earlier this year, a report by the Program for International Student Assessment was released which showed that Australia is continuing to go backward, with one of the largest declines in maths among OECD countries since 2000. There are 3.6 million schoolchildren in Australia. Like their parents and their teachers, they expect the government to keep their election promises, but all we have seen from this government is an attempt to pretend—and I have heard many of the speakers on the other side—that they are in lock step with the Labor Party's Gonski reforms. We know that is simply not true.

The arrogance of the education minister to blame Australian voters for breaking his promise on schools, the arrogance of the education minister and the Prime Minister to wash their hands of responsibility from the Commonwealth for funding schools and improving school education is, frankly, a disgrace. During the election campaign last year, on 29 August, the member for Sturt said:

You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school—

to the dollar. The opposition play this tricky little game: because two states had yet to sign up to agreements that somehow or other the money was not provided is simply a lie. This continued myth that the government is trying to go on with is all spin. Parents know absolutely that millions and millions of dollars are being cut out of every primary school and every single secondary school in this country by this government. Go to any primary school in any electorate in this country and stare them in the face and say, 'You are getting extra, exactly the amount Labor promised you.' If any member of the government says that, it will simply not be true. We know that the promise the member for Sturt made during the election campaign was absolute nonsense and given the haste with which they tore up that promise, it was in fact a deliberate deception. Schools have been abandoned and schools' interests are not being held in the highest regard by this government.

The Gonski reforms would have made a real and practical difference to schools in regional and rural areas like my electorate of Ballarat. It is the out years, the fifth and sixth years of funding that are of critical importance and that is the funding this government has cut. Last year Elise Whetter, who is a school council president in my electorate, wrote a letter to Victorian Premier Denise Napthine calling on him to sign up to the Gonski reforms:

At my son's primary school, we have seen real improvements in literacy, numeracy and wellbeing from our existing National Partnership agreement That said, we should look beyond simply meeting basic literacy and numeracy standards, and expect that every child enjoys the opportunity to not only meet their potential, but excel. There should be absolutely no difference in our expectations for the kind of education our children receive, regardless of whether they attend a State or independent school.

She went on to say:

It will be the majority of students in State Schools who will be further disadvantaged, many of whom have already been impacted upon by the significant cuts to education made by your government—

the Victorian government—

By failing to sign, you will be telling State School children that their education and outlook for the future is of lesser value than their peers at independent schools. This would be an appalling position for a State Government to take.

Why then are this Prime Minister and the education minister abandoning the Gonski reforms? No amount of spin about which money was where, on which budget line item and how that all works can deny the fact that the government has cut the funding where the increases in the Gonski reforms were. That it has not committed more funding for disability loading in the transition. This bill is absolutely evident of it. Why is the government not listening to the families, to the teachers and to the students when it comes to the funding of our schools?

Students across all schools, whether they are state, Catholic or independent, all deserve a world-class education system. Teachers deserve to be able to access the resources that they need to teach to the various abilities of the kids they have before them whether they are starting from behind the eight ball because of the geographic location where they are born, entrenched disadvantage in Indigenous communities or disability.

Teachers should have the resources they need to be able to teach kids of varying abilities, and that is what Gonski was all about. It is a damning indictment on this government that they have not only abandoned Gonski but then tried to pretend somehow that they have kept their election commitments on this matter.

Children do not choose what socioeconomic background they come from. These cuts hurt students, they hurt parents, they hurt the teachers and they hurt communities right across Australia. We can ease the struggle for many families, students and teachers by providing them with the tools to excel, develop and lift them out of poverty. We do not do that by cutting school funding.

We certainly do not do that by cutting and not making guarantees to commit to the disability loading in Gonski. We do not do that by cutting $128 million from youth education and employment programs, leaving future generations of students without the critical resources of the national Job Guide to assist with selecting subjects for years 10, 11, and 12 to develop a path to employment. We do not it by cutting funding to TAFE and cutting funding to universities.

