17180
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 27 September 2001 ______
The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President offered the Prayers.
PETITIONS
Morisset Policing
Petition praying that a permanent police presence be returned to Morisset, received from the Hon. Michael Gallacher.
Cooks Cove Industrial Estate
Petition praying that the House abandon the proposed development of Cooks Cove industrial estate, North Arncliffe, and protect the area for future generations, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.
School Funding
Petition praying that the House pass the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government) Schools Bill, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.
Old-growth Forests Protection
Petition praying for the cessation of logging and woodchipping in high conservation forests, protection of old-growth forests and critical habitats, use of plantation timber, and support for composting, soil remineralisation and environmental education tourism, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (REDUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WEALTHY NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 26 September. The Hon. IAN COHEN [11.06 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak to the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill. I congratulate my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon on introducing such a socially progressive bill and important bill. Ms Lee Rhiannon should be commended for her untiring work in connection with public education since she became a member of this Parliament. Over the past few years since the Federal Coalition was elected in 1996 there has been an outrageous increase in public funding for private schools, especially wealthy private schools. An enormous increase in taxpayers' funds has been funnelled into the private school system rather than being used to finance the public education system. The Greens have a strong pro public education policy which states:
The Greens believe that a safe, fair, tolerant, cohesive and democratic Australia requires a quality, well-funded public education system. The Greens strongly oppose taxpayers' money being spent on funding wealthy private schools. In short, that is a disgrace. It is more important than ever that this bill be passed since the Federal Government's Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment Scheme and its new socioeconomic status formula were introduced. This new policy, which was brought in through the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, determines Commonwealth funding of schools. The Act deals with $22 billion worth of funding over the next four years. It delivers $6 billion to non-government schools other than Catholic schools, $9 billion to Catholic schools, and only $7 billion to State schools. Seventy per cent of children attend public schools, yet they get only 32 per cent of the funding. Not only is this new funding system an absolute kick in the teeth for public schools, it will also produce some 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17181 ludicrous results. When this policy was being debated, the media gave a good example: Kings School in Parramatta. That school will receive an additional $1.4 million of public money every year despite its having a myriad of cricket ovals, five basketball courts, a swimming pool, a rifle range and low teacher/student ratios.
The Hon. Doug Moppett: It has all been worth it: it produced Arthur Chesterfield-Evans! The Hon. IAN COHEN: I thank the Hon. Doug Moppett for his support. The infamous Trinity Grammar, which was rocked by recent sexual assault allegations, will receive a $1,402 windfall for each child, which is a 172 per cent increase. St Joseph's College will be $1,628 per student better off, which is a 280 per cent increase. Yet the 2,200 public schools in New South Wales will have their funding cut by $135 million by 2004. According to the New South Wales Teachers Federation this will mean that secondary school students in public schools will receive only an extra $5 per student annually. Individual schools such as Cambridge Park High School at Penrith can expect cuts of $60,000 by 2004. These kinds of ridiculous, inequitable policies are the reason why it is necessary to channel money from rich private schools to public schools and, in particular, to disadvantaged public schools. A recent pamphlet distributed by the Teachers Federation explains succinctly the importance of public education. The pamphlet states:
Public education has made Australia one of the safest, most democratic and cohesive societies in the world. Public education is dedicated to giving all Australians the foundations upon which to build a future for themselves and their families.
It is open and accessible to all. It does not discriminate. It develops self-motivated learners and responsible, co-operative and caring adults.
Public education maximises the performance of all students from all parts of society. We should encourage and cherish public education, not continuously attack it and reduce its funding level. This bill seeks to do just that. It redirects money from the most wealthy private schools—the old categories 1, 2 and 3—to the Priority Schools Funding Program, formerly known as the Disadvantaged Schools Program. This extremely worthwhile program reduces class sizes in government schools in areas of significant socioeconomic disadvantage. Private schools receive State funds of approximately $40 million, which will be redirected from schools and students who desperately need increased funding. Interestingly, the non-government school sector also receives a substantial amount each year to subsidise interest on loans for approved buildings for private schools. For instance, last financial year $35 million was allocated for this purpose and this year $36 million has been allocated. This policy has provided some inequitable results. The Daily Telegraph reported on 26 February that a State high school, Hunters Hill, which has almost 600 students, had been waiting for four months to find out when its school hall and gymnasium would be rebuilt after it had burned down in a fire last year. Although this school is one of the schools earmarked for closure, it still highlights the challenges and difficulties facing public schools when it comes to finding money for urgently needed repairs and maintenance. On the other hand, less than a kilometre away, the elite private boys boarding school of St Joseph's College was granted a $500,000 subsidy for building work. This was on top of a $1.7 million loan last financial year. The school already boasts a rowing club, tennis courts, basketball courts and a fitness centre. These kinds of examples and policies highlight the disgraceful inequities between the private and public education system. There are two clear reasons for supporting the funding mechanisms in this bill. First, State subsidisation of the wealthiest private schools encourages the growth of social and economic inequality. By pouring $40 million each year into these schools the New South Wales State Government is increasing the privilege of those that already have resources that far outstrip anything in the State school system. The consequential growth in the difference between the education environment of the wealthy and the educational environment of the rest of Australia cannot lead to a more cohesive society. The second reason for supporting the funding mechanisms proposed in the bill is the additional funds it would deliver to the Priority Schools Funding Program, which was originally conceived in the early 1970s as the Disadvantaged Schools Program. Under that program Federal funds were directed to schools that service communities with significant socioeconomic disadvantage. The intent was to address the aggregated effects of disadvantage on educational outcomes. When the Howard Government came to office it cancelled this program and concentrated its Federal funds instead on literacy and numeracy programs and on massive increases to the wealthy private schools. Only in New South Wales did the State Government continue to fund the program. However, it is chronically starved of funds. Each year schools are removed from the program, though all of them service communities with more than 50 per cent unemployment. Although the schools funded by the program do a remarkable job, additional 17182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 funding would allow greater depth of activities in those schools and allow for a greater breadth of schools to be covered. This bill would double funds to the Priority Schools Funding Program, and that would have a real and measurable impact on the learning outcomes in the most disadvantaged areas of New South Wales. There is no doubt that the long-term benefits for all of society justify this bill. As long as there are students who are left behind and communities that are severely disadvantaged, there will be social division and insecurity. The measures contained in this bill are essential not only for communities that would directly gain from them but for all society because they work towards a more just and peaceful future.
I wish to pay tribute to the teachers in schools within the Priority Schools Funding Program. Despite working under some of the most stressful conditions in the entire education system, these teachers and their students are engaged in leading-edge pedagogy. The quality and quantity of innovative teaching practices emerging from these priority funded schools are remarkable. Like so many other teachers, the staff at these public schools work hard to achieve the very best for their students, and in many cases they achieve extraordinary outcomes, often giving of their own time and energy beyond levels that could reasonably be expected of them. This House is honour bound to give those teachers all our support and this bill would, in some measure, do that.
Another aspect of this bill deserves attention. For the first time the bill imposes legislative requirements on private schools to make public their accounts and records in the same way that public schools are required to do. Across Australia some 57 per cent of money spent on educating children in private schools comes from the State and Federal governments, amounting to about 20 per cent of the total State and Federal schools budgets. These figures already demonstrate that Australians have a substantial financial interest in private education. Further, these schools educate 30 per cent of children. Each and every Australian, regardless of where they are educated, has a direct and proper interest in being informed of the activities of the private education industry.
The health of a democracy can, in some measure, be assessed by its willingness to allow public scrutiny of public activities. Education is central to the future of our society and it is, therefore, important that community debate should be well informed. This can only be achieved by ensuring that private schools are subjected to the same accountability mechanisms that have been imposed on public education. Education funding is taken very seriously by the Greens. My Greens colleague and friend Senator Bob Brown worked hard to oppose the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill and to push the Labor Party to redress the imbalance between public and private school Federal funding created by the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments.
On Saturday 8 September Senator Brown addressed 6,000 parents, teachers, students and supporters of public education at the Public Education Convention at Homebush Bay and laid out another vision for the future of public education. I want to quote two passages from his speech that sum up why the Greens feel so strongly about this issue. Senator Brown said:
How unAustralian it is in the land of the fair go, that the distribution of that shrunken cake is so skewed to the private sector that quality education has become no longer universally available but rather a "good" to transmit privilege! How shocking it is that we now spend more on private schools than on Australian universities!
Even the USA, the land of the private sector, has a constitutional restriction on such funding of private education.
Australia's politicians need to be reminded that public education has for more than 150 years been the defining institution of our democracy. It has been a matter of pride that every Australian child no matter where they come from or how well off their parents were, could aspire to any position in the country because the public education system made it possible. We will not give up on that. Senator Brown continued:
The Australian community wants a fair go for every child; why should some have trips to the snowfields and others leaking toilets? Why should some, like Kings have 18 cricket pitches and a proposed $14 million upgrade while others like Maroubra High face closure?
This is education irrationality, coming out of economic rationalism. Nothing will persuade the Greens that markets should determine the fate of people and the Earth's ecosystems; that schools should compete against each other; that self interest makes private employees obviously efficient and public employees inefficient.
People want to live in a decent society as well as doing well for themselves. It may come as a great shock to the economic rationalists in Canberra that most people care about the public interest, that they will rise up in the face of unfairness; that a great deal of collective behaviour and a great deal of unselfish, altruistic behaviour is utterly rational. It is for this sense of public interest, for this sense of unselfish, altruistic collective behaviour, for all that is fair and just in Australian society that the bill should be supported. I urge honourable members to support it, to give 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17183 a much-needed funding boost to the most vulnerable students in our public education system and to acknowledge that in the land of the fair go students are not getting a fair go in the education system. Once again I congratulate my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon on putting so much work into the bill. I also congratulate her staffer John Kaye, who has worked tirelessly on public education for a number of years, with tangible results and appreciation from throughout the education community. This is another example of where the Government needs to be in step with the real feelings and aspirations of the public of New South Wales.
The Hon. MALCOLM JONES [11.20 a.m.]: I oppose the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill. I believe it is quite wrong to differentiate between wealthy non-government schools and non-government schools. Some non-government schools are successful and some are not. I will return to that point later. Success and prudence should not be penalised. Resentment should not motivate anything—although it often does in this place, especially where Ms Lee Rhiannon, who introduced the bill, is concerned. I will not differentiate in my speech between the so-called wealthy non-government schools and non-government schools; I will not acknowledge the term "wealthy" in the context of this bill.
Over the past 30 years society has changed considerably, and I believe that public education has not evolved adequately to meet the challenges. In fact, I believe that in some cases public education has failed society. I will cite a few examples. The first involves the experiment in the early 1980s to teach children to read phonetically. My twins were adversely affected by this experiment, which was later discontinued when its failure became obvious to all. When we tried to remedy the problem, the school advised the children's mother, my former wife, and me not to interfere. The children's difficulty with reading remained a problem for many years until they caught up—without much help from their schools, I might add.
I have a second example. For some years I dealt with many people in country areas of New South Wales. The level of illiteracy among workers, especially young men, was alarmingly high and included such basic problems as an inability to spell their middle names or not knowing their date of birth precisely. The numbers were disturbing. An education system that cannot educate students sufficiently to enable them to write their names or dates of birth is a failure. It may educate children to give them the capacity to achieve high standards in the higher school certificate [HSC], but it is a failure when it leaves children in country areas without that capacity.
As an antidote to public education, people in a free society have a choice: the freedom to choose an alternative to public schools, that is, private education. People who choose this alternative must pay. They generally pay a lot of money and, contrary to much of the propaganda, most of them are not rich. These parents are neither well heeled nor born with silver spoons in their mouths, but they go without to provide the best they can for their children. And guess what? These people still pay a lot of tax. There is no tax deduction for their fees, which are all paid in after-tax dollars.
An increasing number of people are electing to send their children to private schools—and there is more to the decision than the quality of education. That decision is often encouraged by the types of people who deliver education in the two different systems. I took exception to what I deemed to be the indoctrination of Marxist theory at Pittwater High School in Mona Vale. While agreeing that this was not on the curriculum, the teacher admitted that he had a personal interest in the topic. I elected to take my three children from the public system to the private system and to pay and pay and pay. It is unfair to deprive privately operated schools of public support on a pro rata contribution basis. According to Ms Lee Rhiannon—I have not researched her handout adequately so I take her at her word— private schools receive 25 per cent of the cost of educating a child in a public school. This is not that generous, and if parents could opt for a tax deduction for private school fees and forgo any public purse support I am sure they would opt to do that. However, that is a Federal Government matter and, therefore, hypothetical to the debate in this place. The assumption that private schools are wealthy is an example of the propaganda to which I have alluded already. Julian, my eldest son, attended the Peninsula Boys School, which later became the Peninsula Grammar School, at Warriewood. This was a Church Of England school that later went broke. It is quite wrong to differentiate between wealthy private schools and other private schools. A lot of the migration from public schools can be blamed on members of the Teachers Federation. The Teachers Federation has many fine members. However, it also a few—usually the most visible—who are scruffy and who behave in an objectionable way at public demonstrations. Their antics can only drive parents to seek alternatives to public education. 17184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
Public schools can, and do, deliver good results, as is evidenced regularly by published HSC grades. However, teachers play a special role in massaging the minds of our children, and parents should have the right to choose the teachers of their children and to be discerning about teachers' standards of behaviour, language and dress and the examples they set. The exodus from public education will continue and, as the percentages change in favour of private education, it is unfair to deny one section of taxpayers' children a contribution from the public purse. I believe that this bill is about resentment or class hatred rather than the economics of education. Therefore, I do not support it.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.27 a.m.]: The Government is sympathetic to the broad intent of the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill, which was introduced by Ms Lee Rhiannon, and understands the Greens' motivation in presenting it. However, the Government is unable to support the bill on the following general grounds. First, the Government is close to completing a comprehensive review of funding and accountability for non-government schools. Second, once the Government has considered the recommendations of the review, it will determine if legislation is necessary to alter current funding arrangements. Third, the Greens legislation is based on income levels—primarily fees—which fails to capture the complexity of this issue.
The bill pre-empts the recommendations of the Government's review of non-government schools, which is in the process of considering the issues of equitable school funding and accountability and reporting requirements. The review involves a process of consultation with the government and non-government school sectors and key education and community groups on the funding, regulation and accountability options for non- government schooling in New South Wales. The review will provide advice on a State funding and accountability framework for non-government schools that is effective and equitable. The review is taking account of recent changes in Commonwealth funding policy and the methodology for distributing funds to non- government schools established through the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000.
A key concern of the review is to ascertain clearly the way in which combined Commonwealth-State funding for schools can be distributed more equitably. A more strategic and comprehensive set of arrangements is required to respond to emerging funding inequities and to establish accountability requirements. The review of non-government schools will provide the Government with policy direction in this regard.
I will deal now with Government funding on the basis of fee levels. The bill introduced by Ms Lee Rhiannon proposes that State per capita funding for non-government schools would be determined primarily on the basis of income. In considering appropriate levels of funding for non-government schools, there is a need to take into account the range of funding sources from which schools draw. This includes private contributions, public per capita and capital funding, fees, contributions in kind and accumulated resources. I am pleased to note that the Greens have addressed this concern partly by broadening the definition of "fees" in section 21A. But, ultimately, income alone is inadequate to achieve the Greens stated purposes. School expenditure, accumulated resources, facilities and assets, trust funds run by old-boys or old-girls clubs, and parental socioeconomic status are all factors that could reasonably be taken into account. The lesson is simple: a fair and transparent determination of public funding for non-government schools is difficult to calculate. The Government's review of non-government school funding is attempting to develop a fairer system while addressing its complexities. I turn now to increased funding to the Disadvantaged Schools Program, now the Priority Schools Funding Program. The bill seeks to improve funding levels to schools in disadvantaged areas. The Government is supportive of increased resources for disadvantaged schools. Again, we are sympathetic to the Greens' intentions in this bill in that regard. The Government's view is that approaches taken to increasing resources to disadvantaged areas need to be part of a strategic and sustainable program of support. This support needs to be related to specific planned approaches to improving outcomes rather than simply a diversion of funds from one group of schools to another. The concept proposed here has intrinsic merit, and the Government will give the concept further consideration in the context of the overall review that is being conducted. The Government is committed to fair and equitable education provision for all school students in New South Wales. The Government believes that any legislative reform should be based on a thorough consideration of all the issues involved and broad consultation with the education community. That is the purpose of the current review of non-government schools. The Government understands Ms Lee Rhiannon's motivation in introducing this bill and believes that it is laudable. However, until such time as the complexities of this issue have been fully explored—that is, through the Grimshaw review—we are not in a position to support changes to non-government school funding legislation. 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17185
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.32 a.m.]: Education is the single most important gift that one generation can give to the next. It behoves all honourable members to ensure that the highest standard of education is provided to all students in New South Wales. That is a fundamental tenet of liberalism, and it is a fundamental tenet of the philosophies and policies of the Coalition in New South Wales. Many of the words spoken by Ms Lee Rhiannon in the early part of her speech would be acceptable to everyone in the Chamber. She said:
Education is a crucial determinant of the economic and social development of an individual and also of the success of society itself. The progressive objectives of education must be that all students, regardless of accidents of their birth, are given the opportunity to live fulfilling and satisfying lives and to participate in constructive ways in their communities. A healthy and dynamic public education system is central to this objective.
Every honourable member should and must accept those core beliefs. However, having said that, some aspects of her speech are factually wrong. The premise upon which the bill is based is simply wrong. I will pick up on some of the points made by Ms Lee Rhiannon. Let us be clear about this: This bill seeks to use State funding but all the arguments, particularly those of the Hon. Ian Cohen, were about Federal funding. This is an attempt by the Greens to get into the education debate as we approach the Federal election. I cannot ignore their motive; it was reflected in their words. The basis of much of what the Greens said referred to the lack of growth funding. That is just wrong—and it is particularly wrong if one looks at Federal Government funding.
In 1996, the first year of the Howard Government, direct support by the Commonwealth to government schools in New South Wales was $528,476,000. In 1999 it was $615,970,000. By 2002 it will be approximately $706 million. By 2004, at the end of the present funding period, it will be approximately $754 million. That is a period of sustained and continuous growth. Indeed, up to last year funding had increased since 1996 by 21 per cent in real growth terms, and by 2004 it will have increased by well in excess of 40 per cent. In 1996 overall Federal funding to the States was $1.560 billion, and by 2004 it will be $2.268 billion. Therefore, it is incorrect for the Greens to suggest that there has been no growth funding. I am sure that Government members could refer to growth in State funding, although there were some years, including in the last budget, when growth funding was simply not evident.
It is worth explaining why funding for non-government schools has increased. I do not deny that Federal funding has grown at a greater rate. The Federal Labor Government had a no-growth policy for new schools, which meant that other than in growth areas there was no provision for additional non-government schools. We went through a period where no schools were built, except in some growth areas. There were lots of hoops through which schools had to jump if they wished to be established. The Howard Government changed that. One of the polices of the Liberal Party is parental choice. To give parents that choice, the Federal Government developed non-government schools. It is a matter of record that there has been a significant increase in the number of non-government schools. Therefore, the percentage of children in non-government schools has increased. As a matter of logic, as there are now more students in the non-government sector funding has increased as a matter of course. When responding to an interjection from one of my colleagues, Ms Lee Rhiannon talked about fairness and said:
Does he think it is fair that St Catherine's Anglican School for Girls in Waverley is about to spend $7 million on a new gymnasium complex?
