 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 6 December. Page 839.)
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The bill seeks to establish a local school management system of governance in public schools and to allow a range of compulsory and voluntary charges in government schools. While the Australian Democrats support greater school council and parent participation in schooling, we do not support compulsory school fees for public education, because we believe that education is a right for all and not just a privilege for a few. Frankly, I believe that this bill is the beginning of a very slippery slope towards the final destruction of the public education system in South Australia.
We have previously expressed concerns about the state government's rush for schools to enter the Partnerships 21 model of local school management in the absence of solid evidence of the model's benefits and limitations. We have also highlighted the great risk that Partnerships 21 gives public schools all the financial responsibility but none of the power to budget or make major financial decisions. That will become increasingly obvious over the next couple of years. Schools will discover that local management means that they will manage the budget, but all the important educational decisions will be made outside the school. For these reasons the Australian Democrats' starting position is opposition to the school fees component of this bill and a commitment to careful consideration of the changes in relation to school governance.
The key question before us is whether the proposed new system of governance furthers school council and parent participation in public schooling or whether it is just a means to entrench the flawed Partnerships 21 model of local school management. To answer this question will take time and careful consideration. I do not believe there has been sufficient time to consider this bill. It is the Democrats' preferred position that we do not vote on the second reading this side of Christmas, because at this stage we have not had a chance to have any meaningful consultation with parent and teacher groups and any other interested parties. In fact, the only formal meeting we have had so far has been with the minister and his advisers.
It is unrealistic for this bill to proceed at this stage. It is also worth noting that the House of Assembly has only just established an inquiry into public education, and in fact that inquiry will look at issues that are directly relevant to what is in this current bill. I invite members to think about that very carefully. What is the point in passing legislation when it is about matters which are currently being studied by a parliamentary select committee?
It is our preferred position that we wait for the findings of that inquiry and also allow proper community consultation over the Christmas break before voting on this bill. I have been informed that the state government has argued that any delay will put school funding arrangements for next year at risk. I must say that such arguments are both nonsense and hypocritical. They are nonsense because some schools are already charging fees at exactly the same rate as last year.
The only reason for change would be if there was a clear intention to use the legislation to increase fees. In fact, the South Australian Secondary Principals Association has expressed overwhelming concern that councils have already set budgets for the next 12 months, even without, I note, a finalised global budget from the government. In some cases, they have sent invoices home to parents, and I have already received mine.
To introduce this legislation now would actually cause a greater deal of inconvenience to schools, quite the contrary to what the government is arguing. I received correspondence from the South Australian Secondary Principals Association, which is a much more conservative body than the Australian Education Union that the minister enjoys having a shot at, which stated:
The Executive of the South Australian Secondary Principals Association ask that the Education (Councils and Charges) Amendment Bill be rejected until further investigation has been undertaken. The changes proposed in the bill have caused a great deal of angst and concern amongst our members and their school communities. Issues that have been identified include:
We are seeking representation on any review which is established to investigate this bill.
The South Australian Secondary Principals Association is quite a conservative body in the education field. I made contact with that body and said that, while the points were made, I felt there was insufficient detail for the purposes of analysis of the association's viewpoint, particularly in terms of presentation to others. I received a further set of notes from the association yesterday which expand upon those points. In relation to timing, the first point states:
1.1 School councils set budgets in July-August for the following year.
1.2 Material and service charges are set on a school-by-school basis by councils and would have been announced some months ago.
1.3 Most schools would have distributed invoices for the 2001 school year by mid-November.
1.4 Compliance for 2001 will prove immensely costly and embarrassing for schools across the state should the bill be passed in its current form.
1.5 We note that there was no consultation with principal groups before the bill and its accompanying guidelines for schools were published.
1.6 We further note the seeming inconsistency of school councils being actively encouraged to opt into Partnerships 21 and local school management while, at the same time, this bill proscribes and restricts the ability of councils to formulate financial plans appropriate for their school communities.
Quite contrary to the government's claim that the timing makes this urgent, the association makes the point that the timing is such that the legislation should not pass now. On the topic of voluntary and compulsory issues, the association notes:
2.1 Real world `reality' suggests that virtually no-one will pay voluntary charges to government schools. To assert otherwise is foolish.