We are sent to this place to ensure that future generations inherit a more prosperous, safer and healthier Australia. How can we leave them an education system where the gap between the rich and poor gets even bigger? As a nation we cannot afford to leave our children behind and we are doing that by cutting funding to schools. What this government is saying to students and to our children is that they do not value their education. They are saying that they do not care whether the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged schools gets bigger. They do not care whether the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, students with a disability or students from a low socioeconomic background continues to get bigger: 'We are not going to resource your school to help teach those students.'

We have a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure our students, classrooms and teachers are resourced properly for the future, but this government is choosing a path that leaves students more disadvantaged and without the proper support they need. They are abandoning the students of Australia and they will be condemned for it.

Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (18:40): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to support the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2014. This bill amends the Australian Education Act 2013, which was rushed through by the former government and consequently suffered from a lack of forward thinking that education deserves and needs.

Just briefly, before I go into more detail on a few of these amendments, this bill establishes and funds the Indigenous Boarding Initiative; ensures continued transition arrangements for special schools and special assistance schools to avoid a reduction in funding from 2015; extends the commencement of school improvement planning requirements; ensures schools moving between approved authorities will neither be financially advantaged nor disadvantaged; ensures the Commonwealth pays only its share of the total public funding entitlement; corrects the location loading that applies to major city schools; amends a cross-reference regarding pro rata of recurrent funding; clarifies the operation of reviewable decisions; corrects the 2014 amount for capital funding payable to block grant authorities; and allows the minister to take action under this act where a school has failed to comply with requirements under the former Schools Assistance Act 2008.

As you can see, this is a very comprehensive bill and credit must be given to the hardworking and passionate Minister for Education. I know of his passion for achieving educational outcomes for all sectors of our community and I am pleased to see so many positive ideas put into action by this him. Particularly, after the mess left by the former government, I know people in the education sector are relieved that this government is approaching the sector and issues faced by it in a calm, considered and responsible manner.

Nothing in my opinion is more serious than the education of our children. It is education that will equip our youth with the skills and abilities necessary to compete against a future workforce from across the globe. I have always believed that education is the forward for all individuals but, in particular, for Aboriginal people, it is the way that we can reduce disparity across entire communities.

I often quote Nelson Mandela when I talk about education and I want to do so again, because these words are truer today than ever before:

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world—

and if we provide the opportunities for children, we enable them to be part of a decision-making process that gives them increased choices.

Without education, your children can never really meet the challenges they will face. So it's very important to give children education and explain that they should play a role for their country.

And:

Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mineworker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farmworkers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.

These are particularly sage words given the debate on this bill currently before the House.

One of the positive initiatives in this bill is the establishment of the Indigenous Boarding Initiative. This initiative will provide $6.8 million in additional funding in 2014 to eligible non-government schools to assist them in the provision of the essential services and support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boarding students. There are 21 eligible non-government boarding schools across the Northern Territory, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia.

In my electorate of Hasluck, one of those eligible schools is La Salle College in Viveash. La Salle College has developed a strong and productive relationship with the remote community of Balgo. Through this relationship, La Salle College offers boarding places for Aboriginal students from Balgo at the Swanleigh Hostel—the same hostel that I stayed in when I was given a scholarship to attend secondary school in Perth. In many ways, La Salle is recreating today the journey through education that I had many, many years ago.

A few years ago Swanleigh Hostel closed down, and it was great to have a school from the Hasluck electorate turn it back into a boarding hostel for young Aboriginal students. On many occasions I have visited the students from Balgo at school and at Swanleigh, and it has brought back many memories of my time there. That is why I am pleased to support this bill. By supporting this bill I am supporting students just like me—students who could one day be standing in my shoes in this great House through the support given by schools such as La Salle College and the support given through policies such as the Indigenous Boarding Initiative.

The other eligible schools in Western Australia include the Christian Aboriginal Parent Directed School, Karalundi Aboriginal Education Community, Wongutha Christian Aboriginal Parent-Directed School, the Yiramalay/Wesley Studio School and Clontarf Aboriginal College. I have visited Clontarf on a number of occasions and have had the privilege of meeting students from the Yiramalay/Wesley Studio School at a recent public hearing in Halls Creek for the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. I can confidently say that this bill is supporting great educational outcomes and opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students across the country.