The St Catherine's $7 million gymnasium has not received money from the building interest subsidy scheme. The funding is the result of the work and effort of parents over a considerable period of time. It does not mean that State funding was directed into that school. What does St Catherine's get? I have taught at St Catherine's so I have some knowledge of it. It is situated on a small site and is the oldest continuously independent school in Australia. I recall two high school students who had been at the school since they were each aged eight. One had parents who lived in Catherine in the Northern Territory and the other travelled from Hong Kong to attend the school. The provision of facilities, such as a gymnasium, gave them something to do on the weekends. But in those days the school did not have a gymnasium. It did have a swimming pool and two tennis courts and very little else on the site.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Poor little things! That is sad, isn't it? Only two swimming pools.
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I did not say the school had two swimming pools. I said it had two tennis courts, which most schools have.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Only two tennis courts and one swimming pool? That is really sad. 17186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I will not get tied up on that point. What does St Catherine's actually get? Under the Federal Government's legislation the school, because of its category, gets about 30 per cent of the average government school recurrent cost as a result of its socioeconomic status score. It was a level three school prior to the change. Its Commonwealth per capita funding in 2004 will be $1,947 for primary school students and $2,550 for secondary school students. If St Catherine's closed its doors and all of its students went back into the public sector, the Commonwealth would need to find an additional $4.127 million each year simply to provide the same standard that is provided at the moment. Under the funding formula, no child in any single non-government school anywhere in the country gets anywhere remotely near the funding for government school students.
As honourable members know, the 30 per cent of students in the non-government sector represents a saving to taxpayers of an estimated $2.6 billion. That fact was overlooked in the Greens bill. Ms Lee Rhiannon also said in her speech that there would not be government schools like St Catherine's. In the provision of government schools one finds a range of facilities. I note that recently the Minister for Education and Training opened a refurbished swimming pool at a local government primary school in my area. I see nothing wrong with that. Not every primary school has that facility, but funding for that facility would have been the result of parents' efforts. It would not be the only public school in New South Wales with a swimming pool.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What is a local government primary school?
The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I am talking about Pymble primary school. I saw a photograph of it in the North Shore Times. There are different standards among government schools, often as a result of parents' contributions. That is also the case in the non-government sector. Much of the basis of the argument from the Greens has been about taking capital assets into account to determine wealth. The whole basis of funding is not capital funding, it is recurrent funding for the provision of salaries for teachers and the normal recurrent costs of schools. The Australian schooling budget is about $18 billion. About 80 per cent of that budget is spent on government school students and about 20 per cent on non-government schools students. The ratio of students in government and non-government schools is about 70 per cent to 30 per cent. Any suggestion of an extraordinary imbalance is wrong. The Hon. Ian Cohen referred to the building interest subsidy scheme of $35 million. Last year's State budget alone for government capital works for schools was $257 million. That is less than $1 to $3; it is more like $1 to $7.
I encourage Government funding of government school capital works. However, the honourable member asked whether the $35 million was fair. The $35 million does not represent a fair balance between government and non-government schools, and nor should it. We do not expect equal funding to non-government school students. They get a percentage provided for in the Education Act based on 25 per cent of the average government school recurrent cost. I make the point that is an average figure. That is not what all students get. It varies from about 13 per cent for schools at one end of the scale to 70 per cent for 33 special education schools in New South Wales. Some students who are deaf, blind or have other disabilities still only receive funding to about 70 per cent. If we go down the path of accepting this sort of legislation, the capacity for non-government schools to accept more students with disabilities will be weakened. To support those children as they should be supported costs infinitely more than the cost of supporting other students. The bill will only weaken the opportunity for schools to accept students with disabilities.
In this debate the difference between government and non-government schools has been lost. If we want to ensure a provision of education for all, the Government has a clear responsibility to provide funding. As to the sources of funding for government school students in New South Wales, 83 per cent comes from the State Government, 12 per cent from the Commonwealth Government—recognising the constitutional difference between the role of the States, which have the primary responsibility for education—and 5 per cent from private sources. In the case of non-government schools, about 40 per cent comes from the Commonwealth Government, 17 per cent from the State Government and 43 per cent from private sources, principally from parents. That balance has been fairly constant for a long period of time, regardless of which government has been in power. It is interesting to look at this from the perspective of the Catholic schools in New South Wales. Despite the debate about increased funding, the Catholic school sector has raised concerns. Recently in a document Br Canavan, Executive Director of Schools, said:
Put another way, this means that each NSW state school student receives $1943 more in government funding than a student in a Catholic systemic school. Funding to the Catholic systemic schools represents by far the bulk of funding to non-government schools from government. That is the differential. We usually talk about an average difference in the Government's 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17187 contribution as $2,000 more for educating a child in a government school compared with a child in a non- government school. More children being diverted into non-government schools means more money being diverted from taxpayers contributions. If every child attended a government school, without adding one more pencil or one more sheet of paper, we would need to find from government sources about $2.6 billion more across Australia. If we want to increase standards, I do not know why we are set on a path of trying to weaken and undermine the role of the non-government sector. Some parents regard it as their role and obligation to be involved.
The Minister for Education and Training is not merely the Minister for public education. He has a responsibility for the standards of students and schools across the State. This bill is discriminatory. There is no clear basis for determining wealth except the fees that parents are required to pay. The bill refers to wealthy schools. Yet, as the Hon. Ian Macdonald said, the basis of the bill has much to do with parents' capacity to pay. The Government is looking at this as part of the Grimshaw review. The Opposition does not have any difficulty with concepts of equity, which the Government said would be the basis of the findings of the Grimshaw review. I await those findings with interest.
The bill is divisive. It does not take account of school scholarships and bursaries. It does not take account of the other side of the ledger. It penalises schools that charge a specific fee. What about all of those schools that have to pay to enrol students to sit for the basic skills test? They cannot be registered unless their students sit for the test. They pay an exorbitant amount of money to access VET subjects. If they no longer receive funding, on the other side of the ledger is it assumed that they will no longer have to pay the Government? The Greens bill is silent on this side of funding. The criteria are not clear. Many families can afford to pay whatever fee is set; many cannot, but they choose for a variety of the reasons to access a non- government school and make great sacrifices. To say that because a school receives a particular income means it is a wealthy school ignores the capacity of parents to pay.
As to transparency and accountability, I note that Ms Lee Rhiannon, when speaking to the Dental Practice Bill, said that she was pleased to note that the bill had been extensively worked through with stakeholders. I know there was no attempt to discuss the issues in this bill with the non-government sector. It may well be that many in the non-government sector are interested in an open and accountable system. There has never been any issue about that. The State, unlike the Commonwealth, has not required an annual report to Parliament or a public accountability statement. So there may be some agreement on that part of the bill, if not on every clause of it.
Priority schools funding is, of course, important. I have a commitment to that concept, just as the Government does. Priority schools funding is a way of trying to redress some of the imbalance, because schools in poorer communities whose parents do not have the capacity to contribute even small amounts of money should receive some support, particularly in recognition of the fact that those schools service poorer communities. On the North Shore, where I live, in the eastern suburbs and in some of the northern beaches areas levels of parent funding are vastly different from that in some other areas. One can see, merely by going by a school, what parents have provided to government schools. Equally, one can see what is provided by parents to schools in the non-government sector. Honourable members spoke about fairness. Fairness must be considered in the context of the complete picture, because some government schools clearly have the financial support of parents who have the capacity to pay and do make financial contributions as part of what they regard as their obligation, in the same way as parents with children at non-government schools.
The Opposition cannot support this legislation. It is discriminatory and provides no clear basis on why a particular income level is chosen. It is an attack on parents, and it is divisive. We should be finding ways to unite families involved in the debate on school funding, not make the division between them greater. That is fundamental to the issues at stake. We need to work together as a community because, at the end of the day, the Minister for Education and Training has responsibility for all schools and their standards. My fundamental belief is that parents have a right to expect an education return for their tax dollar. If they choose the government system, then the return will be far greater than if they choose the non-government sector, where the return for some schools can be as low as 13 per cent of the average government school recurrent cost. That figure increases to something in the order of about 50 per cent in the Catholic system. That is a fairer system because it takes into account need.
I am the first to admit that the Federal Government's new socioeconomic status formula has some problems, particularly for a school that has a significant number of boarders and, therefore, may reflect an entirely diverse group of the community from which it is drawn. But those issues can be worked through. The 17188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 point is that, at the end of the day, that bill was passed by the Federal Parliament. It did not pass simply because of the efforts of the Coalition Government; it had Opposition support. I repeat that the New South Wales Opposition cannot support this legislation. It is discriminatory and divisive, and it will not provide a better education outcome for all students across New South Wales.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [11.52 a.m.]: I support the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill. The real debate should not be about the funding of private schools versus public schools but about the nature of Australian society, which is shaped by our education system. Parents and children should be able to have the benefit of a particular kind of education system if they so choose. It is up to the government to make available the range of choices in the public system so that parents are able to meet their needs. The situation now is that more and more parents are sending their children to private schools because there are not the choices available in the public school system. Not all parents who send their children to private schools do so merely because they want their children to have a superior education; some want their children to have a different kind of education.
The current arrangements, both State and Federal, for school funding urgently need to be reviewed and changed. Every year millions and millions of dollars go to funding non-government schools. There is no problem per se with money going to non-government schools, because in my view many non-government schools rely on public funds for their very existence. In 1969 I was involved in the founding of a public school called Currambena in Lane Cove. That school is still operating. The only reason that we founded the school was to give our children a particular kind of education. Many hundreds of children have gone through that school and subsequently been very successful in society. That is because they were able to do what they wanted to do, be themselves and make their own choices, even at an early age.
What needs to be corrected—and will be corrected through this legislation—is the allocation of funds to the wealthiest private schools, that is, where the annual fee for attending the school exceeds, in the case of providing primary education, $7,000, and in the case of providing secondary education, $8,000. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales reports that it is inappropriate for the New South Wales Government to continue funding the wealthiest private schools, especially as public schools are increasingly dependent on fundraising to make even the most basic additions to their resources. Also, surveys show that in less affluent areas many parents are unable to contribute to the school and that the numbers of families contributing are smaller than in affluent areas.
This bill has the support of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens, and the New South Wales Primary Principals Association, amongst others. An Australian Government Primary Principals Association survey, released in February, highlighted that resource levels in public primary schools have not kept pace with their expectations and government demands on schools. The gaps between public schools in rich and poor areas are increasing. It has been argued that the drift to private schools will only increase, and students will be tougher to teach, if additional resources are not provided. Separate surveys conducted by Auspoll for the Australian Education Union and the Australian Scholarships Group show overwhelming community support for more funding for public education.
I too support more funding for public education, and I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. The public education system of New South Wales and of other States really needs considerable extra funding. I have no doubt that the public education system is the most important area of government funding—even more important than health. Many who are forced to take advantage of the health system do most of the damage to themselves through smoking and excessive drinking. The education system, though, is for the young, those who will be the next generation of Australians running this country. It is important to maximise funding for public education. Parents should not have to scratch around for funds to assist their local schools. Low-income earners should not have to pay fees to provide extras, and even some essentials, for their schools. The very rich schools should not receive public funding. I am talking here about the very wealthy schools. I went to a very wealthy school. Yesterday I received the school magazine. I was amazed at the resources that that school has.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Is this an argument for public funding? The Hon. RICHARD JONES: This is an argument against public funding. The Hon. Duncan Gay: I didn't know the Eton College sent out magazines. The Hon. RICHARD JONES: Epsom. You would not believe the resources that the school has. It has new computers and other resources that no public schools in the United Kingdom would have. It would be 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17189 anomalous for such a school to receive public funding. There are similar schools in New South Wales which receive public funding. That, clearly, is an anomaly. Some parents can afford the entire amount needed to fund their children's schooling. Such parents who want their children to go to elite schools should pay the full amount. But many other schools, for example Glenaeon school and the Steiner schools, which are an important part of the education system, do not have those resources. I support the bill.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
WORKCOVER UNFUNDED LIABILITY
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will he explain to each and every one of the residents of the Hunter, who are seeking to pay for police officers to patrol their homes, streets and businesses, why they will not receive funding for an additional 79 police officers because of mismanagement by his Government, which has led to the $3.17 million a day increase in the WorkCover unfunded liability, a liability that the residents of this State will ultimately have to pay for?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for WorkCover has indicated the depths of his breathtaking ignorance about the way that the system for which he is supposed to be shadow minister operates. As I have explained, firstly, WorkCover is off budget. Therefore there is no connection between police funding or funding for police services and WorkCover operations. Secondly, WorkCover is not subject to a debt of $3 billion. It is a deficit: it is the extent to which the premium dollar collected today will not meet the expected liabilities against that premium. We are fixing the problem. I have been speculating about ideas from the Opposition about WorkCover and I have been listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Apart from what I hear when I monitor Muswellbrook radio stations the only thing the Opposition has done in the past three months is issue two press releases, neither of which makes any suggestion about how to solve the problems. All we have is the occasional outbreak of mock outrage and concern for about four minutes at the beginning of each question time.
This year the Government introduced legislation to transform dispute resolution in workers compensation. We are streamlining the system, cutting delays and disputes. We are introducing modern medical guidelines developed in consultation with leading specialists. To crack down on employers who evade their premium responsibilities we have released a Government green paper proposing new legislative measures to help WorkCover collect premiums. This week we announced a crackdown that will result in WorkCover doubling the number of employer wage audits. One of the two news releases from the Opposition demanded that the Government release the report of the Sheahan inquiry. When we did there was silence from the Opposition—no response, no opinion, and no ideas. The Coalition that created the deficit provided no solutions. When the Government introduced comprehensive legislation to restore the scheme to viability, in the final vote on 29 June the Liberal and National parties elected to keep the current scheme. They voted to keep the scheme that, at the time, was adding another $577 million to the deficit.
Perhaps when the Government introduces new legislation this session the Liberal and National parties will respond differently. Perhaps they are beginning to understand that we have a system that is not serving the interests of injured workers or the economy of the State. Although the number of injuries is falling—that is the good news—costs are rising. The benefits of the scheme are eaten away by expensive processes. The Carr Government has been addressing these issues. We are introducing a fairer system. We are tracking down employers who evade their responsibilities. We are running pilot programs on injury management. We have introduced new safety regulations to help prevent injuries in the first place. We are consulting with employers and unions on the Sheahan report and we will bring new legislation to the House during this session. I look forward to the Opposition assisting in that process.
HAND BRAKE TURN PROGRAM
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. What action is the Government taking in western Sydney to break the cycle of crime for young people at risk of offending behaviour? 17190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: There is an innovative program in western Sydney for young people deemed to be at risk of offending or becoming involved in offending behaviour. Appropriately it is called Hand Brake Turn. The program aims to stop the cycle of crime and point young people in a new direction. Hand Brake Turn prepares young people for employment in the automotive trades. It gives them hands-on training and experience in the trades of motor mechanics, spray painters and panel beaters. It also instructs them in driving skills and workshop safety, while developing their numeracy, literacy and communication abilities. Although it is not exclusively for young people convicted of car theft, one of the objectives of the program is to reduce the rate of motor vehicle related crime committed by 15-year-olds to 24-year-olds. About 230 young people have been involved in the program in the two years it has operated. About one-third of them have been clients of Juvenile Justice. Approximately 142 have secured apprenticeships or jobs in the automotive industry as a direct result of the training, or they have undertaken further education to equip them for employment.
This is a truly impressive success rate with a notoriously difficult group of clients. I acknowledge the organisations that run and support the program, including the Christian social service organisation Care and Communication Concern, which brought the program to Sydney in 1999. It has produced impressive results in Dandenong in Victoria. Care and Communication Concern runs the Sydney program from large workshops at Pendle Hill. Funding is also provided by the Department of Juvenile Justice, the NRMA, the Federal Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, and the Australian Youth Foundation. The program is a good example of a number of organisations at government levels working together. Importantly, the automotive industry generally gives strong support by providing funding and giving trainees on-the-job work experience. Individual companies make valuable donations of car parts. The program runs four 10-week courses a year. Each course has about 24 participants who are referred by agencies. Young women are also included. The program's mission statement is:
Hand Brake Turn seeks to provide practical training, personal support and pathways to further training and/or employment for young people.
It also attempts to break the unemployment cycle and the reoffending cycle of these young people, preventing them from becoming involved or further entrenched in the juvenile justice system.
Hand Brake Turn aims to assist young people to maximise their potential so they can offer a positive contribution to society.
The program strongly acknowledges that to deal with offending behaviour you have to get to some of the root causes that lead young people into that sort of behaviour. After young people have completed a program they are further assisted in securing employment and in pursuing more training. An outstanding feature of the program is that each 10-week course rehabilitates a damaged or broken-down car, putting it back in very good condition. That car is then presented to a member of the local community who has suffered the loss of an uninsured car at the hands of car thieves. These presentations are highlights of the graduation ceremonies that mark the end of each course. The latest recipient of a car, a Blacktown woman, told the young people that their skilled work would enable her to transport her young daughter to resume dancing classes. As her comment demonstrates, the program is a highly effective, well received initiative. I congratulate all involved on its success.
WORKCOVER UNFUNDED LIABILITY
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will he explain to each and every child at risk in New South Wales why the Department of Community Services will not receive funding for 99 additional case workers who would be able to investigate an additional 600 child protection matters each day because of mismanagement by his Government, which has led to the $3.17 million a day increase in the WorkCover unfunded liability, a liability that the residents of this State will ultimately have to pay for?
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: What about the funding your Government ripped out of community services when you were in hock?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt is a Minister in this Government. Therefore she has a responsibility as well.
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: What about the funding you ripped out?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Would the Minister like to answer the question? 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17191
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is reminded that interjections are disorderly at all times.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am stunned by the stupidity of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who makes the same mistake as his leader. The simple fact is—as I thought members of the Opposition would know, but apparently they do not—that WorkCover does not draw funds from the New South Wales budget. It is not a question of competition between funding for DOCS officers and WorkCover. The people who pay for WorkCover are the premium payers of this State. Honourable members opposite voted against reform, and they know it. If members of the Liberal and National parties think that any employer in this State will support their parties again they can forget it, because they know that those opposite sold off their interests.
The Coalition destroyed this scheme. It put employers in this State in a position where their premiums are protected only by the commitment of this Government to ensure that the scheme is repaired from the mess the former Coalition Government created. Opposition members know that that is a fact. They cannot argue with statistics or with what has been said. They have seen the presentations. If I were an Opposition member I would not be saying too much about anything. Opposition members should not draw attention to their ignorance and stupidity by confusing an off-budget organisation, which is funding itself through premiums, with budget commitments made against departmental requirements.
