EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:15): I move:

That this house—

(a) expresses its concern regarding the Federal Opposition's intent to cut funding for computers in schools, cut trade training funding for schools and cut funding for initiatives to improve teaching quality; and

(b) calls on Members of the State Opposition to lobby their Federal counterparts to prevent South Australian schools losing this vital funding.

It has long been my experience that when Liberals are in government, children in poor areas lose education. In 1992 in South Australia, 92 per cent of children reached Year 12. By 1994, after the Liberal government, this was down to something like less than half. Unfortunately, clawing back those losses has been very difficult and we still have not anything like reached the Year 12 retention rate that we had in 1992. I am reasonably sure that that is the figure, because it was 92 per cent in 1992. I think I have got that well in my head. It won't be very different.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: I see the member for Goyder looking in alarm at these figures, but it is pretty right, member for Goyder, I can assure you. It will not be wrong by a great margin of error. I think we have only now got up to somewhere around 75 per cent.

When John Howard was prime minister, I heard him many times talk about how it was not necessary to go to university to succeed in life. Did this change the university attendance rates of people in Bragg, Davenport, Waite, etc.? Not an iota. Did it make university more remote for families in communities where university has not been part of their family experience? It certainly did, especially in the older tracts of suburbia and the outer North and the outer South, where large suburbs were established to support families working in the manufacturing area.

Many of them were migrants who had been through pretty horrible experiences themselves in relation to education, particularly those who had been through the dreadful experience of the eleven-plus in Britain, where they were told pretty well that they were dumb and education was not for them. So, when those families come to Australia, take up work in a manufacturing area and keep on being told by their prime minister that going to university is not necessary to succeed in life, this makes it pretty hard for them and their children to think about going to university.

My experience in my electorate is that, in fact, fewer children are now going to university than they were some time ago. Christies Beach High School produced Greg Mackie. It produced—the famous music person whose name I suddenly cannot remember at the moment, the one who appears on Carole Whitelock's show on a regular basis. It produced doctors. It produced lawyers, but not recently. Christies Beach High School goes to incredible efforts to support just a few children to get to university. A Liberal government is always a danger for education. We can be confident, absolutely, rock-solid confident, that any Liberal government led by Tony Abbott will follow that wondrous record. We know this from what was said in his address-in-reply to the budget recently.

Currently, the state is benefiting from a number of initiatives that have been entered into jointly with the commonwealth government We have been fortunate to have a real injection of funds. In Julia Gillard, we had a minister for education who was absolutely committed to the transformational power of education, the ability to escape poverty through education. She did it, I did it, quite a few people in this room did it. The minister, like—

Members interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: I see a little bit of hilarity over on the other side. My father was a cleaner and my mother was a telephonist; I escaped poverty through education.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: The echoes from behind me mean that I need to repeat that a number of us on this side did it. It is not the only way to escape poverty, but it is better than boxing, and it is the most constructive way and the most likely path to escape poverty—not the only way but a very good way. It brings all sorts of intrinsic benefits as well: an ability to improve our understanding of the world, an ability to better manage our health, and an ability to support our families both emotionally and financially. Education enables us to see ourselves and others in a completely different way.

We need to do more to improve outcomes for children in our schools. The education social atlas shows very clearly that children in outer suburbs, in particular, are not benefiting from education and the way that will open up their lives. There are important joint programs that will help us particularly support those children and, while many of them will bring universal benefits to children in all our schools, the impact will be far greater on children in areas where they are not currently making it to year 12, let alone university—and let alone TAFE, in fact, because these days many of the trades require year 12 in a way they did not.

There are three particular areas that the leader of the federal opposition targeted, and I will now mention some of the benefits we are currently receiving and what is at risk should a Liberal government be elected. Under the national partnership agreements with the commonwealth, South Australia has been provided with substantial funding to improve teacher quality, to provide trade training in schools, and to roll out computers for all year 9 to 12 students. They are great examples of the South Australian and commonwealth governments working together to improve the education of our young people, but all of this is under threat.