It is interesting that those opposite make these false statements about so-called cuts to education and that they are the best friends of education. As I have said previously, I have been around long enough to know the history of the establishment in 1972 of the Aboriginal Secondary Grants, or ABSEG, and Abstudy—both program initiatives that enabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to attend school, to attend boarding schools and to progress their education from the communities in which they lived. Over time, those programs have diminished under Labor governments—to the point where those opportunities that once prevailed do not exist in the same way that they did. They were a great opportunity to enable parents and communities to encourage their children to go on and take pathways into the tertiary sector.

Those opposite are sometimes the worst friend that education can have, particularly in terms of Aboriginal students. I remind those opposite that it was under the Keating government that education spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education was cut significantly. Dawkins, Keating and Labor ripped away the opportunities for hundreds of Aboriginal students across the nation. As long as I am in this chamber, I will never let those opposite forget their legacy. I was on a number of national committees and we met with the relevant education ministers at various times only to be told that programs would be reduced or would cease and, in that period of legacy, we watched programs dissipate and opportunities being taken away.

While we are on legacies, I remind those opposite that the only reason we have this bill before the House today is that they botched the original legislation. They rushed the legislation through the parliament and, truly, the number of errors and omissions in the original preparation of the legislation was astounding. It actually undermined the intended operation of the act and created funding and regulatory uncertainty for schools. I wonder what those opposite were thinking when they saw the bill. I am sure there must be number of teachers on the other side of the House. By simply giving them the legislation they could have gotten out their red pen and underlined the errors and circled the omissions. No doubt, if they were grading the then minister on the first draft of the bill which is currently enshrined in law, they would have given them an F and would have circled in red pen what they thought were the omissions.

I turn the attention of the House back to the bill at hand. As mentioned before, this bill will ensure that certain special schools or special assistance schools will not have their funding reduced in 2015—something that those opposite would have let happen. Without these amendments, the safety net in place will disappear and these schools, which provide a valuable educational service, will have their funding immediately reduced from 1 January 2015. We on this side of the House will not let that happen. This bill will also ensure that schools moving between approved authorities will neither be financially advantaged nor disadvantaged. This is important to ensure that schools do not change their approved authority status solely for funding reasons. It also means that every school will have the flexibility to vary its transition pathway.

This is a good bill and good amendments. If we are serious about bringing in changes that address the needs of not only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children but also children in country and rural regions whose economic circumstances are problematic, we need a much better way of starting to think about how we address their educational needs—and this bill encourages that. The last thing we need in this nation is a gap between those who have had the opportunity of traversing the pathways of education to higher education and acquiring jobs that lead them into a life of reasonable wealth and also opportunities to be who they want to be and aspire to as opposed to those who do not get that opportunity—who, not only through disadvantage of their own making but also through government policy, do not access the relevant opportunities that are provided.

I know of many non-government schools and government schools that have formed partnerships with Aboriginal and remote communities with a view to encouraging students to access the options that they provide for any student who is enrolled within the academic or vocational education pathways. What is even more rewarding is watching areas of the south-west of my own state where people are now looking at how we can provide opportunities. One of the factors that inhibits them is the opportunity to access funding. If they are boarding facilities—which many of the non-government schools provide—this is an opportunity to enter into partnerships with significant Aboriginal communities that enable students to be identified and encouraged to seek a pathway into a career of their aspiration and then for those levels of support within an urban context to be provided by those schools that are participating in encouraging the development of skills. I support this bill, and I certainly am encouraged by the minister in his thinking about wanting to address many aspects of education.

The last government made commitments to funding education that they had not fully budgeted for nor had the capacity to fund. When governments make these sorts of commitments, it creates expectations within a community that are unreasonable and unfair. When we talk about an opportunity under a particular strategy there is an expectation that the flow-on implementation will see results delivered—not only in funding but also in the types of programs and support services that prevail.

Having been a classroom teacher, I know the value of the support that can come with additional staff, but by the same token I know that when you are in a school you make budgetary choices and you live within your means. Sometimes governments do not do that, and certainly the Gillard government did not do that in the context of education. Had it thought about what it could deliver tangibly and realistically without sending the economy into incredible debt, then those broad commitments and the financial arrangements entered into with each individual state and territory would not have occurred in the way that they did. Even in the allocation of funding there was a disparity between what WA received and what the bigger states received, because one system does a job well.