OFFICE OF THE PROTECTIVE COMMISSIONER MISMANAGEMENT
The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I address my question without notice to the Special Minister of State, representing the Attorney General. Is there great public disquiet that the Office of the Protective Commissioner [OPC] has been mismanaging the estates and affairs of many of its clients and that some OPC officers have been prosecuted for misappropriating their clients' funds? What steps has the Government taken to make the OPC more acceptable and accountable to the public? What affordable and effective recourse or action is available to those clients to redress the misappropriation and to recompense them for acts and decisions that were a dereliction of duty by officers of the OPC? Is it the policy and practice of this Government and its statutory authorities that all people, both clients and officers of statutory authorities, are equal under the law?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not in a position to give the honourable member an answer to her intelligent question. I am sure that the Attorney General will be able to provide her with the information. I will relay that information to her as quickly as I can.
OLIVE PERCHLET PROTECTION The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister inform the House what action the New South Wales Government is taking to protect the native fish, the olive perchlet? The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: This Government is determined to protect our aquatic flora and fauna. So far, 15 species are benefiting from the actions of the New South Wales Government. We continually review the status of our native species to ensure that we are giving them the protection they need. Today I would like to advise the House that yet another species has been given greater protection. The olive perchlet has been now listed as an endangered species. That native species grows to just seven centimetres. The tiny fish, which feeds on mosquitos and which is an important food source for larger fish, was once found throughout the Murray- Darling River system. Latest research indicates that it is now to be found only in a few locations upstream from Bourke. Despite extensive research it has not been seen in waters below the township of Bourke since the 1960s. Another genetically different population of this species is found in waterways on the State's north coast. In recent years the populations of this fish have declined significantly. New South Wales scientists believe there are a number of reasons for that decline. The reasons include predation from introduced species such as redfin perch, habitat degradation and changes to natural waterways. The olive perchlet population has now reached critical levels. The New South Wales Government is working to prevent its extinction.
A recovery plan will be developed to identify what can be done to preserve this unique native fish. Using the full impact of New South Wales law, the Government has increased penalties to protect threatened species. The maximum penalty for harming threatened species is $220,000, or two years gaol, or both. This small native species is an important part of our inland freshwater aquatic environment. I will continue to update the House about the progress we are making in relation to protecting our threatened native species. 17192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
FIRST HOME OWNERS GRANT SCHEME ABUSE
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Treasurer, a question without notice. Have more than 147,126 first home owners grants been issued in the first year of operation—approximately one-third in New South Wales—to purchase a new or existing home? Have these first home owners grants been abused by 61 persons to purchase $1 million homes and by 14 persons to purchase $2 million homes, mostly in the eastern and northern suburbs of Sydney? How many successful applicants were Australian citizens? What action is the Government taking, in co-operation with the Federal Government, to tighten the rules and to prevent any abuse of the first home owners grant scheme?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is yes. He referred to the correct number of people who have participated in the first home owners grant scheme. The answer to the second part of the honourable member's question is yes. Approximately one-third of those grant recipients are in New South Wales. The answer to the third part of the honourable member's question is yes. It is true that some people are apparently abusing that system. The fourth part of the honourable member's question relates to the citizenship of those individuals. I am not in a position to confirm that part of the honourable member's question, though I am happy to refer it to the Leader of the House upon his return and seek an answer. I refer to the general nature of the question asked by the honourable member. This morning I was somewhat surprised by the response of the shadow Treasurer on the radio. The shadow Treasurer appeared to be unconcerned about this lack of compliance with the scheme's guidelines. He seemed to be encouraging abuse of the scheme. Unless I misheard the report, and I acknowledge that I might have misheard it—
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt: No, you heard it correctly.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Minister for Juvenile Justice said that I heard the report correctly. The shadow Treasurer in another place appears to be advocating the view that these sorts of grants that are provided by the Commonwealth and the State should be subject to abuse and that people should breach the guidelines. In fact, the shadow Treasurer seemed to be defending their entitlement to do that. It is reminiscent of the mentality of Opposition members who let the WorkCover scheme go into ruin. Opposition members are not capable of running anything.
The rules that are agreed to by the Commonwealth and the State exist to ensure that the income is fairly distributed to people who require it and who fit within the guidelines agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States. Apparently there are instances of abuse. This Government is committed to ensuring that does not happen. I believe that the Commonwealth Government and its political colleagues are similarly committed to ensuring that does not happen. After all, the Prime Minister devised this scheme, which was aimed at boosting the building industry after the effects on that industry of the GST. The Prime Minister set the rules and the principal requirement is that the homes purchased by Australian applicants must be their first homes. It was not the original purpose of the scheme to enable multimillion dollar properties to be purchased with the assistance of the first home owners grant. Apparently at this stage nothing can be done about that. The New South Wales Government will be discussing this matter with the Commonwealth Government.
ISOLATED PATIENTS TRAVEL AND ACCOMMODATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Was the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme [IPTAAS] reviewed by this Government as recently as March-June 2000 with new guidelines coming into effect in July last year? Notwithstanding that review, is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Council of Social Services, in its recently released discussion paper on health-related transport in country areas of New South Wales, has recommended that IPTAAS again be reviewed? Will this Government undertake to conduct such a review? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As I do not have the necessary details at my disposal I am unable to answer the honourable member's question. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health. I am sure that he will be able to provide a timely response. MINERALS EXPLORATION RESEARCH
The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. What action has been taken to ensure that western New South Wales benefits from this Government's participation in new minerals research? 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17193
The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: No doubt the honourable member, as the convener of Country Labor, has a strong interest in what happens in regional New South Wales. In August, the New South Wales Government committed $3.5 million to a joint venture that will encourage further development of our minerals industry. Funds for this project have been provided by the State Government's $30 million Exploration New South Wales program, which encourages investment in this industry. This important new development will directly benefit our State. The Co-operative Research Centre for Landscape, Environment and Mineral Exploration brings together a wide variety of expertise. A substantial part of the centre's effort will focus on New South Wales. Our partners in this venture include the South Australian Government, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Australian Mineral Industries Research Organisation, the CSIRO and the Australian Geological Survey Organisation. Also, four universities are participating in the project—the Australian National University, the University of Canberra, the University of Adelaide and Curtin University of Technology.
This project will concentrate on developing geochemical and geophysical research into mineral exploration in areas where potential minerals are covered by soil or weathered rock. This research is particularly good news for western New South Wales. One of the features of this part of our State is that its soil cover and lack of rocky outcrops has previously restricted exploration in these areas. The Broken Hill region will benefit from this study. There will also be a major project in the Cobar region and other projects in the western region of the State. This focus on Western New South Wales is yet another demonstration of the Carr Labor Government's commitment to country New South Wales.
I am advised that Australian scientists are at the forefront in developing the technology needed to explore minerals in these areas. A number of our State's mines, including the Cadia and Ridgeway mines near Orange and the Tritton deposit between Nyngan and Cobar, would not have been found without this type of technology. By becoming a member of the Co-operative Research Centre for Landscape, Environment and Mineral Exploration, this Government is making yet another important contribution to mineral exploration in Broken Hill and western parts of our State.
SCHOOLS TEXTBOOK FUNDING ALLOCATION
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Will the Minister explain why the general operations grant component of the global budget given to government high schools for each secondary student is some $13.48 less than the textbook allowance paid to each private school for an equivalent student? In light of this, does the Minister wish to retract the statement he gave in answer to a previous question by me that secondary textbook allowances are paid to government and non-government schools alike? The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: It is my understanding that this question is anticipating a debate that is currently before the House, one that was proceeding just before question time. Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I understand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was referring to the bill we are discussing at the moment. This question is quite separate from that debate and from the issues canvassed in the proposed legislation. I am talking here about a textbook allowance. Clearly there are many aspects of education that my private members' bill does not canvass, and this is one of them. The PRESIDENT: Order! The point of order raises a difficult issue. On one interpretation —and it is the interpretation of the Opposition—as there is a bill before the House about education funding no question may be asked relating to that portfolio. However, I rule that the question, which is about textbook funding, does not relate specifically to the bill and, therefore, it is in order. The Minister may answer the question. The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will take the question on notice. I remind Ms Lee Rhiannon that the previous question to which she referred was answered on notice by the Minister. Obviously this is the kind of question that is best answered by the Minister for Education and Training directly. I will ask him to provide a further answer to the honourable member. YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT OPERATION The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Is the Government aware that a number of parents and citizens associations believe that vandalism at their schools has been the result of the actions of children in the 6 to 10 year age group and that under existing provisions of the Young Offenders Act very little action can be taken against these children? Will the Government review the operation of the Act to ensure that appropriate action can be taken so that these very young children will understand that their actions are wrong? 17194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This issue comes up from time to time. As far as I am aware, I have not had any particular matters raised by parents and citizens associations, but certainly the behaviour of young people in the 6 to 10 year age group does come up from time to time and, in particular, the question of what is an appropriate way to respond to that group. I mentioned yesterday that the Young Offenders Act is being reviewed, and I am happy to give the House more detail about that review process. The legislation requires that it be reviewed.
However, having said that, without wanting to pre-empt what will come out of the review, I am not convinced that the best way to address the issues raised by the honourable member is to extend the operation of the Young Offenders Act to the 6 to 10 year age group. We need to look at other things to do. I would like to provide the House with a little detail about a pilot project that the Government is putting in place, which was part of the framework for vulnerable young people that I launched a few months ago. That pilot project, which is called Primary Connect, is very much about addressing the behaviour of young people aged between 5 and 12 years. Honourable members will be aware of Families First, a program not directly under my responsibility, which provides services to young children and their families, very much in keeping with the view that the earlier you intervene, the better. I support that view, which is backed up by research and literature. Nonetheless, we have to be mindful that some young people will not be caught up by Families First because they are a bit older and were not around when it was put in place. Primary Connect is a pilot program. We are piloting it in three areas. The program seeks more effective ways to meet the needs of children at risk of disconnecting from school, and at risk of drug use, offending or self-harming behaviour. The project will be trialled in three communities, where parents have significant issues and where the communities require additional assistance and support. Through better co-ordination and facilitation of existing services, it will assist children aged between 5 and 12 years to be closely connected with their families, schools and communities. It will strengthen parent-child relationships and parenting skills and ensure access to services for children and young people. It is planned to pilot the program next year. Planning is taking place at the moment. It is using the school setting in a similar way to that used by Schools in Communities, with which honourable members would be familiar. SERVICE STATION INDUSTRY OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY The Hon. RON DYER: I ask the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Will the Minister tell this House about WorkCover's efforts to improve safety in the service station industry? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: WorkCover's retail, wholesale, transport and storage team has begun a targeted intervention project entitled Operation Servo Safe, which aims to increase occupational health and safety compliance in the service station industry. The Servo Safe project was initiated by the retail, wholesale, transport and storage team following an analysis of the industry, which revealed an increase in the notification of incidents and in the number of comments by the public about health and safety in service stations. The aim of Servo Safe is to determine the level of compliance in the industry with respect to dangerous goods licensing, storage and handling; workers compensation and injury management requirements; and occupational health and safety requirements. The project will also seek to raise awareness of requirements and the importance of compliance, and ascertain the information needs of the industry. To establish a suitable benchmark for the project, 16 WorkCover inspectors conducted inspections at 151 service stations in Sydney and on the Central Coast on 11 and 12 September 2001. Areas covered during the inspections included: dangerous goods procedures, including licensing, storage, decanting of LPG and issues associated with dangerous goods in the retail area of the service stations; training of console operators; bowser maintenance and operations; firefighting equipment; first-aid facilities; access and egress; and workers compensation and injury management. Over the two days a total of 40 infringement notices were issued in relation to dangerous goods licensing issues at more than 26 per cent of the service stations visited. A total of 189 improvement notices were also issued to 104 service stations—69 per cent of the total number of service stations inspected—found to be in contravention of other requirements of dangerous goods or occupational health and safety legislation. The checking of current workers compensation insurance formed an integral part of the project and inspections. A total of 36 section 161 notices were issued to employers who could not provide details of their current workers compensation insurance policy at the time the inspection was conducted. This involved over 24 per cent of the total number of stations inspected. 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17195
Inspectors also issued 120 of the service stations with workers compensation instruction notices for failure to comply with their obligations under the Workplace Injury and Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Specifically, the requirements addressed by the inspectors were provision of a register of injuries, posting of the summary of the Act, the establishment of a rehabilitation program, and display of or notification to staff of the rehabilitation plan. As part of the next stage of the project the Retail, Wholesale, Transport and Storage Team will conduct more detailed analysis of the notices issued and of the systems being developed within the sector to address issues of non-compliance as well as other information gathered during the earlier stages of the project. Following this analysis the team will inform stakeholders of the results and undertake appropriate work with industry to improve compliance in this area.
POLICE ETHNIC COMMUNITY LIAISON OFFICERS
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that of the three ethnic community liaison officers [ECLOs] who work at Cabramatta police station not one is able to speak Chinese, despite the fact that one-quarter of the Cabramatta population is from a Chinese-speaking background? Given that the role of ECLOs is to enhance communication and understanding between local police and local non-English-speaking background communities, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that ECLOs are selected from an ethnic background that reflects the linguistic needs of the community in which they will be based?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will pass the question on to the Minister for Police for reply.
WORKCOVER UNFUNDED LIABILITY
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Will the Minister for Industrial Relations explain to the residents of Maitland, Northern Tablelands and Tamworth electorates why they cannot, by the time this House resumes in 19 days time, receive funding for the $48 million Bucketts Way upgrade because of mismanagement by the Government that has led to a $3.17 million a day increase in the WorkCover unfunded liability—a liability that the residents of this State will ultimately have to pay for?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I said to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition is on a hat-trick. We have just heard the third in the sequence of stupidity from the Opposition today. I will not take too much time of the House for such a fatuous question given that I have answered it twice already. I remind the Hon. Rick Colless of my answer to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: WorkCover is not a budget organisation; it is funded by the premium payers of this State, who are employers obliged to take out workers compensation insurance. When Coalition members had the chance to do something about workers compensation they did nothing. A few months ago they could have voted for major reforms of the dispute resolution system. The premium players who have to make good the deficit will have to pay because of that and they know that Coalition members let them down. They also let down the injured workers and the industry of this State. I would have thought that the Hon. Rick Colless would not have been so silly as to go along with being put up to doing something so stupid as to repeat the mistake made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition in the same question time.
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
The Hon. IAN WEST: Will the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations inform the House what is being done to address the issue of violence in New South Wales workplaces? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This Government recognises the issue of workplace violence as one of growing concern. It is also an issue we are taking positive steps to address. The new Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 contains provisions relating to workplace violence. Specifically, the regulation provides that employers must identify hazards "including the potential for workplace violence". To assist employers to meet their obligations under the new legislation, WorkCover has prepared a violence in the workplace guide and a fact sheet. These materials will be available to all employers shortly. Violence in the health sector is an area of particular concern for this Government. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: What about violence against nurses? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti for his interjection. He is asking about violence against nurses and I am about to deal with the health industry. WorkCover will shortly publish a report entitled "Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Workplace Aggression: Case 17196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
Studies from the NSW Health Industry". This report is an initiative of the Central Sydney Area Health Service and has been funded under WorkCover's grants scheme. The material adopts a risk management approach to identify, assess and control aggressive incidents in the New South Wales health industry. The report contains information on the extent and cost of the problem as well as an extensive literature review, a discussion of relevant legislation and a list of further contacts. The guidelines contained in the report are based on experiences from across the New South Wales health system and describe examples of better practice in the form of case studies. It is hoped that the report will inform and empower health care workers faced with the issue of workplace violence.
I am also aware of a number of initiatives being undertaken by my colleague the Minister for Health, including the establishment of a task force on the prevention and management of violence at health care facilities. WorkCover's Health and Community Services Industry Team has been providing assistance to this task force. On 16 August WorkCover representatives attended a meeting with the Department of Health to look at ways of sharing information on the issue. It is intended that such meetings will become a regular occurrence. WorkCover has offered to provide the Department of Health with a range of information to assist the various task force working groups. This will include case studies showing how occupational health and safety considerations have been incorporated into the design of newly completed health care facilities. As well, a sample form for the reporting of occupational health and safety incidents will assist in the collection and analysis of data by the data and research working group of the task force. The involvement of the Department of Industrial Relations, WorkCover and Department of Health is evidence of the cross-government efforts to address the issue of violence in the workplace.
MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION POLICY
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. In response to an earlier question to a budget estimates committee the education Minister said that the multicultural education policy of the Department of Education and Training was being reviewed. I understand that a new draft policy has been with the Minister for two years. My question is: When will the new multicultural education policy of the Department of Education and Training be finalised and available to the public? How has the education Minister shown his commitment to access and equity in education for ethnic communities in New South Wales?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will pass the question along to the Minister for Education and Training for his reply.
SCHOOLS FUNDING
The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is it a fact that a primary school in the Heathcote electorate has been approaching community groups seeking donations for essential needs of the school, including books, pencils and paper, a suitable wet area for the cleaning up of art and craft materials, resurfacing of the asphalt play area, repair of playground equipment and an extension to the sewer? Why are New South Wales schools forced to go cap in hand, begging for these kinds of essential facilities?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am grateful that the Hon. John Ryan did not ask the question they wanted him to ask. I think the House would have thought it was trifling to ask the same question four times. The honourable member has asked a good question. I have heard the Minister for Education and Training and the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training respond to the question on a number of occasions, and I will not attempt to replicate their responses. I will pass the question on to the Minister and ask him to give the honourable member a detailed response.
CLUBS 2001 PROJECT
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister tell the House about WorkCover's Clubs 2001 project?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: WorkCover's success in occupational health and safety is reflected in the fact that workplace injuries are reducing, and the severity of injuries is also reducing. As part of that effort, WorkCover's consumer and business services industry team, together with its country south team, has undertaken a special project known as Clubs 2001. The project uses a collaborative approach to address 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17197 issues related to compliance with occupational health and safety laws by registered clubs in New South Wales. Clubs 2001 originated from a realisation that the awareness of occupational health and safety requirements and practice was lower than desired in many registered clubs. The central aim of the project is to address these shortcomings and to improve awareness of injury management and workers compensation requirements.