For the first time, what we are going to see is a statement coming home to parents that says, `Here is your compulsory component; here is your voluntary component.' It is true to say that fees have been voluntary forever, despite the government's constantly reintroducing a regulation after it has been knocked out in the past couple of years. While a small number of parents have not paid the full fee, it has been a relatively small number. The problem now is that every parent will receive a statement that says, `Here is what you have to pay and here is what we would like you to pay.'
When this whole argument began I predicted that this would become a problem. Now the very forms that are to be used will clearly state the two components. In the case of my own school, Blackwood High School, where my second child will be in year 12 and my third is just about to start, the fee is around $420. Half of that will be compulsory and half voluntary. I know that I will pay mine, but I make a very strong prediction that the school overall will collect less money this year than it did back in the old days when a very small number of parents opted not to pay their contribution.
I think there will be a much larger number, and the government is just kidding itself if it does not recognise that that is what will happen. The Secondary School Principals Association states that that is precisely what it fears will happen. The association comments:
2.2 This means that schools across the state will have to budget for a parent contribution of at best $215 per student. Current M&S charges range from $220 to $480.
In fact, I believe that one public school is more than $500. As I said, in the case of my own school they are in the low four hundreds. It continues:
2.3 GST implications of voluntary components in school accounts have not been considered in this bill.
On the next matter, the per capita funding of state schools, the association states:
3.1 The critical issue is the actual cost per student of providing a rich and diverse curriculum to a range of students attending state schools. If the parent contribution is going to be capped, then per capita grants will have to be increased and the level of School Card subsidy raised.
3.2 Where does the figure of $215 come from?
3.3 In our view the current levels of per capita grants and School Card subsidies, when considered in conjunction with the amount of $215, are entirely inadequate and do not reflect the costs of delivering the sort of curriculum that the community rightly expects.
I note, for instance, that at Blackwood High School, where my children attend, there is a computer levy, which is outside the materials and services charge. It is part of the optional component. How anyone could see computers as being optional in schools today has me beaten. There is a very grave risk that that levy will not be paid by large numbers of people.
Certainly, School Card does not address those sorts of costs. We are on a very dangerous and slippery path. I have no doubt that schools will have to come back saying they have just not received most of the money they need and the next step will be that the compulsory fee needs to be higher. I have said that the arguments from the state government have been hypocritical because it itself has not finalised global budget formulas for next year, which are the basis of the Partnerships 21 schools budgeting process.
So, the schools have done their budget as best they could, but those who have actually gone into Partnerships 21 still do not know what the global budget formula is, and the government will throw even more uncertainty in other areas. For instance, the most recent version of the global budget formulas still do not recognise changed allocations or flexible initiative resource staffing, which is worth in excess of $22 million to schools.
The Australian Democrats will resist the rush to pass this legislation without proper consultation and will vote against the bill should the state government wish this Council to pass it this week without that consultation. On the little consultation that my office and I have been able to carry out in the past week, several issues have emerged that require answers from the government. They include:
I make two points. First, we are voting on a piece of legislation that will lead to regulations being replaced by documents that have not been shown to all members of this place. Even though I asked whether I might see them, they have simply not been provided. I also note that this legislation provides that the minister can change those documents, so we are going from a position where we used to have regulations to a position where the minister, solely at his or her discretion, can change these constitutions, the drafts of which we have not seen. That is a significant change in terms of the role and interest that parliament has in public education. My questions continue:
I was told, and I believe other members in this place were told, that the school parents clubs were involved in the consultation. I made contact with that organisation and found that the minister has not given us the true picture. I received an email from Judy Bundy, who is currently Vice-President of the Australian Council of State School Organisations and who is immediate past president of the South Australian Association of School Parents Clubs, which reads:
Just want you to know that our association is very disturbed by the statement made by the minister that `the Australian Education Union, the parents committee SASSPC [sic] and the South Australian Association of School Councils have all been involved in the development of the model constitutions and the code of practice and will continue to be involved. ( Hansard , House of Assembly, 14, 15 and 16 November, page 561.) Our association has not even been consulted let alone involved in any development of the model constitution for affiliated committees-the first we knew about it was when we saw it in the bill!