The bottom line for all of us should be the educational pathway outcomes for any student who attends any sector where schooling is provided. That is the more important factor—skilling and creating the pathways of opportunity for our young and upcoming future generations of Australians who will require the skills in a global society and economy and also within a country that will position itself to be a key leader in many facets of industry and within the education and higher-education sector. I look forward to speaking with the principal of La Salle College about how the Indigenous boarding initiative will benefit his students, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (18:54): I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill, following the member for Hasluck. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Hasluck, who is particularly learned and wise on education matters concerning Indigenous children. This bill does a number of things, and I would like to speak briefly on the subject matter of the bill, then speak more broadly on Indigenous education and some of the initiatives which the government is doing and some of the challenges we as a nation face.

The bill itself allows payment of additional funding in 2014 to schools with large numbers of Indigenous boarding students from remote areas in order to meet an identified resources shortfall. The Indigenous boarding initiative was announced through the 2014-15 budget, and will provide $6.8 million in additional funding to eligible schools. The regulations will determine the school's eligibility and the amount of funding it will receive under the initiative. This bill will prevent funding cuts to students with disabilities and to other students in some independent special schools and special-assistance schools that would otherwise occur from 1 January 2015 by ensuring transitional funding arrangements for these schools are consistent with other schools under the act. The bill also addresses a number of errors and omissions that occurred during the original preparation of the act under the former government.

This is an important bill in and of itself in terms of providing additional support for Indigenous students to be able to attend boarding facilities, and that is something we strongly support on this side of the chamber. We strongly support Indigenous families having the choice for their children to be able to attend boarding schools, particularly in areas where there simply is not the alternative of having a good local school to year 12 where they reside, and therefore boarding schools realistically become the only option. To that end, I commend the work of Andrew Penfold and the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation. It is something that we strongly support, a number of companies support and, indeed, the broader community supports very strongly.

I would like to sum up on this bill as I go, but before doing so I will make a couple of points more broadly about our Indigenous education initiatives. We often use the word 'crisis' in this House in referring to a whole raft of issues, but a real crisis is occurring today in relation to the poor outcomes that many Indigenous students are achieving. I have met people who have left school, supposedly having been there for 10 years, yet who could barely write their names or read a sentence. When you look at the statistics you see that in a place like Queensland by the time remote students are in year 9 they are about six years behind everybody else. Across the board they are doing more poorly than others—and this is the crisis, because we know that if these students are not learning then their prospects of getting a good job at the end are so much more diminished. We have to take action in this regard. Collectively as a nation we must take action, and we must prioritise this.

We are certainly prioritising under the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs as a No. 1 starting point that the kids are at school. Nobody can learn if they are not at school—it is a necessary pre-condition for learning. It sounds very straightforward, but when you look at the data, you find that in remote communities students are attending about 60 per cent of the time. This does not mean the students learn 60 per cent of the content; rather, you need to be attending about 80 per cent of the time to be learning anything at all. If you are attending less than 80 per cent of the time then the curriculum will advance too far in front of you and you will end up learning very little at all. So 80 per cent is the absolute bare-minimum benchmark for school attendance. It should be 100 per cent, but 80 per cent is the bare minimum. In the Northern Territory only one-quarter of children are attending school 80 per cent of the time, which means that only one-quarter of those children are attending often enough to learn effectively. That is a crisis, which we must address.

We have already started a number of initiatives, perhaps the most important being the Remote School Attendance Strategy, which is now operating in 73 schools—those schools which had the poorest attendance records. This strategy pays for local people to be employed to literally be student attendance officers, to knock on people's doors, to drive a minibus where required and to pick up the local kids and take them to the local school—a very simple, practical on-the-ground initiative involving local people. That, to date, has been working very well. On average, we have had a five percentage point improvement in student attendance, but in some places there has been a 15 percentage point improvement already, which is a remarkable achievement. So we are strongly supporting that and want to see it further evolve.