The Clubs 2001 project began as a pilot last year with WorkCover inspectors conducting educational and information-gathering visits to five registered clubs in the Illawarra. As honourable members will be aware, WorkCover's inspectorate is the largest in the country. Last year it took more prosecution action than similar authorities in all the other States and Territories put together. The information gathered by the inspectors during the pilot stage of the project helped in the development of systems, procedures and check lists used in Clubs 2001. The pilot has also helped to determine key focus areas for the project. These include two major hazard areas, manual handling and slips, trips and falls; two high-risk occupations, waiters and cooks; implementation and use of occupational health and safety management systems by clubs; plant safety; and workers compensation and injury management. To date, Clubs 2001 has involved more than 20 registered clubs in southern Sydney and the Illawarra. Several participating clubs contacted WorkCover to volunteer for Clubs 2001 after hearing about the project by word of mouth or after reading about it in WorkCover News or the industry's own Clublife magazine. Clubs of various types and sizes were selected for attention under the project to ensure that relevant differences in work environments are identified, and that these are taken into account in the exercise and in the evaluation of the results. As part of Clubs 2001, WorkCover inspectors conducted visits to all clubs participating in the project. During these visits they interviewed both employer and employee representatives to assess levels of occupational health and safety awareness. This discussion was followed by an inspection of the club premises. When incidents of non-compliance were detected the inspector could issue the club with an improvement notice. At least 33 improvement notices were issued as a result of Clubs 2001 inspections. In all cases the inspector would make a return visit to the club to provide feedback on performance and, when deficiencies were noted, discuss ways in which improvements could be made. The results of the project are still being compiled. However, informal feedback from the clubs themselves has been very positive so far. Once the project has been completed, a presentation of the findings will be made to representatives of registered clubs. Major issues identified will be taken into account in the development of a strategic approach by WorkCover to occupational health and safety, workers compensation and injury management compliance in the registered clubs industry. The Clubs 2001 project was designed for WorkCover to work together with club management and workers to achieve improvements in their occupational health and safety, injury management and workers compensation performance. I emphasise that this project has been a collaborative exercise between WorkCover and industry, with the focus on education and improvement, rather than on punitive measures. In the last session of Parliament I informed the House about an initiative directed at health and safety in the horse racing industry. The Clubs 2001 project provides another good illustration of the variety of industries attracting WorkCover's attention and the range of initiatives in which it is involved. [Time expired.] DISABLED PEOPLE DEATHS The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Attorney General, who I think is the appropriate Minister to answer this question. What is the position in relation to the reporting of deaths of disabled people in the care of non-government agencies funded under the Disability Services Act? As deaths of disabled people in government institutions must be reported to the Coroner, why is this not so for non-government agencies? Is this being reviewed? If so, when is the review likely to report? Is the Community Services Commission's disability death review team disadvantaged by this non-reporting in its access to information? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I appreciate the honourable member's question. I am not sure that he is right about it being a question for the Attorney General. Regardless of whether it is the Minister for Disability Services or the Attorney General, I will relay the question and ensure that it is answered. ROSEMEADOW POLICE RESPONSE TIMES The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that shoplifting by teenagers is a chronic problem in the Campbelltown suburb of Rosemeadow? Is he aware also that the police response time to reports of such 17198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
incidents is about two hours? What action will the Minister take to protect shopkeepers from these young thieves in the Rosemeadow area? What does the Minister consider is an acceptable benchmark for police response time to such incidents?
The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: I believe the last part of the question was seeking an opinion. As a consequence, it is out of order.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am seeking advice from the Minister for Police as to what action he will take so that I can provide that information to the people of Rosemeadow.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The first part of the question is in order. However, the last part of the question asked for an opinion and is out of order.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am happy to relay the first part of the Hon. Charlie Lynn's question to the Minister for Police. Clearly, it is an operational matter, and I am sure the Minister for Police will provide an answer promptly.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I ask a supplementary question. What benchmark do the police use for responding to such crimes?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The question asked by the Hon. Charlie Lynn does not relate to any issues raised in the Minister's answer. I draw your attention to a ruling on the same issue that you made yesterday in question time. I ask you to rule the Hon. Charlie Lynn's question out of order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I draw members' attention to new Sessional Order 26, which states:
At the discretion of the President, one supplementary question may be immediately put by the member who asked a question to elucidate an answer.
As the Minister did not answer the question, the Hon. Charlie Lynn cannot ask a question to elucidate the answer.
AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. What is the Government doing to reduce the causes of air pollution?
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I can report to the House that air quality continues to improve significantly. I remind honourable members that it was a Labor government that introduced unleaded petrol in 1986. Since then, lead levels in our air have continued to fall. Lead levels are now well below national health guidelines, which is good news for our children's health. In addition, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide levels have dropped significantly, and levels are well below what they were 10 years ago. The levels of mainstream pollutants of fine particles, ozone and other oxides of nitrogen have remained steady, despite increasing car use. We no longer see black smoke belching out of factory stacks, and high-rise apartment blocks no longer incinerate domestic garbage. These are clear indications that the Government's 25- year air quality blueprint "Action for Air" is working. Cars and trucks are less polluting, we have a strong regulatory approach under which industrial pollution has been reduced, the Carr Government has introduced the polluter-pays principle, and there is now a financial incentive to pollute less. Under those laws the Environment Protection Authority [EPA] has secured about $400 million worth of environmental upgrades by industry in the past year alone. The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Tell us about the outcomes. You are talking about the process. You should be answering the question you were asked. The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I am. I think that $400 million worth of environmental upgrades is an outcome, not a process. Despite that progress there is more to do. For example, everyday activities such as the use of wood heaters contribute to brown haze in Sydney and regional centres. In June this year the Government outlined a package of new measures to reduce that type of air pollution. The Government has created a three-year $6 million Clean Air Fund to help control sources of air pollution in our neighbourhoods. As part of the Clean Air Fund, subsidies of up to $700 will be available to replace outdated and polluting wood heaters with cleaner alternatives. That initiative is particularly important— 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17199
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Point of order: The community of New South Wales would be interested in the Minister answering the question. The question was: Has air pollution improved? And if it hasn't improved, it should have been.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have warned the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti before not to use points of order to make debating points. There is no point of order.
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti might not be interested in measures such as the Clean Air Fund, but I assure him that many people are. Cleaner heating alternatives are particularly important in regional and rural New South Wales, such as Armidale, where brown haze in the winter is a problem. The Government will spend $1 million on that initiative in 2001-02. We have also made sure that new heaters are cleaner than ever before. New standards for wood heaters have applied since 5 July 2001 to further reduce smoke particle emissions.
The Government has provided a $5 million boost to the EPA's Cleaner Production program to promote best practice by industry. The public is already heavily involved in reporting smoky vehicles. The EPA receives about 700 smoky vehicle reports each month from the community. People will soon be able to make those reports via the Internet. Of course, the Government needs to further address the problem by working with the community to clean up vehicle emissions and by providing alternative means of transport. [Time expired.]
LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT REVIEW
The Hon. IAN COHEN: My question is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Attorney General, and relates to the Cripps review of the Land and Environment Court. Was a draft of the report provided to the reference group that was set up as a working party to advise the Government in relation to the review? If not, why not? Are the findings supported by any submissions apart from those made by parties such as developers and consultants with a direct financial interest in the outcome? If so, which submissions? Apart from the review, what will the Government do in response to people's negative experiences of the court and the inescapable conclusion that the court favours developers?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not sure that the assumption that somehow the court is inherently biased towards developers is correct. In fact, one recent respected and respectable view is that the reality is quite the opposite. That detailed question should be properly answered by either the Attorney General or the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. I will relay the question to the appropriate Minister and ensure that it is answered.
CENTRAL COAST ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. Is the Minister aware that the Bateau Bay/Killarney Vale Community Precinct Committee has written to the Premier raising serious concerns about antisocial behaviour in their local area? What measures have been taken to address the concerns raised by the committee? Residents have suffered from nights of terror when gangs of youths, up to 100 strong, have gathered on beaches, vandalised private and public property and intimidated residents including those in a nearby retirement village. Will the Minister give an undertaking to raise this matter directly with the Premier and secure additional police resources for this area of the Central Coast?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am surprised that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti has developed a strong interest in the Central Coast. He seems to be showing more interest than does my fellow Central Coast resident, the Leader of the Opposition.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No-one could be more interested in that area than the Leader of the Opposition.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am not being critical of him, because it is a very important community, as is the whole of the State. I am not aware—although I suppose I accept that I should be—of the Bateau Bay/Killarney Vale Community Precinct Committee's concerns about antisocial behaviour. I am aware that the behaviour of young people, the entertainments that they pursue and the amusements that they have at their disposal have created some concern, as have congregations of young people at beach sites. Occasionally, regrettably, antisocial behaviour has been pursued by large congregations of young people. I take the honourable 17200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 member's question very seriously. I will relay it to the Premier and seek a formal answer from him. I personally undertake to have discussions with the Bateau Bay/Killarney Vale Community Precinct Committee to determine what can be done about that problem. In answer to the part of the question about police resources, I will refer that to the Minister for Police for his response.
LABOUR DAY HOLIDAY
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House about the background of the Labour Day Holiday that we celebrate this coming weekend?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: This question is in honour of our colleague the Hon. John Johnson. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America celebrate Labour Day, a day to honour workers. Once called the Eight Hour Day in Australia, it marks early struggles for better working conditions, and each State has a Labour Day Holiday. Labour Day in New South Wales has a long history. In 1855 the Operative Society of Stonemasons in Sydney, working paradoxically on the construction of two churches and a brewery, won an eight-hour day for workers following a two-week strike. They celebrated with a dinner in the first week of October. Workers in those times were concerned about hours of work, not pay. The campaign for reduced hours united a few unions of that era around that single issue. They talked of the natural law: eight hours to work, eight hours to play, and eight hours to sleep—and some added, with reference to wages, eight bob a day.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you revert to the showcase?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I told you, I would not dare. Indeed, the union movement grew out of the struggle for the eight-hour day. But the slogan had popular support, far removed from a few unions of that period. Some churches saw it as a means of improving workers' spirituality by providing more leisure time. I do not know if that has worked. Others believed that life should be better than the life they had left behind in the British Isles.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Keep Sunday for a family day.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Yes, that is right. Increased leisure was one way of displaying a better life. Some conservative politicians, such as Sir Henry Parkes, lent their support. However, reform of working hours was a slow process. It was not until the 1890s that working hours were reduced in many industries. In 1871 Sydney unions organised a procession, followed by a picnic, to mark the campaign for an eight-hour day, and that developed into a holiday in 1885. A Labour Day Committee, formed to run the holiday events, existed for many years. The chairman of the Labour Day Committee for many years was our recently retired colleague the Hon. John Johnson.
The public holiday for Eight Hour Day itself was first held in New South Wales in 1885. The holiday owes its origins largely to a former member for Balmain, Jacob Garrard. A former dockyard worker with a trades hall background, Garrard is credited with having the holiday established 126 years ago. He went on to be the colony's first Minister for Labour and Industry and held that portfolio in the Reid ministry of 1895. The achievement of shorter working hours was regarded at the time as a monumental change.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I bet he didn't lose $3 million a day.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, but he was, of course, a free trader. Our public holiday this weekend stands as a tribute to those men and women who have fought over the years, and to those who continue to fight, for better working conditions. Many were members of this Parliament. It is fitting that the holiday should mark the achievements and the role of workers in Australian society, which is now in its third century.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: How come we sit here for more than eight hours a day? Why don't we sit for eight hours? What are you doing about reducing lengthy hours in this place? Why don't you make us sit only eight hours a day? This is a joke.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I note that the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti is anxious to bring standard working conditions into this Parliament. That is a measure which may attract public support, but I am not able to give any undertaking on behalf of the Government or the Parliament. 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17201
GENETICALLY MODIFIED LIVESTOCK FOOD
The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I ask the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Agriculture, the following question without notice. Is genetically engineered [GE] cotton trash being fed to cattle? Is the meat exported to Japan? Will he ensure that the meat is not contaminated with GE cotton trash? If there is any contamination, will he put an end to the feeding of GE cotton trash to cattle?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The question should be referred to the Minister for Agriculture. I am sure he will provide a prompt response.
If honourable members have any other questions, I suggest they place them on notice.
Questions without notice concluded.
[The President left the chair at 1.01 p.m. The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.]
COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The Hon. J. Hatzistergos, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Report on Alleged Contempt in relation to the Draft Report of Bron McKillop on Inquisitorial Systems".
Ordered to be printed.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES
Reference: Inquiry into Community Housing The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [2.46 p.m.]: In accordance with paragraph 14 (2) of the resolution establishing the Standing Committee on Social Issues on 25 May 1999, I wish to inform the House that the Standing Committee on Social Issues has this day received the following reference from the Deputy Premier, Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing headed "Inquiry into Community Housing":
1. That the Standing Committee on Social Issues inquire into and report on government-funded community housing, and in particular:
(a) the role of the government-funded community housing sector in providing accommodation within the social housing system,
(b) the effectiveness of the community housing sector in meeting the needs of its clients in a responsive and efficient manner,
(c) the relative effectiveness of large and small community housing providers in providing accommodation to their clients,
(d) the role and operation of community housing or related models in other jurisdictions so as to better inform future strategies and develop best practice within the sector in New South Wales,
(e) appropriate models for community housing in rural, regional and metropolitan New South Wales,
(f) the effectiveness of links between community housing providers and government and non-government support services,
(g) the adequacy and effectiveness of training and support available to community housing providers,
(h) current management and operational policies and practices, their efficacy and transparency,
(i) the adequacy of current reporting and regulatory frameworks in ensuring corporate governance and accountability,
(j) any other matter arising out of or incidental to these terms of reference.
2. That the inquiry consider community housing providers excluding Aboriginal community housing providers.
3. That the Committee present a final report to the Legislative Council no later than 7 November 2002. 17202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
EDUCATION AMENDMENT (REDUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WEALTHY NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN [2.47 p.m.]: As honourable members have heard previously, the Government is sympathetic to the broad intention of the Greens bill and the rationale in presenting and promoting it. I am sympathetic as well, having previously moved a motion in this House generally supporting public education. However, honourable members have heard that the Government cannot support the bill at this time.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Does that mean that you will support it at some stage?
The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: At this time the Government does not support the bill. The Government established the review of non-government schools to examine and report on equitable school funding, and accountability and reporting requirements in relation to the provision of government funding. The review is also taking account of Commonwealth funding policy and, importantly, the methodology for the distribution of funds to non-government schools which was established through the State Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000. The bill proposes that State per capita funding for non-government schools will be determined on the basis of fee levels. Funding policy that is based on fee levels will provide non- government schools with a significant incentive to characterise fees as other inputs. That would be something of a tragedy.
When considering appropriate levels of funding for non-government schools, there is a need to take into account the range of funding sources from which those schools draw, including private contributions, public per capita and capital funding, fees, contributions in kind and accumulated resources. Clearly, the Government supports increasing funding to disadvantaged schools. Any initiative taken to increase resources to disadvantaged areas needs to be part of a strategic and sustainable approach related to specific, planned proposals to improve outcomes, rather than simply a division of funds between groups of schools. The Government calculates that the total annual per capita funding for non-government schools is 25 per cent of the average per capita cost to the State of educating children at government schools in accordance with section 21 of the Education Act. According to the education resource index, with which all honourable members would be familiar, that pool of per capita funds is distributed among all category 1-12 non-government schools on a needs basis.
When the review of non-government schools is completed, the Government will consider whether legislative change is required vis-a-vis current funding arrangements. I note that the Greens legislation is based on income levels. That is understandable, but I believe that more information is needed to determine whether that is the most effective way of responding to this problem. Indeed, a more comprehensive set of arrangements is probably required for a complete or comprehensive response to emerging funding inequities and to establish appropriate accountability requirements. That is the reason why other factors need to be taken into account of— factors such as school expenditure, accumulated resources, facilities, assets, trust funds and a whole range of other matters.
The Government is committed to the provision of fair and equitable education for all school students. The Government also believes that legislative reform should be based on a broad consideration of all issues after wide consultation within the community, especially the education community. That is the purpose of the review of non-government schools, which will be undertaken by Mr Grimshaw. Given Mr Grimshaw's long experience in education and his current experience on the North Coast, I have every faith in his ability and competence. The Government completely understands the motivation underlying the introduction of this legislation, but until the complexities of the issues have been explored through the Grimshaw review, the Government is in a position to support changes to non-government school funding legislation.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [2.53 p.m.]: On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the bill. It is a shame that the bill is necessary. Public education should receive priority funding over the private sector and there should not be a need to squabble over the division of the cake. The problem is that the cake is too small. Australia is not spending enough money on education. The Government is trying to avoid its responsibilities by funding the private sector to a lesser amount per capita than it funds the 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17203 public sector. The Government does not care who pays for education so long as it does not have to do so. The desire to avoid expenditure rather than take responsibility for education has led to that attitude. It is the right of every parent to choose the type of schooling they want for their children; be it public, private, selective or religious. However, if the Government is to provide financial assistance to non-government schools, that should not be at the expense of public education. Choice should not mean that some students can have the best while others, because their parents cannot afford better, have something inferior and thus receive a totally inadequate education. Australian governments in Australia have led us to that situation.
A large proportion of Australian Democrats members are well-educated, middle-class people with a strong social conscience. Many are concerned about education in Australia and many scrimp and save to send their children to private schools. Therefore, in considering whether to support the bill I went to some trouble to consult our policy committee and to send emails to a large number of members. I was amazed to find that 90 per cent supported the bill in the interests of social justice. They included Democrats South Sydney councillor Peter Furness, who was very active in campaigning against the closure of Erskineville Public School and several other primary schools within his area.
We also consulted the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales and the Australian Parents Council to arrive at a position on this bill. Basically, the problem is that the education budget has been inadequate. Total expenses for school education services for the year 2001-02 are reported to have increased by 5.5 per cent over last year's budgeted figure. However, the increase in the revised estimates is only 2.1 per cent, which is a net decrease in real dollars because the increase in expenditure does not match the increase in inflation. There was a gross increase in spending for private non-government schools of 12 per cent in the 2000-01 budget estimates. Even though the Government talks about its commitment to public education, the figures indicate otherwise.
The budget also shows a decrease in real terms for teacher training and development. The New South Wales Teachers Federation conducted a survey of its members about the retaining and hiring of teachers. The survey identified a serious shortage of both permanent and casual teachers in rural and regional areas of the State plus a shortage of teachers in some faculty areas. The Teachers Federation has said that to redress the problems associated with teacher supply, strategies such as offering increased allowances and financial incentives for teachers prepared to work for some time in difficult-to-staff areas must be considered by State and Federal governments. However, that requires additional funding.
Teachers must also deal with the increasingly complex demands of students. As a result of deinstitutionalisation, children with disabilities are entering the general school population and have special needs that most schools are struggling to meet. According to the New South Wales Teachers Federation 2001-02 budget submission, approximately 14,000 students with disabilities have been integrated into regular public school classes in New South Wales. To meet demand there is a dire need for additional funding for extra teacher time and an increase in the number of trained special education teachers and other specialist staff, mainly in the public sector.
Teachers aides have now become essential, yet they are undervalued. They provide necessary extra care and attention. Teachers in public schools also need additional resources for early intervention for children with learning difficulties. It has been shown that the earlier these children are helped with additional resources, the better their long-term outlook. However, money is not available for that. Facilities in mental hospitals and schools have decreased, yet there has been a sharp increase in the prison population and, sadly, the two are often interchangeable.
Teachers are becoming overstretched in their daily work environment. They are now expected to fulfil a large number of additional roles, including coaching sports teams, performing playground duty and assisting in after-school care. Often they are de facto social workers. It is not only a question of pay, it also has to do with access to resources. The Public School Principal Forum, in its briefing paper to the crossbench dated 23 May 2000, supported the bill and stated:
Many schools in low socio-economic status communities are not quite meeting the criteria to gain access to the Disadvantaged Schools Program—
The program is only for those at the very bottom, and those who do not quite meet the criteria still have the problems but do not receive the money. The Hon. Patricia Forsythe said that public and private schools relied to varying degrees on the fund-raising activities of the local community. However, schools in poorer communities are not supported to the same extent as wealthier schools. The Public School Principals Forum paper continued: 17204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
There is a community perception that schools do not require financial assistance because of their global grants, collection of school contributions, etc.