In a subsequent note she said:
The actual date when we were given a copy of the bill was at a meeting with the minister on 17 October-before that we had no idea of what the minister had in mind for affiliated committees. After that meeting some of the questions we had were answered (not very satisfactorily) by Chris Harrison. I doubt very much whether the AEU has been involved either, and I understand that members of SAASSO executive have expressed concern about the lack of consultation with them.
I cannot vouch for SAASSO, but there is no question that the school parents clubs association simply was not consulted, despite the minister making that claim in Hansard . In relation to these model constitutions, while I am making some comments in terms of the views of the school parents clubs, it is worth quoting from a press release that was put out under the name of President Jane Hodge, as follows:
The South Australian Association of School Parents Clubs ( SAASPC) the state parent organisation representing the interests of all parents and students in public schools and preschools believes that the government should be paying for the educational requirements of all students in public schools and preschools.
The SAASPC does not support compulsory school fees in public schools.
Compulsory fees cause divisiveness and alienate communities. They create ill feeling within schools through their attempts to recover fees through the legal process. The pressure to find funds may cause many parents to feel alienated from their children's schools. The very partnerships that our association strives to promote between parents and schools are threatened. There is also a concern that compulsory school fees have the potential to increase the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged.
SAASPC appreciates that schools need to make up their shortfall in funding by charging parents fees, but will not accept that such fees should be compulsory.
Schools should be reaching out to members of their community to find out why fees are not being paid and using constructive strategies to assist parents with appropriate plans to provide such payments, not bully tactics which are demeaning, humiliating and emotionally scarring for the parents and children concerned.
SAASPC believes that it is the fundamental right of all Australian children to have access to a free, diverse and equitable education of the highest quality, and that resources should be provided to enable all students to enter educational programs according to their needs, in public schools that are fully funded by the government.
There is no need for legislation to set up governing councils because they and their committees can already be formed. My questions continue:
In conclusion, the Australian Democrats maintain their opposition to compulsory fees in public schools but are prepared to look at the latter part of the bill in relation to school councils, looking for greater school council and parent participation in public schooling, but we do not believe, and certainly our experience is, that we have not had an adequate chance to consult with significant members of the community in relation to the bill that is now before this place. For that reason, the Democrats believe this bill should be voted on in March and not at the present time.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is no surprise that I am bitterly disappointed that the Hon. Nick Xenophon is supporting what is now a fundamental change. It is the first time in Australia that there have been compulsory fees in the primary school system anywhere. In terms of secondary schools, I am not even sure whether they are to be withdrawn in Western Australia.
The local SAASSO organisation-to the mystification of everyone else-is supporting what the Australian school parents bodies are opposing (both the body that represents school councils as well as the school parents groups). Therefore, SAASSO is really the odd one out. I am pleased that at least there is a sunset clause. I am not sure whether the Hon. Nick Xenophon was in this place during my second reading contribution, particularly in relation to the Secondary Principals Association, when I said that no-one is in a better position than the association to know the implications of the timing of the introduction of this bill. It is a pretty conservative group and, no matter what the minister says about the AEU, he cannot make that same sort of allegation, no matter how much he tried to concoct it, about the Secondary Principals Association.
The association has expressed grave reservations about the timing of this legislation, and the difficulties it will create, as well as a number of other important points it made about the issue of fees, including the fact that it is clearly delineated that the voluntary contribution is compulsory. Some schools will lose a lot more money than in the past when a small percentage of students did not pay their fees. I am bitterly disappointed because this is a radical change in the direction of education in South Australia. The Hon. Nick Xenophon has facilitated this change by his support generally for the charging of fees, and the sunset clause is only a small saving grace.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: When I spoke to the amendment earlier, I was critical of it because I perceived it to be inferior to simply rejecting those clauses which introduce compulsory fees into schools. However, at least there is a sunset clause of two years. There is an opportunity during both the second and third reading stages to reject the whole notion of compulsory fees. I took that opportunity during the second reading debate, and I will take it again at the third reading stage. I am absolutely stunned by the Labor Party's saying that it is opposed to compulsory school fees, but that, given a choice of two years or forever, it will go with forever.