We also strongly support the Clontarf Foundation, which uses football as a mechanism for engaging, particularly, teenage boys at secondary school. I know the former Labor government also strongly supported Clontarf, but in the most recent budget we gave a further $13 million to allow these Clontarf academies to be rolled out further across Australia as a mechanism to engage the children, keep them at school and progress them into work. But we need to do more, because even in places such as Yirrkala, in East Arnhem Land—where the Prime Minister visited recently, and a number of ministers and I were there with him—the school has student attendance officers and a Clontarf Academy in place and yet the school attendance rate is still only 55 per cent. Despite all of that effort, the student attendance rate is still so poor, and more needs to be done.

Andrew Forrest, in his report, has advised us to make this an absolute national priority, where the pressure must be on every institution to lift student attendance overall. That means the pressure needs to be on the state governments, who run the schools. He recommends that the Commonwealth should be paying state governments on the basis of school attendance rather than student enrolment, which would be a fundamental difference and put the heat on the state and territory governments. He also recommends that there needs to be more pressure on the parents and, where they are receiving family tax benefits to help them look after their children, a basic precondition for those family tax benefits should be that the parent is sending their child to school. He also recommends that distractions be eliminated. A distraction could be a football carnival or a big show which goes on during the school day which consequently means that the kids might not go to school. We are seriously considering all of those big recommendations Mr Forrest has given to us, because we must get on top of the students' attendance problem. If we do not, the kids will not learn, and if they are not learning then it is almost inevitable that they will end up on the welfare queue and, in many cases, in prison.

So this is our starting point. It is not the ending point, but it is the starting point. Kids must be at school. Once they are at school, we then have to ensure that there is good instruction and there are good teachers. There are a number of things that Andrew Forrest, again, has recommended to us which we are taking a very close look at, but just one initiative which I will emphasise is the Good to Great Schools initiative, where we are providing $22 million for the rollout of effective, explicit instruction in remote schools. That is being trialled in Cape York, where it has been rolled out in five schools and has had incredible results. In fact, the Cape York academy schools have been found by Professor John Hattie to be schools where students learn at 1.5 times the learning rate of similar students in reading and numeracy. In the NAPLAN results which we got just recently, there was a whole year class of students in a Cape York academy school where 100 per cent of students reached national minimum benchmarks in reading and numeracy and almost 100 per cent reached the spelling benchmark. As many people would know, that is a fantastic achievement. If we could replicate that across Australia in remote schools then we would have broken the back of the education crisis which is in many remote schools.

I have been asked to sum up this bill. I would like to thank all of the speakers on the Australian Education Amendment Bill for their contributions to the debate. The coalition government is committed to supporting the delivery of quality schooling and to providing funding and regulatory certainty for all Australian schools. We are committed to making sure every Australian child has the opportunity to reach their potential, through a great education. In government, we have invested a record $64.5 billion over four years in schooling. This includes the $1.2 billion this government restored for schools in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory when we came to office in 2013, money that the former Labor government did not place into the budget. We were very clear in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election, including in our Students First policy, that we would maintain the funding arrangements enacted by the 43rd Parliament for the four years of the forward estimates. We have kept that commitment and indeed we have done more. We have added an additional $1.2 billion that the previous government ripped out of schools in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

This amendment bill enables additional targeted support for schools so that we can provide much-needed services to support Indigenous boarding school students. I outlined those earlier. In the Students First policy that we took to the 2013 election, we promised to end the command-and-control aspects of the Australian Education Act, to remove those parts of the act that allowed the federal government to dictate what states and territories must do in their schools and to ensure that the states and territories remain responsible for schools and that non-government schools maintain their independence and autonomy. The minister plans to introduce amendments to the act in 2015 to address the command-and-control features of the act. While the government negotiates with states and territories and the non-government school sector on the command-and-control aspects of the act, the bill amends the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2013 to extend to 1 January 2016, or a later date determined by the minister by legislative instrument, the commencement of school improvement planning requirements under the act. This is to provide regulatory certainty to schools whilst consultations with stakeholders occur in relation to possible adjustments to this requirement.