That is not correct. Both the Australian Labor Party [ALP] and the Coalition pursue policies that promote private or user-pays education. The percentage of students in private schools across Australia has increased from 22.3 per cent in 1980 to 31 per cent in 2000. Since 1996, 249 new private schools have been established, compared with 120 new government schools. In the same period 208 government schools were closed.
The Australian Democrats policy states that fees should be taken into account when determining a school's grant funding. Australia currently spends only 4.2 per cent of its gross domestic product [GDP] on education, which represents a failure on the part of successive governments to invest in the economic future of our country. That percentage is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. However, the Australian Democrats believe it is not realistic to withdraw the subsidy to private education at present as almost a third of students attend non-government schools, which have received some form of government subsidy for a considerable time. The public sector could not cope with an influx of students in the short term.
This bill proposes to limit per capita funding to non-government schools that charge more than $7,000 per annum in fees, or $8,000 for secondary schools. The bill also provides a formula to be used in allocating per capita grants to non-government schools. It introduces reporting and accountability standards for non- government schools that receive State funding under section 21C of the Act. These are the same reports that State schools have to supply to the Minister for Education and Training. Those who receive government funding should be accountable. The Australian Democrats support, and have a long record of fighting for, quality public education. The Australian Democrats and the Greens stood together against the Commonwealth Government's States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000, the biggest sell-out of public education since the introduction of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme.
That legislation will award an extra $700 million to non-government schools over the next four years, which is a 40 per cent increase compared with the inflation-based projected increase for government schools of only 20 per cent over the same period. That means that 64 per cent of specific Federal Government funding will go to non-government schools and only 34 per cent will go to government schools. The Act does not oblige non- government schools to lower fees or to enrol more students with disabilities or students that are more difficult to teach. In fact, schools can spend the money on marketing if they wish.
It provides establishment grants of $500 per student for any new private school that opens in the first year, regardless of need and with almost no accountability. A school can effectively shift its operation to a new site and claim the full amount for all its students. This year one school has "established" with more than 800 students, and will collect about $700,000 in Federal grants over and above its per capita entitlements under the socioeconomic simulation [SES] system.
The new SES formula for non-government schools introduced in the Act is based on the average incomes of parents, and has resulted in wealthy schools receiving huge funding increases. The formula basically means that a privileged school will receive additional funding if it enrols the child of a lawyer in Marrickville but not if it enrols the child of a cleaner in Mosman. The Democrats moved amendments in the Senate that would have resulted the SES being based on actual parent income within a year of operation. However, the Coalition and the ALP did not support those amendments. Thanks to the ALP's betrayal, more money is being freed for the wealthiest schools to use for non-educational purposes, such as fund raising, publicity co-ordinators and advertising. As a consequence of the Act, funding for students with disabilities in government secondary schools has been reduced, and indigenous students continue to receive ungraded education.
Instead of making a stand for public education, the Federal ALP backed down from opposing the bill or even supporting the Australian Democrat amendments, arguing that it did not want to block supply, and decided instead to make education an election issue. The Federal ALP is partly to blame for making the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill necessary. The ALP is quite hypocritical when it comes to public education. For instance, on 12 June 2000 the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, spoke at the Sydney Institute. He outlined Labor's Knowledge Nation policy and slammed the Howard Government for its lack of commitment to public education and investment in research and development.
However, two days later, on 14 June, this State Labor Government announced its intention to go ahead with the closure of several inner Sydney schools as outlined in the Building the Future document. This year's 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17205 education budget decreased by 3 per cent in real terms. The sale of public assets to fund capital expenditure on our schools was not called an asset sale by the Department of Education and Training or by the Treasury officials who presumably pushed the department to take this course of action. It was packaged and presented to the public as Building the Future.
The New South Wales Teachers Federation produced an interesting document about government funding for private schools with comparatively small student numbers. It is particularly interesting as small student numbers is the reason given for closing public schools. It seems that small private schools, which have atmosphere and offer personal tuition, are wonderful, but small government schools are not economic and must be closed. The fact that those schools will be needed in a few years when demographic changes occur in the area and housing density increases does not seem to cut any ice with this Government.
The State Government is keen to subsidise non-government schools with as few as 40 students but is willing to close high schools such as Dover Heights Public School and amalgamate four primary schools in Sydney's inner south. Non-government schools are not obliged to charge lower fees or to take students with disabilities or those who are difficult to teach.
The school that I attended, Woolwich Public School in Hunters Hill—an area which is subject to nothing but derision as it is supposedly very wealthy—was closed and sold to a developer. It later became an aged-care facility when the developer did not like the easements. Space is now a problem at Hunters Hill Public School, which is delaying enrolments. My son is affected by that delay. Has the Government learned from this experience? Not on your nelly. It is now trying to close Hunters Hill High School. I also attended King's School, where I received quite a good academic education—although my social and gender education required some work later, as the school was not particularly proficient in that area. I think co-education is important, and I would like my son to attend a co-educational high school—if Hunters Hill High School is not flogged off, which is a real possibility.
The Australian Democrats want a 12-month extension of the present enrolment resources index to enable a National Board of Education to devise a fairer alternative funding model and to look at the level of funding required to resource government schools properly. The SES should be based on actual parent income within a year of operation. Establishment grants should be removed or, failing that, establishment grants and transitional emergency assistance grants should be available to government as well as non-government schools. Every time the Federal Minister withdraws money from the States we want that fact to be published on the internet within 30 days of its happening, because that Minister is denied media opportunities associated with federally funded capital works grants to public schools.
The Government must specify the breakdown in funds going to government and non-government schools in targeted programs. At least 95 per cent of teachers in non-government schools should be required to be qualified. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs should continue to collect the current financial questionnaire, including information about fees and fundraising, from non-government schools. This provides crucial information about the resource levels of all non-government schools. Schools should report on completion rates by gender and any exclusion policies in relation to students or hiring staff. The SES should be reviewed after two years of operation.
What do we want and what should it be spent on? We want at least another $1 billion for government schools and we want education spending to be increased to at least 5 per cent of GDP within three years. That money should be spent on financial incentives aimed at increasing the number of people training as teachers in order to address the massive teacher shortage and to attract teachers to rural and remote schools. We want professional development for teachers.
Capital grants must be increased to deal with problems with facilities and maintenance. Many schools have permanent portable buildings that are more than 25 years old. Class sizes should be reduced. There should be an average class size of 20 in the first three years of schooling and there should be the flexibility to have small classes at every level where necessary to provide better subject choice and individual attention to the special needs of students with learning disabilities and difficulties and those who are gifted.
The Australian Democrats believe there should be fee-free schools for three-year-olds and four-year- old. The Commonwealth used to fund preschools but no longer does. More computers should be obtained and better technical and curriculum support provided. Curriculum breadth for lower and middle secondary schooling should be developed to support at-risk students, who are often early school leavers. Those who think education 17206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 is expensive should consider the cost of ignorance. Are we going to create a class of people who drop out of school, are unemployable in the new information age, and will presumably struggle on welfare or fill our prisons?
We have to take a more intelligent approach. We are competing on a global stage, and we must look after those at the bottom as well as those at the top. The Government has abdicated its responsibility to those at the bottom, under a smokescreen of choice. That effectively means that choice is available only to those who can afford it. Those who do not have the means, the understanding or the political power are left without a choice. Choice is only good if it is a real choice. A choice that disadvantages lower socioeconomic groups is not a choice at all. We need an overall standard, and we need to ensure that the State Government, with the co- operation of the Federal Government, maintains that standard for everybody. Choice must not be at the expense of that standard.
Australia prides itself on equity, but statistics increasingly belie that pride. Our society is becoming much more unequal. If we continue to undermine our TAFE system and our equality of opportunity, we will become a sadder and less safe community. We are told in this House about alienated youth and gang activities, but how many extra police are appointed? Penalties are increased, but that simply bloats our gaol population. We have to start at the bottom and give people an opportunity and a start in life that will allow them to live a decent existence. It is sad that this bill is needed. Members of my party support this bill, and I urge honourable members to support it.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.12 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party opposes the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill. We should be debating the selling off of State school properties by the Australian Labor Party. We should be debating the Government seeking valuations of schools six months before their closures were announced. I accept the good intentions of the Greens, but this debate almost diverts us from that serious problem that confronts the State school system. Although the Christian Democratic Party opposes this bill, it is not opposed to State schools. Parents should have a choice between a strong State school system and non-government schools.
The word "wealthy" in regard to non-government schools is a misnomer and is misleading. It sends a message that those schools must be attacked or disposed of. The term "wealthy" is meaningless, and has no value. The Muslim school at Bankstown received the largest grant of all non-Government schools— $5.7 million. There has been a positive partnership between the Government and non-government school sector. It should be recognised that the non-government school sector is saving the State Government billions of dollars. If the Greens philosophy were followed, and all non-Government schools closed down, the education system in New South Wales would collapse.
If this bill were passed, non-government schools that have swimming pools, sporting fields, good buildings, and trust account funds would no longer provide an incentive for parents to raise money for the school, or for former students to bequeath money to the school. If they did so, the Government would reduce the amount of money it gives to the school.
This bill attacks the spirit of generosity. People voluntarily donate money to non-government schools for the provision of good facilities, good equipment, high-quality teachers and fine buildings, and they should not be discouraged. We want the community to be more involved. We want them to assist non-government schools and, if they wish, local government schools, many of which are run down due to a lack of maintenance. It is not State schools against non-government schools; they both need support.
This bill is designed to discourage initiative, efficiency and generosity. It is designed to punish parents if they donate to schools, punish efficiency in non-government schools, and punish schools that receive bequests from former students. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans appreciates the education that he received, but he now wants to punish his old school. The Christian Democratic Party cannot support the bill. We do not want to discourage parents or donors who voluntarily support non-government schools. I received a letter dated 26 September from Bob Frisken, President of Christian Community Schools Ltd, which is involved with a large number of schools. The letter states:
I understand that the Greens are introducing a Bill to deny state funding to the "Rich" schools. This Bill should be opposed for the following reasons:
• There are problems of definition. The Bill presumably determines which schools are "wealthy" is to use the now discredited Education Resource Index (ERI). The ERI was discredited because it did not fairly discriminate between rich 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17207
and poor communities. Some schools were classified as rich when they patently were not. On the other hand some schools which appear to be very similar to category 1 schools were nevertheless given a more advantageous categorization for historical reasons. • All students have a basic right to education and the government has a responsibility to all its students. While the poorer parents need more help this does not detract from the basic right of students to receive government assistance. If only poor families are to have free education then rich parents should pay in government schools. ABS data indicates non-government school families come from a wide cross section of socio-economic groups. The wealthiest families send their children to government and non-government schools in relatively equal proportions (45% government, 47% non-government, 8% both). The Greens know that key members of the Australian Labor Party in all States and in the Commonwealth send their children to non-government schools. The letter continues:
• As the primary educators, recognised in the Education Act and international conventions, parents have the right to choose the kind of education their children receive.
• Funding to non-government schools as a whole is being reviewed as part of a wider review of non-government education prepared by Warren Grimshaw. No changes should even be contemplated until the government responds to that review.
Your servant in Christ, That is a good point. In some ways this bill is jumping the gun. An inquiry is under way and the Government will respond to its findings. Following that, we can have an educated and informed debate on the issue. The Council of Catholic School Parents has issued an excellent pamphlet which sets out some graphic facts. It states that in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory there are 618 Catholic schools, 246,066 students and 15,305 teachers. Catholic schools educate one in five Australians and account for the majority of all non- government schools. The pamphlet further states that 29 per cent of schools in the State are non-government schools, and as such they receive 8.1 per cent of the State's funding. Often during debate on this issue State Government funding is confused with Federal Government funding. We should separate the two and look at where the money comes from, who gets the money and who is responsible for the provision of funds. I understand the principle that government schools are the main responsibility of State governments. As a result of debate that occurred a few years ago, the Commonwealth Government has assisted the non-government sector. The State Government has responsibility for government schools and gives a very small percentage of funding to non-government schools. State funding for schools is $5.46 billion. Government schools receive 91.9 per cent of that funding and non-government schools receive only 8.1 per cent. The Commonwealth Government, under both Labor and the Coalition, realised that it had to come to the rescue of the non-government sector to enable it to function efficiently with a stable financial basis, and it provides $1.54 billion in funding. Government schools receive 37.3 per cent of that funding and non- government schools receive 62.7 per cent. All of the Commonwealth funding does not go to non-government schools; in fact, 37.3 per cent goes to government schools. I also note that 31 per cent of students in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory attend a non-government school and they receive a total of 20 per cent of the combined State and Commonwealth government funding. The Greens referred to justice and equity. It does not seem fair that 31 percent of the students get only 20 per cent of the funding. That is another area that needs to be looked at. I hope the Government will consider these matters as a result of the Grimshaw inquiry. If the non-government schools sector collapsed and students who currently attend Catholic schools transferred to the public system, it would cost the Government more than $2 billion per year of taxpayers money. It should be noted that parents of students in non-government schools pay taxes to help finance the Federal Government, and some of that money goes back to non-government schools. Therefore, it is fair that Commonwealth funding be allocated to non-government schools. In a memorandum, Barbara O'Brien wrote:
This Bill represents the politics of envy. It will penalise parents who have made a decision to spend their after tax dollars on the education of their children in the non-government schools sector by cutting funding to the school of their choice.
It is reported that parents in the government schools sector provide up to $40 million of funding to government schools in NSW and receive no such penalty—nor should they.
This Bill has the potential to affect the majority of parents in independent schools in NSW.
The Bill attacks parents right of choice and the responsibility of the state government to provide a basic level of funding to all children in NSW.
Minister Aquilina has already aligned his government with this Bill. Speaking on 666 ABC Canberra Radio News on 1st August 2001 he said that the upcoming Grimshaw report may draw the same conclusion as the Greens'. The bill is a pathetic attempt to stop the flow of children from the government to the non-government schools sector. 17208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
That is a factor in this debate. From 1974 onwards, since I became involved with public issues in the wider community rather than in the local church, I have said that if government school standards, discipline and education quality drop, parents will remove their children from those schools. At that stage we had not experienced the growth in the non-government sector of schools run by the Protestants and other religions. We were critical of education material and policies that were developed during the late 1970s and 1980s and we warned the Government. Parents have a choice. If parents are not happy with what is happening in a State school they will remove their children from that school. That is part of the reason why some government schools are empty or have insufficient students to justify their existence.
Sometimes the Government sells a school, and a Christian group buys it and fills it with students. That is an indication of what parents think about the quality of education their children are getting in State schools. I have said many times that a lot of the blame lies with the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Whether Labor or the Coalition is in government, the Teachers Federation tries to run the education system in this State. I remember one day that Mr Wran, who was very angry about some of the Teachers Federation activities, said, "It is the Australian Labor Party, not the Australian teachers party." He was trying to make the point that the Teachers Federation cannot run the Australian Labor Party. Often it tries and sometimes it succeeds in having policies implemented—almost in an underground way.
The Government has a policy but the Teachers Federation is working below it. Last week a number of parents suggested that their State schools should have a time of prayer for the victims of the United States terrorist attacks, as occurred in Parliament House in Canberra, in this Parliament and in many churches. But a number of teachers objected to that happening in their State school. They told the parents they did not want it. They imposed their view and ideological position on a serious matter. Up until then we held a unified view that this tragedy had affected all citizens. State schools should have had some way in which to assist children with the trauma they were experiencing from what they had seen and heard on television.
Parents get fed up with a minority of teachers—or sometimes a principal—imposing their ideology on parents and students in a State school, and they take their children to non-government schools. I have not met any wealthy parents who send their children to non-government schools. The Christian Democratic Party has more of a working class base. Those people do not have a lot of money, and they make tremendous sacrifices to send their children to a non-government school. It is not an easy decision for them. They do it for many reasons, such as a good education, discipline and moral standards. The family makes sacrifices to send their children to a non-government school. Any spare money they have goes towards school fees.
The serious and symbolic question raised by the bill is that if the bill is passed, will the Parliament be seen to be giving the Government a green light to take some action against non-government schools? I do not believe that is the Government's policy. Obviously, its prime objective is to support the State school system. But in doing so it should not punish the non-government sector. Funding of the non-government sector should be determined on a pro rata basis, dependent upon the number of students in the non-government sector. So, if 31 per cent of students in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory attend non-government schools, those schools should receive 31 per cent of combined State and Commonwealth funding. That is how it should operate, to ensure equity, justice and fairness—not by allocating 20 per cent to the State, leaving a funding gap of 11 per cent. The Christian Democratic Party opposes the bill. I trust that the Government and the Coalition will oppose it also.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.30 p.m.]: From the earliest days of the history of this State, as well as before that in colonial times, we have had a dual system of education. Side by side with the system of public education funded by government—which has always had the responsibility of educating most children—the churches in particular have, for most of Australia's history, funded an alternative system of schooling outside the purview of government. In very large part because of substantial adherence by the Australian community to the Roman Catholic faith, it has always been the case that a very significant minority of Australian children have been educated pursuant to the Catholic Church's commitment to a system of separate education for children of the Catholic faith and others who want to be part of it. So there has always been this mix of public and private education in Australia.
