EDUCATION, NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:31): Before I start I cannot help but comment on the interjection made by the health minister when the deputy leader asked a question about the development of a shopping centre and the sell-off of 42 per cent of open space at Glenside in the Glenside mental health precinct when he said, 'Excellent development—just what the area needs.' That is what he interjected. But that is not what I have risen to speak about this afternoon.

This afternoon I would like to talk about the backflip in attitude on the issue of national curriculum. Minister Lomax-Smith is now reported as looking forward to working with the federal government on an issue, the concept of which she had previously dismissed as 'not benefiting students one iota'—that is a quote from her press release. It is predictable that she would now declare her total support for a Rudd Labor government plan to replace eight tertiary curriculums with a nationally based model, a concept remarkably similar to the one pushed by Julie Bishop under the previous Liberal government. When it was brought to the table by the previous Liberal government, Jane Lomax-Smith dismissed it as 'not benefiting students one iota'. Of course, now—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, the member for Unley has referred to the Minister for Education by her Christian name and surname and not by her title.

The SPEAKER: I remind members to refer to other members by their parliamentary title.

Mr PISONI: It is a real pity that the Attorney-General is not out there locking up the bikies, instead of sitting in here playing the game that he enjoys—interjecting. It is leisure time that he is spending now, when he should be working on locking up bikies; but that is for another day. It is the same with the Victorian education minister. She rejected the national curriculum when it was suggested by the Liberal federal minister as being a 'silly idea'. Then, of course, the federal Labor opposition spokesperson at the time, Jenny Macklin, accused the government of wanting to take control of what goes on in our classrooms, such a policy indicating 'extraordinary arrogance'. But, of course, it is a different situation now that this policy has been adopted by Labor. Under the Liberals it is a bad policy; under Labor it is a great policy, and everyone is coming behind.

The bottom line is that, clearly, under a federal Liberal government, a national curriculum was a bad idea, according to the Minister for Health and other state Labor ministers, but now, of course, under a Rudd government the concept is a great idea. However, it does seem strange that, if the national curriculum board is now seen as the way to move forward, it will not be established until 2009. If the idea was picked up and treated on its merit when it was raised by the Liberal minister, it would be in place for this current year. But now we are being delayed by another year—that is if they get it right, of course—and I am sceptical of that. They still have their L plates on, so I am just a little nervous about how they will go at that level.

We have a minimum 12-month delay, but my guess is that it will be a 24-month delay. At a state level, Labor education ministers have clearly been playing political games with children's education. This is a serious issue. Around the nation annually, 80,000 children begin their school year in a different state. Progress towards a national curriculum would be ideal for doing away with unnecessary differences in school criteria, and make it possible to compare standards from one state and territory to another, particularly in relation to year 12.

I am running out of time due to the interjection, I must say, of the Attorney-General. However, the bottom line here is that Labor ministers, and this education minister in particular, is more interested in who comes up with the idea rather than what that idea is. That is playing politics with our children, it is playing politics with the future of education in South Australia, and it is an absolute disgrace.