This bill provides additional funding support for remote Indigenous students, prevents funding reductions for schools catering to students with a disability, delivers regulatory certainty and improves the overall operation of the act. Taking action to address these will strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian government's significant investment in schools and contributes to improving the quality of school education in Australia.

On behalf of the minister I thank all of the speakers who have contributed to this bill. I again emphasise the government's commitment to schooling, to ensuring that every single student has the opportunity for a great education in primary and secondary school. I again emphasise the record levels of funding which this government is providing. This year alone we are increasing funding by eight percentage points. Next year we will increase by eight per cent. The year after, we will increase the funding by a further eight per cent, and the year after that—the final year of the forward estimates—a further six per cent. Included in that funding is the $1.2 billion that the Labor government ripped out of those schools in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. I think it is a great shame that they did that, and I am certainly very proud as a member of the coalition government that we were able to put that money back into those schools and states. I know that those state governments, parents and students from those states particularly appreciate the fact that this government was willing to stand up and replace the $1.2 billion which the Labor government ripped out. It was an important measure we took when we first came to government and it is one we are very proud of. I commend the bill and thank all the speakers in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr TUDGE (Aston—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (19:09): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms KING (Ballarat) (19:10): I rise to speak on the Dental Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and note that this is the first time this bill has been debated for second reading since the minister's second reading speech on 26 March, which is quite some time ago—well before the budget. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to waive debts for dentists under the former Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which was closed in 2012. It will also make a number of amendments for the operation of Labor's Child Dental Benefits Schedule to bring the compliance framework of the scheme into greater alignment with Medicare's compliance framework. This bill amends both acts so that the Professional Services Review scheme can be applied to any dental services provided under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule so that suspected cases of inappropriate practice can be investigated.

The bill amends the Dental Benefits Act to enable the chief executive of Medicare and relevant employees of the Department of Human Services to obtain documentation from a dentist to substantiate the payment benefits under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. Finally, the bill makes a number of machinery amendments to both the Dental Benefits Act and the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. I will say at the outset that Labor will not be opposing this bill but I will have a second reading amendment on the bill as well.

While the contents of this bill are of themselves not too contentious, the remarks of the minister when he introduced it are of great concern to Labor, especially in relation to the concern that he flagged at the end of his second reading speech about the operation of the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. This is a government that, frankly, came to power promising no cuts to health and no new taxes and then, when elected promptly set about smashing public hospital funding and announcing a new tax on visits to the doctor. When a minister has not been up-front before the election about how he planned to rip $50 billion out of public hospitals and slug patients with a tax every time they visit a doctor or attend an appointment for a scan, I think we have some very strong grounds to be deeply concerned when this same minister flags his so-called 'concerns' with another scheme that he supported in opposition.

It is worth discussing here a little of the history of Commonwealth funding for dental schemes, which we are debating here today. The great missing link in public health in Australia has been in dental care. It was left out of Medicare back in 1984 reputedly because of both cost and the politics of having to tackle both doctors and dentists at the same time, which was considered a bridge too far. This is especially so when one recalls that the Liberal Party was then, as it always has been, implacably opposed to Australians having access to decent, affordable health care regardless of income—a battle we are fighting again today over the GP tax. It is good to know your history when it comes to these matters.

Labor has to fight two elections, a double dissolution and a historic joint sitting of parliament to introduce universal health care in Australia with Medibank only to see it promptly torn down by the Liberals after 1975. In 1983 we were elected again on a promise of introducing universal health care and, despite ferocious opposition, again from the Liberals, succeeded in introducing Medicare in 1984. The Liberals promised after every election that they were going to tear it down, and they finally learnt their lesson in 1996, when John Howard promised, if elected, to retain Medicare despite having once called it 'the greatest disaster ever to befall the health system'. It is important to know your history when it comes to these matters. I know some on the opposite side are parroting the same lines, they are staying on message, but this is your history. The history of the Liberal-National Party is to get rid of Medicare, and now you are just trying to do it by stealth.