I think it was in 1963 that the Menzies Government began a system of funding science blocks in non- government high schools, and for the very first time a long abstinence of funding from governments for the private schools changed. I know that in my own party that caused considerable angst for a very long time. It is impossible to read the stories of the history of my party during the 1950s and 1960s without knowing the difficulties that that issue caused within the forums of the party. 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17209
But, as history will record, it was our General Secretary, John Carrick—who probably did more for public education than anyone else—along with influential members of the party such as Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Honner, the first Catholic to be President of the Liberal Party in New South Wales and the commanding officer of the Australian forces on the Kokoda Trail during World War II, and a fellow who was President of the Young Liberals called John Howard, who negotiated that change through the New South Wales Liberal Party which, back in the early 1960s, was the precursor for the Menzies Government beginning a policy of providing Federal aid for non-government schools. The Australian Constitution has always recognised that education is primarily a State responsibility. But, like so many other areas of government administration, over the years, because the Commonwealth government has increased its taxing powers while service delivery has remained the responsibility of the States, the problems of federalism have been ongoing. The mismatch of taxing and expenditure has caused ongoing political positioning and posturing on issues like public education and private education. This private member's bill certainly follows that tradition, because it is all about posturing before a Federal election. From what was said by the Hon. Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. Ian Cohen today on the bill, it is quite clear that a lot of this is about having something to say about the Federal Government's performance on education funding during this and its previous term. I certainly have no brief at all for private schools. I am the son of a proud government high school teacher who for 40 years taught at a number of schools around this State. I attended a government primary school and a government high school, Peakhurst High School. Only last week I received an invitation to attend a 20-year school reunion of former year 12 students of Peakhurst High School. I look forward to joining a lot of old friends on 27 October at Menai to reflect on those days all those years ago at Peakhurst High School. Incidentally, this is an experience that people can no longer have because, since the dismemberment of a number of schools in the St George area, students can no longer go on to year 12 at Peakhurst High School. That is a legacy of the State Government. Now, students will have to go to a senior school at the Oatley campus. The jury is still out on how that school is going. I certainly have no brief for private education. In fact, as a younger member of the Liberal Party, among the things that encouraged me to become more involved in and committed to politics were the public education policies developed by the Liberal Party in opposition, particularly between 1984 and 1988. It was a particular commitment of the Liberal and National parties in opposition, under the leadership of Nick Greiner, to make revitalisation of the public education system a priority when the Coalition parties came to government. And so we did. Due to the static of misinformation that came from the Teachers Federation in our first term, sometimes the real story of what we achieved was obscured. But what we did for public education in those years is a wonderful legacy of improved education in this State. So good policies on public education are very important to me. In all the controversy being created about the Federal Government's policies, a number of key and important facts are either being overlooked or being distorted. First of all, it is the case that 85 per cent of the cost of educating school students is met by State governments. That reflects the constitutional position. Only 15 per cent comes from the Federal Government. Secondly, governments, State and Federal, fund no less than 90 per cent of the cost of educating a government school student, which at present equates to about $5,900 each year. In contrast, governments, both State and Federal, provide only about 45 per cent, on average, of the cost of educating a child in the non-government sector, which is about $3,700 a year. In this debate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and other honourable members who spoke earlier, said that the maintenance of a dual system of education not only gives parents a choice on how their children are educated but also brings about a saving in government expenditure. If we were to shut down the non-government sector right now, the cost to the taxpayer would be $2 billion; that is, we save $2 billion by adopting a dual approach to education. The mantra we hear over and over from misinformed people or those who seek to mislead the community by saying the Federal Government has reduced the amount of money it allocates to public education and diverted it to non-government schools is a lie. It is not the truth. Since its election the Howard Government has increased funding to public education by 43 per cent. That is higher than the rate of inflation and it is therefore a real increase in expenditure. It equates to an increase of $650 million more a year in the current budget than was spent in the last budget of the Keating Government. It is false to say that the Federal Government has diverted money from public education to non- government schools. It simply is not true. Schools in lower-income areas receive 80 per cent of the funding the Federal Government provides to the non-government school sector. However, we are constantly given examples of a small number of schools in which there seems to be an anomaly. One school that is commonly referred to is the King's School. For every King's School there are numerous schools with similar standards whose funding has been cut. 17210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Federal Government cut funding to Loreto, Kirribilli, for example, by $2 million a year because it is not in a lower-income area. Part of this disgraceful campaign of misinformation conducted by teacher unions, others in the community and, presumably, proponents of the bill has focused on outcomes in rural areas. The Federal electorate of Gilmore on the New South Wales South Coast, in which I live, makes a lie of the nonsense we constantly hear from the proponents of this campaign against the policies of the Federal Government.
In the last three years the Federal Government has spent $12 million on capital expenditure in the Federal seat of Gilmore, which includes Moss Vale but largely covers the local government areas of Shoalhaven and Kiama. Capital expenditure on non-government schools in the region is $350,000—much less. Similar stories can be found all around the country. A detailed analysis of the figures and the comparative performance of the Federal and State governments in schools on the New South Wales South Coast illustrate the hypocrisy of Government speakers in this debate.
Of the $12 million, two tranches of funding worth $2.1 million were allocated to the new Callala Public School; $2.2 million went to North Nowra Public School; $1.7 million went to Havenleigh, a school for disabled children in Nowra; two tranches of expenditure worth $2.65 million went to Kiama Public School; $200,000 went to Sanctuary Point Public School; and $2.15 million went to Ulladulla Public School.
The figures show that the State Government has provided even less funding for those schools than has been provided by the Federal Government. The figures are also a reflection on the honourable member for South Coast, who, clearly, is not a powerful advocate for schools in his electorate. The State Government is hypocritical in its attacks on the performance of the Federal Government, given its poor record in this regard.
When one takes into account Federal Government funding for Nowra TAFE and the new Nowra campus of the University of Wollongong, in the last three years it has allocated $22 million to public education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels in the Gilmore electorate compared to the grand total of $350,000 for the non-government sector. I know that the Hon. Elaine Nile, a fellow resident of the Gilmore electorate, will be interested to know that the commitment of the Federal Government to public education on the South Coast is 63 to 1 in favour of public education.
The Hon. Elaine Nile: Gerringong received funding before the 1998 election.
The Hon. DON HARWIN: As the Hon. Elaine Nile reminds me, before the 1998 election, the Howard Government, in its first term, provided funding for Gerringong. We must bear that in mind when we consider these sorts of issues and the debate on this bill, which is all about posturing prior to the Federal election. I have addressed some of the misinformation we are hearing as part of that campaign. I am very comfortable in supporting the Opposition's position, which is to oppose the bill.
The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [3.47 p.m.] We need a bill to deal with, and a debate on, education financing. Unfortunately this bill is not it. It is misdirected. It should not be about reducing financial assistance to wealthy non-government schools but about increasing assistance to State schools so they can do something quite radical: perhaps start teaching the three Rs again, and parsing and analysis, and some of the other things that kids are not taught any more. In other words, give them a better education.
As the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans quite rightly pointed out, more private schools are opening and more public schools are closing. That is the choice of parents. As Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said, the choice of parents is to move their children to private schools from public schools because they perceive that is where they will get a better education. That may be regrettable, but in case the movers and supporters of the bill have not noticed, this is a democracy. Parents have the right to make that choice if they want to, and many parents make huge sacrifices to send their children to private schools. But that is their choice.
I have no brief for private schools. I am a product of the State education system: Bondi Beach and Taree primary schools, and Sydney High School. I am a committed supporter of State education, which has been much maligned of late. The problem with this bill is that it will not fix any of that. It is simply "me too-ism", and it ignores the very important principle that one does not make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING [3.49 p.m.]: I state at the outset that I do not support the Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill. Most honourable members no doubt would agree that the hallmark of any nation that wants to be smart is education and knowledge. The educational skills that are taught to our youth are the basis of a great nation—a nation that will 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17211 prosper and attract migrants in the future. The title of the bill includes the words "wealthy non-government schools". What is a wealthy school? How should it be it described? What do the words "wealthy school" mean? Should the term be restricted to non-government schools?
I suspect that debate on this bill will take us back to the sad old days of specific party politics and beliefs—people expressing a singular view of the world as they see it today. This bill has the potential to invoke the highly emotive schisms that had their origins decades ago—some of which have only recently been settled. I refer, for example, to the question of government or non-government schools, and issues such as wealthy and disadvantaged schools, and expenditure by parents. Will the aims and objectives of this legislation take us back to an average outcome? Some would unkindly call it the grey mediocrity of an average outcome. In my view, educational requirements for the future should include competition, excellence, skill and ability.
Students must be encouraged to develop and they must be afforded whatever is required to enable them to perform to their maximum capacity. I am sure some of my colleagues have heard me say that a brilliant student attending a one-teacher school in Antarctica would still win a gold medal at the university or faculty of his or her choice. Few of us would fall into that category. Most of us are just good, average people. As I said earlier, we must include in our educational requirements competition, skills and excellence and enable students to perform to their maximum capacity.
What is a wealthy school? How would this legislation apply to selective government high schools? Is a selective high school a bad objective if it has specific teachings and requirements? Would we reject Newtown Performing Arts High School on the basis that it is a wealthy school? Would we reject Sydney Boys High School and Sydney Girls High Schools, which are selective schools, on the same basis? What would we do in relation to Hurlstone Agricultural High School? It is amazing how many of the top 100 students attend Hurlstone Agricultural High School.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: And James Ruse.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: As my colleague has just reminded me, many top students attend James Ruse Agricultural High School, a non-government school. Are those schools to be considered wealthy schools because they have additional resources? Earlier my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe referred to the conservatorium and to the money that has been spent to educate students in a specific discipline that is not available elsewhere. Is that wrong? Is that a wealthy institute? We could well argue that that is the case when we take into account the money that has been spent on the conservatorium.
As some of my colleagues said earlier, a Federal election is in the offing. Why was this bill introduced now? Is Ms Lee Rhiannon, who introduced this bill, putting forward her ideological position, or did she introduce this bill now because of the forthcoming Federal election? She could be attempting to put some fire into the education debate or she could be putting forward her ideological position. What is the reason for the introduction of this legislation? Which of the options I put forward is the truth?
A number of claims have been made in relation to this legislation. I would like to briefly address some of them. One of the claims that has been made—a claim that concerns the New South Wales Teachers Federation—is that most government funding goes to government schools. The New South Wales Teachers Federation claims that 70 per cent of students in government schools will get only 32 per cent of the funding. That is untrue. Seventy per cent of students in government schools get 78 per cent of public school funding. Government schools in Australia receive about $13.5 billion each year from taxpayers' funding for the two million students that enrol. Non-government schools receive about $3.5 billion in public funding for the one million students that enrol. That is hardly a sustainable argument. Quite clearly, over 60 per cent of all money flowing to schools through the Commonwealth budget goes to government schools.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: And that is increasing.
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: I was about to refer to that increase; I thank my colleague for making the point. It has been suggested that Commonwealth education spending, as a proportion of gross domestic product [GDP], has fallen. Again, that statement is not true. In fact, Commonwealth expenditure on schools is increasing as a proportion of GDP. In 2001 the Howard Government will spend over $560 million more on government schools than was spent in 1996. Funding will increase by that amount annually.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is fantastic! 17212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: Indeed, it is fantastic. The Commonwealth Government will be investing an additional $9 billion over the next four years. So much for the claim that spending on government schools has fallen as a proportion of GDP! What are some of the other interesting claims? It has been claimed that the Federal Government has cut funding for public education. As I said earlier, the opposite is the truth. The large increases to government schools reflect the importance of a strong government school system. The Federal Government has provided leadership, which has led to an increase in literacy standards. In 2001, Federal Government funding for government schools in New South Wales stands at a record $703.6 million. Since the Howard Government was elected, funding for New South Wales government schools has increased by $175.2 million.
The record should show clearly that the Federal Government makes a larger proportional contribution to new school buildings and facilities in New South Wales than in any other mainland State. It should also be noted that the current Labor Government in New South Wales, the Carr Government, makes a smaller contribution. It is interesting to note that unfortunately the New South Wales State Labor Government, whose job it is to fund and run government schools, has not matched the Federal Government's increases. Lest I be blamed for arguing a political point, let me source that statement. The New South Wales Teachers Federation admits that State funding for government schools has not kept pace with inflation in recent years. I hardly think that is good enough.
The claim that private schools get more public funding per student than that received by government schools again is just not true. In 2004, government secondary schools will receive an estimated $8,172 per student in public funding compared with $5,721 per student for the neediest non-government schools and $1,120 per student for schools serving wealthy communities. Any claim to the contrary can only lead one to believe that we are looking at an ideological campaign against non-government schools.
I would like to put a number of questions to the House. They are important, as parents of schoolchildren particularly want to be well informed about public funding in Australian schools. Much heat is being generated on the issue of public funding for non-government schools. People will be trying to access the facts and, therefore, I put the following questions to the House. First: Why should non-government school students receive any public funds for their school education? That is the question that is being put to us, and the answer is simple. All governments have a responsibility to ensure equitable treatment of all children. All children have a right to quality education. Parents, as first educators, have a right to choose the kind of education that should be given to their children. As a result, all children have a right to equitably share the public funds available for schooling.
The second question I put to the House is: Do Australian governments recognise the right of non- government school students to receive public funding for their education? Again, the answer is yes. Provision is made for this in addition to funding for government schooling. Third: Do Australian governments spend more money on non-government school students than on government school students? The answer to that question is clearly no. There are two million-plus students at government schools, and public funding from Australian governments, which includes State, Territory and Federal governments, has increased to $14.4 billion.
The one million students at non-government schools now receive $3.6 billion in public funding from Australian governments—again, State, Territory and Federal. Non-government school parents and their communities pay, on average, 43 per cent of the remainder of the schooling costs for their children while also supporting government school students with their tax dollars—a point that should be noted.
Fourth: Do non-government school students take public funds away from the government school students? Of course they do not. On the contrary, non-government school parents save governments around $2.6 billion per year in recurrent school expenditure alone. If this did not happen and those students attended government schools, governments would have to fund all students. One other question that appears to have muddied the waters, and the final question I put to the House, is: Who pays for school buildings and capital requirements? The answer to this should be noted clearly. Governments provide all the funds required for building and other capital works for government schools. Non-government school parents and their communities pay 87 per cent of the cost of buildings and other non-capital requirements—an estimated $800 million annually. The Australian Government contributes the remaining 13 per cent.
This bill is divisive. It is argued on the basis of ideology, party politics, and not fact and truth. It is argued with a Federal election in mind. To propose that the bill argues between a wealthy private school and a general non-wealthy public school is nonsense. We are interested in good education with good teachers who can 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17213 educate children and give them the knowledge, skills and wellbeing to develop a clever nation as we proceed into the twenty-first century. We must get away from the old, grey shibboleth that used to be argued and the divisive ideology that tended to upset and hold back the education of our children. I cannot support the bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG [4.06 p.m.]: While I was preparing my contribution, my party Whip, the Hon. Peter Primrose, said to me, "Henry, you went to a government school. You must participate in this debate, because you would no doubt support Ms Lee Rhiannon". I am very good friends with Ms Lee Rhiannon and I have a lot of respect for her. I said "Peter, it seems to me that this bill is quite simple. Reducing financial assistance to wealthy non-government schools could easily translate to increasing financial assistance to poor government schools." It seemed that simple to me. However, as I listened to the contributions of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. John Jobling, who seemed to make some sense, it became obvious that the question is not as simple as I first thought.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Unless you are a Green.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: No, unless you are not considering the whole of the Government's approach to the problem. We are responsible for all the citizens of New South Wales and we need to think of equity for all. In this sense, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. John Jobling make a lot of sense. Some non-government schools take on the responsibility to raise money from former students and from parents of schoolchildren, who like to contribute more to the schools because they want to have a choice. In that sense, perhaps the answer is not so simple. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: We do not want to discourage them. The Hon. HENRY TSANG: That is true. I had a wonderful public education. I went to Vaucluse Boys High School. That school is in a very wealthy area, but it could not be said that it was a wealthy school. The amount of money people have cannot be judged according to the school their children attend. People I talked to said that Vaucluse had a very wealthy school. But in the early 1960s when I went to Vaucluse Boys High School it was a very poor school. It did not have two swimming pools; there was no swimming pool. It did not have two tennis courts; there was no tennis court. There was no soccer field. There was just a concrete patch used as a basketball court. So while it was in a very expensive area, it was a very poor school. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans went to The King's School. It is not located in a rich area. Parramatta has many families of average income, but they sacrifice a lot so their children can attend that school. School fees of $3,000 or $4,000 a year are not really expensive. Parents are prepared to pay that amount to exercise freedom of choice in education. Forty per cent of the population in New South Wales are migrants or children of migrants. They came here so they could have a choice of employment and education, which is very important. My wife, Donna, and I have two boys. They went to Lindfield primary school, a wonderful school, and Killara primary school—schools in wealthy areas. There was great debate in my family about where to send the kids to school. I said they should go to a public school, to Killara High School, which is a very good high school. But I did not have the numbers and the boys were sent to a private school. That was democracy exercised by the family. They were sent to St Aloysius College, a very good Catholic school. When my boys were there the college charged fees of slightly more than $4,000 a year. But it is not a wealthy school. When I took the kids for an interview Father Smith told me the school deliberately did not want to take all its students from families in high income brackets. It took students from all over Sydney—the western, northern and eastern suburbs. Obviously, the parents of some students are very rich, some are from small business and some are labourers. Father Smith wanted the college to be a microcosm of society. Under the terms of the motion that school would be excluded from any government subsidy. Had that been the case, I would not have been able to send my boys to that school. So I would not have been able to give them a private school education. Riverview was charging about $8,000 a year in fees at the time. The Hon. John Jobling: You were still paying your taxes that were going into the school. The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I thank the Hon. John Jobling for his prompting. All Australians pay taxes and there should be equity. People on high incomes who pay a lot more tax should also have help. If they pay $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year for private education they save the Government money because the Government does not have to provide public education to the children of those parents. People would have to pay more tax to educate the children presently attending private schools if those schools were no longer subsidised by the Government. 17214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
According to the Government's calculations, the per capita contribution to private schools currently represents 25 per cent of what it would cost the State to educate a child in a government school. While I have sympathy for the government schools that need help, our strategy should not be to reduce funding to non- government schools. The Government has established a review of non-government schools which will examine and report on the issues of equitable school funding, accountability and reporting requirements. This may satisfy Ms Lee Rhiannon in relation to non-government schools receiving State funding and being as accountable as the government schools.
Setting a benchmark at $4,000 would encourage some schools to be dishonest. I remember that when my kids were at school there was a building fund, a library fund and sports fees. Stipulating a benchmark of $4,000 would encourage schools to break up their costs and set their fees at $3,999—like a department store price tag—and then add other compulsory fee components. If a family did not pay the building fee their child would not be able to use certain parts of the school, if they did not pay the library fee their child would not be able to borrow books, and so on. So there would not be equity among the children at the school. Perhaps we should spend a little more time looking at what is a wealthy school and what is a non-wealthy school.
There has been much discussion about the timing of the introduction of this bill. Perhaps introducing the bill now is not the best strategy in relation to the coming Federal election. I will ride on the bandwagon and say that perhaps this issue should be considered during the Federal election campaign. Over the past three years the enrolment benchmark adjustment [EBA] has cut $37 million from public education in New South Wales, and not one cent has been returned to the public school students of this State.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: But it has been. It has been put into literacy programs.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: This is how I understand the situation. I understand also that the GST has cost New South Wales Government schools $15 million.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Is that 15 per cent?
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The GST of 10 per cent imposed on the New South Wales Government by the Federal Government equals $15 million. More importantly, the Howard Government plans to cut targeted programs, such as literacy and numeracy programs, by $178 million for government schools across Australia. I think the best way to help government schools provide necessary facilities for students is to reduce the amount of Federal funding for non-government schools. At the Federal election people should consider not supporting the Howard Government's education policy and vote for the Labor Party.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [4.22 p.m.]: My colleague the Hon. John Jobling made a clear statement about appropriate education funding levels from the Commonwealth and the State. At about the time that the Hon. Lee Rhiannon gave notice of her bill I wrote to Dr Kemp, the Federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I shall quote only parts of his reply to me, but I am more than happy to hand a copy of the letter to the Hon. Lee Rhiannon in case she thinks I am quoting it out of context. The letter is dated 15 November, which was before the recent Federal budget, in which the Howard Government further boosted funding for public and private schools in New South Wales. It stated:
Commonwealth spending on government schools will rise by 19 per cent over the next four years. This year the Commonwealth Government is spending $402 million more on government schools than in 1996— the Hon. John Jobling referred to a figure of some $500 million—
an increase of 26 per cent.
The figure must be even higher now. If we add another 10 per cent, it must be closer to 33 per cent.
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Yes. It will be over 40 per cent—46 per cent to 49 per cent—by 2004.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: By the end of 2004, yes, but this year I think it is about 33 per cent. The letter further stated:
Over the same period the number of students in government schools [across Australia] has risen by 2.3 per cent.
In fact, the number of students in New South Wales government schools has dropped; it has not increased. The letter continued: 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17215
Further, the Commonwealth guarantees and legislates school funding over a four year … period. None of the States or Territories offers such a guaranteed four year funding arrangement, nor the legislated funding increases provided by the Commonwealth. As you know, funding levels to individual government schools are decided by the State Government.
In other words, individual schools do not know what their funding is until they get it each year. The State school system as a whole does not know how much it will get. If it thinks it will maintain its percentage of about 24 per cent of total State expenditure it is in for a rude shock, because I think education expenditure is down to about 22.3 per cent of the total State budget. What is the current figure for education as a percentage of the whole State budget?
The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: It is 22 per cent.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: It was 26 per cent when the Coalition was in government. Equally, health expenditure as a percentage of total budget outlays is falling in New South Wales—and it shows. The letter further stated:
Increased funding for government schools is part of a broader commitment to funding for all schools.
Here is a Federal government that is intent on correcting the historic underfunding of education in the State public school system. The letter continued:
Since 1973 the Commonwealth has been the primary source of public funding for non-government schools.
As my colleague the Hon. John Jobling said, that was because a political decision was made by the Federal Coalition Government, following the State Labor and Coalition governments, to fund non-government students. The letter continued:
Non-government school funding is rising more rapidly at present because the Commonwealth has acted to correct serious inequities in school funding. The increase in non-government funding does not mean that funding is taken away from government schools, as is mistakenly claimed by the Opposition.
The Hon. Lee Rhiannon has made the same mistaken claim.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: Which Opposition?
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: The Federal Labor Opposition of Mr Beazley and others. In fact, the Commonwealth has dramatically increased the size of the pie and made the pie sharing much more equitable. The letter continued:
From 2001 the Commonwealth will introduce a new funding system for non-government schools, which will more accurately reflect the need of the communities they serve.
That commitment to fairness of opportunity runs through all the Federal Government's policies. The letter continued:
Under the socio-economic status (SES) funding model, schools will now move to a more equitable system where schools serving the most needy communities will receive funding, in 2004, of $4,368 for each primary student and $5,721 for each secondary student. By comparison, the wealthiest schools that are funded on their SES score will, in 2004, receive only $855 for each primary student and $1,120 for each secondary student.
The Commonwealth's policies recognise the rights of parents of all income levels to exercise choice of schooling and rejects the view that this should only be available to high income parents. It is important to remember that per capita recurrent funding of non-government schools by Commonwealth and State Governments together remains less than the average per capita funding of government schools.
On the issue of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment (EBA), the EBA has been on the public agenda since August 1996. It has been the subject of extensive public consultation and comment and the matter was thoroughly canvassed by the Commonwealth parliament through a Senate inquiry. The Senate subsequently passed the related legislation after detailed debate.
The basic principle underlining the EBA approach— this is for the edification of the Hon. Lee Rhiannon; I am sure all other honourable members understand this—
is that when a student moves to the non-government sector from the government sector, the State makes a saving as the major part of the cost of educating that student is shifted to the Commonwealth and the student's parents. The EBA does not transfer funds from one sector to another, not increase in any way the entitlements of non-government schools to per capita funding … 17216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The issue of cost shifting between the levels of governments as proportions of students change was acknowledged by State Education Ministers at the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs meeting … held in March [2000]. States also agreed to participate on a working party, chaired by New South Wales, to propose an alternative approach to the EBA in order to address this issue. The Minister will consider any recommendations which may arise from the working party.
I have not heard the outcome of the Minister's consideration of the recommendations. On 25 March my leader, the Hon. Kerry Chikarovski, brought to my attention the serious problems in relation to education in this State. The problems flow from Labor's legacy, including a shortage of teachers, vandalism in schools and crumbling school buildings. Parents are dissuaded from sending their children to a public school because of the uncertainty of whether teachers will be available and because the buildings may be run-down or damaged by vandalism.
The Minister and the department do not support teachers who want to have a go. Where is the Government's policy on a professional status for schoolteachers? Where is the recognition for schoolteachers? In spite of all the rhetoric by Mr Carr—who wants to be known as the education Premier—he has cut funding in real terms, school buildings are falling apart and school security is continuously at risk. On the North Coast, where I live, it costs about $5 million per annum to repair school vandalism. Almost every school in the State has reported basic problems with maintenance and outstanding capital works. Consequently, parents have voted with their feet. In the election campaign of March 1995 Bob Carr said:
For all schools let the watchword be: genuine equality and the best quality.
No-one in this State would say that there have been advances in either the quality of education offered in government schools or genuine equality across the system under this Premier. After six years of Labor, thousands of parents across the State are voting with their feet, deserting our once great public education system. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics between 1997 and 2000 the number of students in New South Wales government secondary schools dropped by more than 6,000—that is, 6,000 of our brightest kids left government secondary schools between 1997 and 2000. That was not because the parents thought that they would save money, because they obviously did not. Obviously, with that number, it was not a whole class of nouveau riche.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: Who?
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Some people can spell it, and I am sure that the Special Minister of State could do so if he tried. For example, members elected to the Labor Council suddenly have a lot of money to spend—that is called nouveau riche. In the same period, non-government schools in New South Wales attracted 12,000 students, because the number of high school students was growing following the Commonwealth Government's commitment to ensuring that more kids completed their secondary education. The number of students completing years 6 to 12 increased, despite improved employment opportunities. Non- government schools attracted not only the students who dropped out of government schools but also an extra 6,000 students.
The Federal Government helped encourage more kids to take on the longer years of education. Students were moving away from the public system and non-government schools were attracting higher rates of new students. At the same time, in Victoria the number of students in government schools increased by more than 1,000. Jeff Kennett was in office at that time; he improved the quality of schooling and attracted more kids to the State school system. This happened at the time that Bob Car said that he wanted to be remembered as the education Premier. His solution was the closure of at least nine schools in the inner-city suburbs without consulting parents and teachers in order to make a buck. He wanted to sell real estate to make a buck.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: You have made an inconsistent speech, Brian.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, I have not.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: That's different from other points you have made.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: I used to try that tactic on Jeff Shaw. I ask the Special Minister of State to make that statement in his contribution to this debate. There has been a massive increase in the damages bill for our schools. How does the Premier explain his failure to address the serious problems underlining the damage caused by vandalism to our schools? The damage affects not only the buildings; when a school is ravaged by vandalism the entire school community is affected. It is important to protect schools against vandalism because of its impact on the kids and the school community—that is more important than the cost 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17217 involved. A building can always be repaired, but it is very hard to mend a broken heart. I pay tribute to the inaugural speech of the Hon. Michael Costa, which I read with considerable interest when I had a bit of time on my hands late at night in East Timor. I will refer to his speech on future occasions. He said:
My political journey has taught me that outcomes are the most important thing and that values are more important than ideology.
That is a pragmatic approach that is obviously supportive of people having choices and making those choices when looking at outcomes. Parents are not looking only at whether their kids can add up, speak the language or do the curriculum; they are looking also at the child's outcome. Quite obviously parents make choices, and do so based on a lot of grounds. I am not going to tell parents that they have made the wrong choice, I am not a command economics person who says, "This is what you are going to have and you are going to like it because we know it is better for you", as the Greens do, and as Communism does. The Greens and the Communists say that they know what is better for us because they are smarter. They say, "This product we have for you fits you like a glove and it will make you a better person." The Hon. Michael Costa does not agree with that philosophy either.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: He is not the only one.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, and I am not trying to put words into the mouth of the Special Minister of State. I know from the carefully constructed speech of the Hon. Michael Costa how he would feel about funding the education system. He also said:
It is pleasing that at its last national conference the ALP returned to its free trade roots and reaffirmed its commitment to an open economy.
That is a very important feature of this debate. This State has an open economy and the Hon. Michael Costa will obviously do his best to maintain that. At the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting, at which I was pleased to represent my party as part of the New South Wales delegation, the delegates from small nations, particularly African nations, said that the best thing that ever happened to them was the opening of the markets. It gave them more opportunities but, more importantly, it gave them an opening of their minds and attitudes as well as their access to freedom generally. That is what the Hon. Michael Costa was implying, and it is good to know that the Labor Party—
The Hon. John Della Bosca: Why are you quoting Michael Costa all the time?
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: Because his speech is in front of me. He said that it was pleasing that at the last national conference—
The Hon. John Della Bosca: Really!
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: If the Special Minister of State had made a maiden speech like that I would be the first to draw reference from it. I was struck by the candour and nature of his speech. It contained a few things which I can quote in this debate. All forms of imitation are a form of flattery, and let us hope that the Hon. Michael Costa lives up to the promise he showed in that speech. He said:
… at its last national conference the ALP returned to its free trade roots and reaffirmed its commitment to an open economy.
Well, it is about time that the Australian Labor Party worked out that that is where we get freedom from. He also said:
Market fundamentalism is as much a dogma—an intellectual straitjacket—as its antithesis, command economics. I agree with that, too. There has to be something in the middle, something between market fundamentalism and command economics. The Hon. Michael Costa also stated:
Markets are tools for allocating scarce resources, not the end goal of an economic process. That is absolutely true. He went on to state:
Societies structured on markets that do not deliver social outcomes supported by the majority of the community are doomed to failure. In this State we offer outcomes and people have a choice. People make choices and they do not make those choices on economic grounds alone. The whole process of choice is generally approved and because it is 17218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 generally approved I dare say it is likely to be successful. When referring particularly to the Hon. Lee Rhiannon's approach to these issues, the Hon. Michael Costa also stated:
In retrospect, the problem with Marxism as a political philosophy was not Marx's original ideas, which bear the limitations of his era; it was the Marxists, his self-styled followers, who turned a political theory that needed testing and refinement in the face of new realities into destructive dogma.
That is where people go wrong. People such as the Hon. Lee Rhiannon rushed forward with one recipe that fixes everything, one dogma, and that has been the cause of a lot of trouble in the world, as the Hon. John Della Bosca would know more than most.
The Hon. John Della Bosca: I follow the Groucho line.
The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: That is good. In conclusion, I reiterate my view that balance, choice and allowing parents to decide what they think is best for their family are essential. Parents spend a lot of time thinking about what is best for their family. I encourage the State Government to direct more resources into primary and secondary education, especially primary education. Having visited the Republic of Ireland with the Hon. Tony Kelly recently, I learned that the miracle of Irish economic strength lay in the seeds that were sown in the 1970s. At that time Ireland, when it was poor, spent every penny that could be gathered on the education of its young people. When the opportunities of employment came with the new century, educated young people were available and there is a life for them. That is what I hope for our children—that there will be a life for them with good education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.42 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contribution. Before responding to members' comments, I remind honourable members that the Greens Education Amendment (Reduction of Financial Assistance to Wealthy Non-government Schools) Bill embodies two simple, fair and just propositions. First, the bill redirects the State funding of the wealthiest private schools into the Priorities Schools Funding Program, which directs money to public schools, serving communities of high unemployment and extensive social dislocation. This bill will almost double the current funding levels of that program. Second, the bill ensures that the public is aware of the financial and educational activities of all private schools in New South Wales. This is a matter of simple accountability which is already provided by the public education system. I reiterate those comments because, when listening to debate on the bill, it seemed to me that quite a number of honourable members were not acquainted with its provisions.
During the contribution made by Ms Forsythe, she made the observation that there is broad consensus on the goal of ensuring that all children in New South Wales receive a high-quality education. This is an important starting point and it is interesting to observe the different conclusions reached by various speakers. Ms Forsythe objected to our allusion to Federal funds, claiming that these were not relevant to the State issues and that the Greens were trying to cut themselves in on the Federal election debate. Other speakers ran with that theme as well. That observation is clearly off the mark on two grounds. First, it makes no sense to analyse the funding of private schools without direct reference to Federal funding. Around Australia, 43 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a private school comes from the Commonwealth. Substantial changes in the quantity and allocation of those funds, such as occurred in the last 12 months, has inevitable and far-reaching consequences for all education decision making. Surely Ms Forsythe would agree that debating State funding without reference to the Federal contribution makes no sense.
The second reason why Ms Forsythe's suggestion is incorrect is that the Greens are a player in education. Surely she would be aware of the extensive work undertaken by Greens Senator Bob Brown and the lead he has given in this field. Long ago the Greens announced that public education would be a part of its Federal election strategy, yet from the way that Coalition participants in the debate spoke about this issue one would think that they had revealed a great secret. The Greens clarified their position long ago. As far as that comment relates to this bill, the Greens made a promise in 1998 and proceeded to the 1999 election on the basis that we would bring forward this bill. Throughout 1999 exhaustive discussion took place with a number of community organisations and in 2000 notice was given of a motion to indicate the Greens intention of bringing forward this bill. The silliness of the Coalition's assertions has wasted quite a lot of time.
In Ms Forsythe's speech, she also described as incorrect the Greens assertion that the Federal Government had failed to provide real funding growth for public education. I suggest to Ms Forsythe that she correct her Federal funding figures for inflation and divide that by the number of students in public education. She would then see that a very different picture emerges. In common with the Government, Ms Forsythe expressed concern about the Greens use of collective income as a measure of school wealth. We certainly 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17219 acknowledge that this is a complex issue about which much argument has taken place and about which there has been little resolution. It is for that reason that the Greens have called for the formation at a Federal level of a public inquiry into education funding which should address, among other matters, appropriate measures of wealth and needs. Similarly the Greens await with interest the commencement of the Grimshaw inquiry in New South Wales.
However it is abundantly clear that schools with fees and other income in excess of $8,000 per head are doing very well and are recruiting from an affluent client base. While per capita collective income might not be an appropriate basis for the allocation of funds for other private schools, it remains valid for very wealthy schools. The honourable member also suggests that the Minister is the Minister for Education, not just public education. That was her clear emphasis.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: That is true.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti makes the comment that that is true, so I draw to the attention of all honourable members section 4 (d) of the Education Act 1990, which states:
… the principal responsibility of the State in the education of children is the provision of public education.
The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: What date?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: It was 1990. The bill is a clear statement of that primary responsibility. The Greens, however, welcome two of Ms Forsythe's statements. First, along with every other supporter of public education, we are pleased to see that the Coalition is acknowledging that the socioeconomic status funding regime produces anomalies. I am not sure how her Federal leader and the Federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs will respond to her remark, but I congratulate the honourable member on her courage in making that statement. The Greens also welcome her commitment to accountability. It is clear that there is now broad consensus across political parties that private schools must be made more accountable. I thank Ms Forsythe for her detailed examination of the Greens proposal and my speech.
I noted very carefully the comments made by Labor members Mr Macdonald and Ms Saffin. The Greens were heartened by the position adopted by the Government. While we are disappointed that Labor is not yet able to support our proposals as set out in the bill, there is clear movement on the issues of the wealthiest private schools and on the issue of accountability. We understand that the Government is under pressure from some of the more vocal elements in the private school lobby to maintain the levels of privilege enjoyed by King's, Trinity and the other elite schools. We strongly encourage the Government to make a strong stand against the politics of self-interest, privilege and those who are clearly against equity and fairness.
In particular, we would encourage the Government to do what needs to be done: to repeal section 21 of the Education Act and remove the 25 per cent rule, which causes such a financial burden in the funding of public education. There is a clear need for that, as is demonstrated day in and day out. The Greens appreciate that the Government has concerns about the measure used in this bill in relation to the wealth of a private school. That measure is of specific relevance only to the very elite institutions. We certainly await with interest the Grimshaw inquiry. Mr Malcolm Jones made an interesting contribution. From some of his statements I was left wondering if he had read the bill. Perhaps he failed to comprehend it. Contrary to his allegations, we can make no assumptions about the wealth of all private schools. Indeed, we spent considerable care and effort in coming up with a measure that distinguished between wealthy and other schools. Nothing in the bill is intended to remove the rights of parents to choose. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who spoke on behalf of the Democrats. He indicated his party's strong support for the bill and outlined the Greens position on public education, indicating that there was strong support from the Democrats membership on this issue. I was particularly interested in the comments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. He started off by saying that the Greens have good intentions. However, he then said that the bill diverted debate from school closures and that the timing was wrong because of the Grimshaw inquiry. He has had 20 years experience in this place and would know that bills have a long lead time. His reference to the fact that the bill is being debated at the time of the Grimshaw inquiry is a poor and dishonest argument. I was concerned also that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile made great play of the assertion that this bill, if passed, would act as a disincentive to the raising of funds by private school parents. As a parent who has worked in canteens at public schools and who has been involved in many fundraising activities, I found that insulting. 17220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
He really missed the mark because people have a commitment to public education and they will continue to do their work. On behalf of the Greens I take this opportunity to thank the Friends of Public Education, who have done so much to support the bill, the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales, the Public School Principals Forum, the Primary and Secondary Principals Associations, the Federation of School Community Organisations, Priority Public, Save Our Schools and Promotion of Public Education, known as POPE.
Many of these organisations and their members have helped in many aspects of the drafting of the bill and in our wider campaign. The Greens are proud to have introduced the bill. Although the bill will not pass through the Legislative Council and thus will not become law, it has shown what needs to be done to give public education the funds to continue to deliver excellence and equity for all students. The bill has given honourable members an opportunity to reflect on the important role of public education, on its funding needs and on inequity in funding the wealthiest private schools. For the Greens the bill remains an accurate statement of our commitment to public education as the primary vehicle of social justice, social cohesion and prosperity. We are confident that the tide is turning against the wealthy elite private schools and that the Greens bill and our wider campaign for public education will help shift funding away from the private system and back into the public school system. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 6
Mr Breen Mr Cohen Mr R. S. L. Jones Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mrs Sham-Ho
Noes, 28
Ms Burnswoods Mr Hatzistergos Ms Saffin Mr Colless Mr M. I. Jones Mr Samios Mr Costa Mr Kelly Ms Tebbutt Mr Dyer Mr Lynn Mr Tingle Ms Fazio Mr Moppett Mr Tsang Mrs Forsythe Mrs Nile Mr West Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Tellers, Mr Gay Dr Pezzutti Mr Jobling Mr Harwin Mr Ryan Mr Primrose Question resolved in the negative. Motion negatived. Pursuant to resolution business interrupted. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion by the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 16 October 2001 at 2.30 p.m. WELLINGTON LOCAL ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL Return to Order The Clerk tabled, in accordance with the resolution of the House of Tuesday 18 September 2001, documents relating to the Wellington Local Aboriginal Land Council received by him today from the Director- 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17221
General of the Premier's Department and referred to in paragraph 4 of the resolution of the House of 18 September 2001, which are considered privileged and should not be made public or tabled. In accordance with the resolution of the House the Clerk advised that these documents are available for inspection by members of the Council only.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT (Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment) [5.04 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.04 p.m.]: I shall speak today about the important matter of our Christian heritage. All members will know that this year we celebrate the Centenary of Federation. When the Commonwealth Constitution was adopted by referendum it included the important words "Humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God". There had been some debate in the various State Parliaments about whether to include those words. Some politicians obviously did not want them in our Constitution but many others did. The Christian churches were far more outspoken in those days, and the Anglican, Catholic and other churches strongly supported the inclusion of some acknowledgement of God in our Commonwealth Constitution. In fact, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, support for the inclusion of that acknowledgement was so strong that, if it had been left out and the churches had decided to urge a no vote, the referendum would have been defeated and we would have had individual sovereign States on the continent of Australia but no Commonwealth.