So Labor has had to fight the Liberals every step of the way to introduce Medicare and to protect it from those who have thought decent health care should only be available to those who can afford it. Throughout that period we have sought to improve and extend Medicare. Previously when we are in government we did have a Commonwealth Dental Scheme, a very important scheme that was actually seeing public waiting lists in dental going down. What was John Howard's first act when he came into this parliament as Prime Minister? He got rid of that scheme and introduced a very limited scheme that then blew out. It was very limited scheme that was never designed to do what it was ending up doing back in 2012. It is important to know your history when it comes to dental health and when it comes to Commonwealth funding for dental health.

The former Labor government was able in 2012 to provide the most significant Commonwealth investment in dental care since Federation. There has never been any logical reason for why health care should stop at our teeth and why Australia should care about every part of the health of a person's body, apart from what is in their mouth. The abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme by John Howard was, frankly, something that saw public dental lists blow out in this country. He was responsible for that.

We know that dental care is, of course, not just about teeth, but poor dental care is a good determinant of poor general health care; that poor dental care is linked to chronic disease; and that if teeth are not properly cared for poor dental care too often leads to much greater health problems. So it was with some pride that as a member of the former Labor government I was involved in the steps we took to advance our universal system of health care to dental care with the announcement of a $4.1 billion Dental Reform Package. As far reaching as this was, it still the not fully extended to dental care the same level of support that Medicare provides for just about every other area of health care. As always, the budget had to be taken into account. We had to ensure that the steps we talk to extend Medicare to dentistry could be afforded and, indeed, justified against the competing demands of so many other worthy areas of health. So we targeted the areas of dental care that were most likely to deliver the greatest return of that investment and was most deserving of funding. In other words, children and low-income earners.

The $4.1 billion Dental Reform Package we announced back in 2012 comprised $2.7 billion for around 3.4 million Australian children who will be eligible for subsidised dental care. Ours was 'Helping kids to grow up smiling'; the government has now changed it to the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. There was $1.3 billion for around 1.4 million additional services for adults on low incomes to have better access to dental care through the public dental system; and $225 million for dental capital and workforce was to be provided to support expanded services for people living in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas. The centrepiece, of course, was the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which commenced on 1 January this year—the program that meant that for over 3 million children aged two to 17, going to the dentist now has become like going to see the GP.

We introduced the scheme because of disturbing evidence that the oral health of children has been declining since the mid 1990s. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2009 the proportion of children who had experienced decay in their baby or deciduous teeth ranged from 42 per cent of five-year-olds to 61 per cent of nine-year-olds. The proportion of children with permanent teeth affected by decay ranged from five per cent for six-year-olds to 58 per cent for 14-year-olds. That is a damning indictment on what was happening in dental for children.

Almost 20,000 kids under the age of 10 are hospitalised each year due to avoidable dental issues. By age 15 six out of 10 kids have tooth decay. So the scheme sought to tackle that by providing a capped benefit of $1,000 per child over a two calendar year period targeted at low- and middle-income families by tying eligibility to those receiving family tax benefit part A or an equivalent Australian government payment—trying to put money where it was most needed: preventative health of children's dental and for low- and middle-income earners. The program is a crucial investment in the long term health of children, because we know that dental health in children is the best predictor of dental health as adults but also a predictor of overall health. In just the first two months of this scheme's operation, more than 84,000 children have received dental treatment under the Child Dental Benefits Scheme, and that includes some 26,000 children outside of major cities. As those figures show, it is a scheme that has been desperately needed, and Labor was very proud to deliver it.

In addition to dental for children, the Dental Reform Package provided extra funding for 1.4 million additional services for adults on low incomes, including pensioners and concession card holders and those with special needs to have better access to dental health care through the public dental system. It also meant more services and more dentists in areas of most need—outside capital cities and large regional centres where, again, we know there are higher rates of poor dental health and chronic illness. Again here the funding was driven by the evidence about who was most in need of government support. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, while untreated decay and fillings are similar across income ranges, if you earn more than $60,000 a year you have on average seven more teeth than those earning less than $20,000 per year. That is, again, pretty damning statistic and evidence that, sadly, in Australia, while we have a health system that guarantees first-class care for people who have an accident or get cancer or heart disease, the state of a person's teeth are still a very good determinant of income.