There would have been the State of New South Wales, the State of Queensland and so on. This State would possibly have had its own Army, Navy and Air Force. Thank God common sense prevailed and the politicians, even those who had initially opposed it, reluctantly agreed to include the acknowledgment. The referendum was passed and the acknowledgement was included in the Australian Commonwealth Constitution. It is important in the centenary year to note those words, "Humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God". Few Constitutions refer to God, but many nations refer to God in their anthems, for example, New Zealand. In the true sense of the word an anthem has to include a reference to God. For that reason many of us are disappointed in the national anthem, Advance Australia Fair. It is a good song. However, I would rather it be a national song than a national anthem. As a result of the terrorist actions in New York and Washington there has been an outpouring of emotion, particularly in the United States of America. That emotion was also evident at a memorial service for the victims of the terrorist actions which was held in the Great Hall of Parliament House in Canberra. In the various memorial and candlelight services, and the church service in Yankee Stadium last week, God Bless America was sung. However, the American anthem, which I imagine resulted from the Civil War, is the Star Spangled Banner. It is about the American flag. When people wanted to express their true feelings they sang God Bless America. Serious thought should be given to a true national anthem for Australia. As our Constitution acknowledges God, our anthem should acknowledge God. That would not be offensive to Christians— The Hon. Duncan Gay: God Save the Queen. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: It would not cause offence to other religious groups— Muslims, Buddhist and Hindu—who believe in God as well. It would be uniting rather than divisive. The words "God Bless Australia" in our national anthem would enable people to reflect on their emotions when they take part in important events. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made reference to the true former anthem, God Save the Queen. I have successfully campaigned for the RSL and other groups to retain God Save the Queen as a national hymn. That is why that hymn—not an anthem—is now sung at special national events. [Time expired.] SYDNEY TRADES HALL The Hon. IAN WEST [5.09 p.m.]: Recently I received a copy of a document from the Trades and Industrial Hall and Literary Institute Association of Sydney Ltd entitled "Back to the Beginning". It is an historical account of the early years of the Trades Hall Building in Goulburn Street, Sydney, and the efforts of those many working men and women to provide a facility in which to organise. The account begins:
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, many working people in Australia had won two rights: the right to associate and the right to work no more than eight hours a day for a living wage. They could now form unions and they had the time to do so. Their next step was to acquire a suitable place. 17222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The Trades and Industrial Hall and Literary Institute Association met for many years in a back room of the Swan With Two Necks hotel on the corner of George and Park streets, Sydney, before moving to the Temperance Hall. Attempts to build a place to organise and advance working people's interests in Sydney date from about 1872. In late 1884 six members of the former Trades and Labour Council Committee joined nine delegates from nine unions to form the Trades Hall Committee, later known as the Trades Hall Association. The committee had £3 at its inaugural meeting. The conservative government of the day was asked to provide £6,000 from the 1884 parliamentary estimates to purchase suitable land, which it did. In 1885 a block of land on the corner of Goulburn and Dixon streets was chosen. The Government bought the land and granted it by deed to appointed land trustees who were to oversee the use of the land and any buildings erected thereon. In 1885 the land posed a collection of challenges. Again I refer to the historical account, which states:
There was an old mill at the foot of Goulburn Street, and the neighbours include Kents Brewery, commercial stables, a farrier and a tannery. All overflowed or gave off smoke and odours and generally caused nuisance to the Trades Hall land. There was a horse trough on the muddy footpath and the lighting was poor. There were rowdy hotels nearby and houses of ill repute and when the first stage of the Trades Hall was built bars were needed on the windows facing the Darling Harbour railway station. The cottages numbers 22-26 Dixon Street came with the land and were in various states of repair and tenancy and earned some £4 a week. The Trades Hall Association was incorporated on 6 August 1886 into the Trades and Industrial Hall and Literary Institute Association of Sydney, a company limited by shares. Its objects were to build a hall in which to provide housing for meeting rooms, a lecture hall, a library and reading room, entertainment, a labour bureau and a waiting room for the unemployed. In 1886 John Smedley, the first Australian-born architect, won the Trades Hall Association competition for his design of the future Trades Hall. The name given by John to the plan was pro bono publico, meaning "for the common good". The building which resulted remained mostly true to his design. Under the deed of grant the right to mortgage the land required an Act of Parliament. The association was in a fairly tight financial situation and had to manage its affairs in a businesslike manner, whilst remaining in the realms of a non-profit organisation. The foundation stone was laid on 28 January 1888 by Lord Carrington, great nephew of the Governor, who spoke of the need for working people to help themselves. He cited the efforts of strikers in Edinburgh, who had organised themselves to build houses and had set up a successful scheme to let working people own their own homes. Some time later some people had begun to doubt that the Trades Hall would ever materialise. The Australian Workman on 6 December 1890 reported the venture's proponents as "a class of mere talkers and not workers". The Trades Hall was finally completed in 1916 and still stands not only as a major architectural icon of Sydney but as living testimony to the efforts, results and resilience of many thousands of working people during those times and since. The Trades Hall has housed many community, religious and recreational groups over the years. It has stood through many local and world events: the caretaker, Mr Andrew Price, was killed at Gallipoli; the Second World War saw blacking out and sandbagging; and an influenza epidemic closed down the hall, along with most of the city. It escaped the bubonic plague in 1905, possibly because it was well away from the rat-infested Circular Quay. BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL OPERATIONS The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.13 p.m.]: I wish to talk about the increasing dysfunction of a shire council on the State's North Coast. It is a council that I have spoken about in this House on numerous occasions and one that seems to have been given an open-ended warning by the Minister for Local Government. The council to which I refer is Byron Shire Council. I want to use the experience of one of my constituents to illustrate the lengths to which this council will go to try to frustrate development in the shire. At this point I acknowledge that the council has a new general manager, the former member for North Shore Ms Robyn Read. Recently Ms Read recently invited me to visit Byron and see what measures the council had taken to improve its performance. Unfortunately, before I was even able to get there, I was informed of the case I will detail, which is clear evidence that the council has not improved one iota. My constituents have been trying for several years to finish what I believe is an excellent development at Suffolk Park. This is a development that has won a Rivercare award for environmental sustainability, but at every turn it has been hindered by the actions of the council. This is a council that will take every possible step to try to halt legitimate and legal developments. Barely a week goes by that the council does not rate a mention in the Land and Environment Court. My constituents, after a lengthy battle in the Land and Environment Court, were finally granted approval in the court on 26 April this year. They were over the moon. They rightly thought that the huge legal costs that they had incurred in trying to get their development complete would stop mounting, and they could see light at the end of a very long, dark green tunnel. But, as with everything else that has come before this council relating to that development, that was not to be the case. My constituents contacted me last week with further concerns about the way the council has 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17223 acted. It has been pointed out to me that, in spite of the fact that there are now three court-approved development applications in place, the council has further aggravated the situation by waiting more than 60 days to assess landscape plans that were submitted to council at the same time as the application for a construction certificate. I quote from a letter I received from my constituents earlier this week:
It is our view that the entrenched dysfunctional culture within the Council has its own agenda and simply ignores directives of the General Manager and the Courts.
The council has given certain undertakings in relation to this development at a meeting between my constituents, the mayor and the Director General of the Department of Local Government, but it appears those undertakings have now gone out the window. I have written to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning this week to highlight these issues, along with another appalling piece of bureaucratic nonsense that has been foisted on my constituents in recent weeks relating to retrospective zoning issues. But I do not expect they will do anything. This council has been extended an extraordinary degree of latitude over the years, and it is of great concern to me. On several occasions I have raised with the Minister for Local Government the issue of the council's astounding propensity to spend ratepayers' money on legal costs, but he seems content with allowing his department to continue to "carefully monitor" the performance of the council. From my recollection, there has been monitoring in one form or another of this council for the best part of four years. Council's legal fees to the end of May 2001 were $338,565.31, with an estimated $97,900 still needed to complete the outstanding legal matters. This would seem to me to be an extraordinary amount for any council to spend. An examination of the document "Comparative Information on New South Wales Local Government Councils 1998/99" shows that the average legal expenses, on a statewide basis, for 1998-99 were $141,120. Yet this one council has more than doubled that amount! In conclusion, the Byron Shire Council continues to tarnish the reputation of those councils across the State that are working in the best interests of their constituents. A responsible government would take action on this front. [Time expired.] REFUGEE DETENTION CENTRES The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [5.18 p.m.]: Earlier this week I attended a public meeting which put forward a disgustingly dishonest portrayal of the situation regarding so-called refugees detained in Australia. Not only was the information entirely one-sided and purely emotionally based, but elements being described as evidence of conditions were nothing less than fantasy developed by people willing to tell any lie. Included in this inconceivable drivel were allegations, purported to be facts, that children as young as 2½ years of age were being handcuffed and legcuffed in solitary confinement for as long as 12 days at a time. Just because someone said it does not mean it is true. Just because someone reported it does not mean it happened. Unfortunately, it is a matter of fact that dishonesty gains credibility with repetition. We all know the saying "Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth", but to believe, even momentarily, that authorities anywhere in Australia would handcuff, legcuff and isolate in solitary confinement children who are little more than babies totally and absolutely discredits such believers, and instantly categorises them as gossiping lunatics. Be they true refugees or simply those attempting to use refugee status to migrate to Australia, people in detention centres in this country enjoy hospitality equivalent to at least a three-star motel with a fence. Their children are properly educated, which is something many of them would not be used to; their special dietary requirements are catered for; and they receive excellent medical attention as well as entertainment, clothing and legal representation. These illegal immigrants have no credible complaints and, under the circumstances, no right to anything better. Many would argue that they are already too well catered for. Yesterday the Federal Senate made important amendments to Australia's migration zone. Although the general thrust of what is required by the Australian people for the protection of its borders and sovereignty was not entirely achieved by the amendments, in fairness I acknowledge it was a good start. The Labor Party, whether it was forced by public opinion or otherwise, acted appropriately in working with the Government to ensure that the amendments were passed. Those who oppose these significant improvements to the protection of our country from assault by illegal immigrants were led in the Senate by the Democrats, who suffered exactly the kind of defeat their internationalist treachery deserved. I note that Senator Stott Despoja in her speech accused the Government of implementing One Nation policies. Senator Stott Despoja is, of course, reasonably correct by linking the Government's new nationalist border protection stance with principles raised by One Nation. It is certainly true that the One Nation position has been to stop these foreigners from reaching our shores and taking advantage of our abundant benevolence and reputation as the world's soft touch. Equally, it is 17224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001 correct that redirecting such interlopers to places other than Australia, once their ships have been successfully intercepted by authorities protecting our rights of sovereignty, is also without doubt something One Nation has consistently called for. John Howard's response to the Tampa incident and associated issues is in step with the desires of the vast majority of Australians. The Prime Minister is finally initiating actions that are not only correct but understandably immensely popular.
Australians are witnessing its Government's leader stand up for all of them by enacting, on their behalf, their collective right to be intolerant of illegal immigrants. The arguments for admitting these foreigners are entirely emotive. Allowing their entry to our country provides no social or economic gain for Australia. Often such interlopers are not only an unfair drain on our welfare system but also on our health system as many of them carry AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, tuberculosis or a combination of these or other diseases. Our Prime Minister, Mr Howard, should be strongly supported in what he is doing to protect our country from being infiltrated by those who use refugee status to enter Australia and, in doing that, threaten the standard of living that we, as Australians, enjoy. REFUGEE DETENTION POLICY The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS [5.23 p.m.]: I express my concern about refugee detention policy in this country. Australia's approach to asylum seekers from overseas is to place them in mandatory detention in privately run centres for a long time. This policy and this system are a national disgrace. The core problems with refugee detention in Australia relate to the numbers involved, the length of detention and conditions inside the centres. By national and international standards Australia is not being engulfed in a flood of refugees. Currently Australia deals with asylum seekers at a rate of between 4,000 and 5,000 per year. Compare this to the 50,000 or so who enter Australia through the front door, but who violate their visa conditions. In international terms Australia's unauthorised immigration problem is tiny. Last year Germany handled 95,000 asylum applications, the United Kingdom handled 71,000, the Netherlands handled 56,000 and Switzerland handled 46,000. At present around 3,000 people are held in immigration detention centres across Australia. Without doubt, some asylum seekers are not genuine refugees. However, when a substantial majority of boat people are found to be genuine refugees, ultimately the legitimacy of detaining large numbers of people for long periods is highly questionable. In the politicking surrounding our shameful mandatory detention policy a relatively small challenge has been magnified into a national siege mentality. The industrialised countries of the world are enthusiastically pushing for globalisation of economies and the liberalisation of trade and industry. The globalisation of humanity, which is partly the result of this push, is in reality being accepted with comparative reluctance. The mass movement of peoples around the world is still being viewed as an aberration rather than as an increasingly common phenomenon. In this context it is inevitable that more and more people will attempt unauthorised entry into Australia in the future. Our challenge is to deal with those people in a just and humane way. The Howard Government is hoping that a firm policy of detention in squalid conditions will deter the surge of asylum seekers from coming to Australia. If that strategy fails, the number of boat people that are arriving will increase to the point where mandatory detention no longer becomes sustainable. If more people are locked up in detention centres, there is more potential for riots, abuse, suicides and break-outs. Something eventually has to give. Humanitarian considerations aside, mandatory detention is also an expensive phenomenon. One day in detention costs taxpayers $105 per person—a figure to which the Hon. David Oldfield did not refer. In the processing of asylum applications it takes time to establish identities and to appeal unfavourable decisions by the Refugee Review Tribunal or the courts. Some refugees who are awaiting final determination spend years behind a razor wire fence, although they have not committed any crime. Many refugees suffer the physical and psychological effects of long-term incarceration. That is because, in reality, Australia's detention centres are akin to medium security prisons. It is one thing to detain asylum seekers for reasons of security, administrative convenience and deterrence. However, the Federal Government is set upon cutting costs further by privatising immigration detention centres. The principal beneficiary of privatisation has been Australasian Correction Management [ACM], the local subsidiary of the giant American prison company Wackenhut. That huge corporation has branch offices in more than 50 countries outside the United States of America. It is under contract to operate prisons in England, Scotland and Australia and it is actively seeking prison contracts in South Africa. In November 1997 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs awarded ACM a 10-year contract to manage the day-to-day operation of Australia's six refugee detention centres. Clearly, incarceration is 27 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17225 big business. However, the move to privatisation carries the danger that fundamental choices about public safety, employee training and the denial of personal freedoms will increasingly be made with an eye to the bottom line. Because ACM's main business is the prison system, the prior work experience of ACM warders is often limited to the criminal justice system. Perhaps that is the way in which the Federal Government wishes to treat detainees—conditions of appalling tragedy at these centres.
The appalling condition in Australia's refugee centres has been well-documented. Reports by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the former foreign affairs head, Phillip Flood, have all criticised ACM and the Federal Government over the poor management of these centres. Mandatory detention of refugees is manifestly unjust and inhumane, particularly as it is practised at present for extensive periods. It is an unsustainable policy. In the context of the globalisation of humanity, Australia's refugee policy needs a complete rethink. It is time to explore more humane and viable alternatives to mandatory detention and implement them as soon as possible.
DETECTIVE SERGEANT TIM PRIEST
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.28 p.m.]: Last night I called on Premier Bob Carr, on behalf of the Government, to give an unreserved apology to Detective Sergeant Tim Priest for the unwarranted attacks and attempted character assassination perpetrated on him when he spoke up about Cabramatta. I also called on the Premier to release the Cook report, which he has hidden, so that the public can fully understand the lack of commitment by the Government and the Police Service to proactive investigative policing. Tim Priest was disturbed because he thought that a task force should have been urgently set up after Detective Senior Constable Scott Cook prepared his report on 18 November 1999.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that, on 19 September, the Hon. Greg Pearce gave notice of quite a detailed motion dealing with the Cabramatta community. Some of the words that were used in that motion were "deeply regretting", "apologising", "police resources", "police administration over five years" and so on. That being the case, I submit that to raise these matters in an adjournment debate for a second time, as he is doing, contravenes the standing order that relates to anticipating debate on a matter before the House in the current session.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: Once again, the most mediocre member of this House, with a dubious political past and no political future, seeks to abuse the processes and procedures of the House.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: I find those comments objectionable. They should be withdrawn.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am speaking to a point of order.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The honourable member should not be allowed to engage in a personal attack on a member in the course of responding to a point of order. He should deal with the point of order and make any submission he has, but not enter into debate.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Henry Tsang): Order! Will the honourable member withdraw the attack?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I do not think anything was actually objected to.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I am objecting to the personal vilification of the Hon. Jan Burnswoods. The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I certainly withdraw that if there was such. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I am grateful to my colleague the Hon. John Hatzistergos for taking the point. However, Mr Deputy-President, I draw your attention to the fact that, under the standing orders of this House, the Hon. Greg Pearce has not made a withdrawal at all. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Greg Pearce will withdraw the slur on the honourable member.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have withdrawn it. Are you going to rule on the first point of order? 17226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 27 September 2001
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Now that the honourable member has withdrawn the offensive remark, he may proceed.
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: I am sorry, Mr Deputy-President, you have not ruled on my original point of order, which caused the Hon. Greg Pearce to attack me.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: According to the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 July—
The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The Chair has not ruled on my point of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Chair told me to proceed.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Hon. Greg Pearce have anything further to say on the point of order?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Further to the point of order: The subject of my contribution is the Cook report, which is not the subject of the motion that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods referred to.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Further to the point of order: I draw attention also to a motion that is before the House moved by the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho, that this House take note of report No. 8 of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled "Report on Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing", which is dated July 2001. The House will eventually deal with that motion, and the President has previously ruled that matters on the business paper should not be the subject of debate in debates of this nature. I ask you to rule the Hon. Greg Pearce out of order.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Henry Tsang): Order! The item of business referred to by the Hon. John Hatzistergos is towards the bottom of matters on the business paper. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Hon. Greg Pearce should refer to it and he may proceed. However, he should refrain from making derogatory comments about other members.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Serious questions remain as to the practices and procedures of the Police Service when it comes to intelligence on gang activities, particular attitudes to gang activities and the importance of proactive policing—effectively preventing crime, not just clearing up the results. The Cook report recommendations and comments must be made public because it discloses attitudes and failings far worse than Tim Priest imagined. With Premier Carr's blessing and under Commissioner Ryan's command the investigative function of the Police Service has been decimated. Premier Carr knows what the Cook report reveals and the seriousness of the situation. He should apologise to Tim Priest and he should disclose the contents of the Cook report.
[Time for debate expired.]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at 5.34 p.m. until Tuesday 16 October 2001 at 2.30 p.m. ______