In its response to the federal budget, the federal opposition made clear that it would cease funding under these agreements for teacher quality training, trade training centres, and computers in schools. This will do nothing but harm young people, particularly those who are not in the affluent schools. So, I urge members in this house to do all they can to ensure that this does not occur, being generous and asking members of the state opposition to lobby; however, my commitment is to make sure that an Abbott government is never elected.

Clearly, Mr Abbott does not understand the importance of teacher training, when the evidence is that the quality of our teachers is a major factor in the quality of education every child deserves to have in our society. For some time the emphasis has been on class sizes, but more recent research, particularly the Grattan report, indicates that the quality of teachers is the single most determining factor in outcomes for children in schools.

So, in partnership with the commonwealth, the state government is developing and supporting leadership in our schools, improving and supporting the quality of our teachers, attracting and supporting our best teachers, and attracting and developing leaders to Indigenous and remote rural schools. For instance, South Australia will establish centres of excellence to support teachers. These centres will support teachers and mentor them through difficult periods. We will establish a pathways program to support Aboriginal community education officers to become teachers; Aboriginal children will benefit from stronger education leaders and quality teachers.

The state government is working with leaders across the Independent and Catholic systems and all sectors of education, and working very strongly with tertiary sectors to improve teacher placements and pathways into teaching. All this will be put at risk without commonwealth government support. Then there is the issue of the foreshadowed abolition of funding for trade training centres, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It would mean fewer opportunities for children to learn skills using modern equipment, fewer apprentices and, in the longer term, a less skilled workforce at the very time when industry is demanding people with higher skills and higher qualifications.

Over 90 of our state secondary schools have successfully gained funds from the commonwealth trade training program, which is an $87 million investment in our schools. Children and parents to benefit recently from the Trade Training Centres in Schools program include: over $1 million for Coober Pedy Area School, to offer qualifications in the construction industry; over $1 million for St George College in Mile End, to build an industry-standard commercial kitchen for training in the hospitality industry; and over $6 million for Quorn Area School, to upgrade and refurbish equipment and provide training in electrical, engineering, rural operations and construction.

Mr Abbott also has the provision of school computers and technology in his sights. The federal government's Digital Education Revolution is a $2 billion program to provide computer access to every year 9 to year 12 student nationally by the end of next year. It has an interim target of one computer for every two students in year 9 to year 12 in South Australia by 31 March 2011. South Australian schools will benefit from this massive investment in technology, giving students and teachers access to a world of possibilities in education.

This is a universal program, but its impact is felt particularly in those areas where children have no access to computers in the home. In my area, for instance, in the 2006 census, only one in three households had access to the internet—and I do not even know whether they are households with children. I know a lot of the senior members of my community do have internet access so they can talk to their grandchildren. This contrasts greatly with the more advantaged communities, many of which are represented by members opposite, such as Waite, Bragg, Devonport, etc.

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms THOMPSON: I think the figure was over 80 per cent of families had computers connected to the internet. I will have to check that, but it is something like that. An investment of 39,056 computers will be made in South Australian schools. Any cut to funding would damage South Australian students' capacity to learn, live and work in a digital world. As I have said, it will especially damage those children who, for various reasons, are already struggling in life and often already struggling at school, which is again demonstrated by the Understanding Educational Opportunities and Outcomes: An Atlas of South Australia.

Clearly, a vote for Mr Abbott is a vote for cuts to education. All Mr Abbott offers in the way of education policy is a shaky future for our teachers, fewer skilled young workers and fewer computers for children. So, I urge all members to think about their local communities and schools and consider what sort of damage this foreshadowed decision would cause. I call on all those opposite to do all they can to influence their federal colleagues to change this damaging decision in education, which will impact negatively on so many school students and families, and the future of Australia in terms of developing a highly skilled, 21^st century workforce. It will increase social divide, as those with less education become sicker and poorer. We also know that social division includes increased social disruptions. It is a small amount of money that Mr Abbott wants to cut, overall; it is a large amount of money in terms of the impact it will have.

Time expired.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:30): If I may speak briefly to the member for Reynell's motion, I respect the way in which she has delivered the concerns of the community that she represents, and I have a great level of respect personally for the member for Reynell. I understand that education is the key to our future; it is very important. Interestingly, I had a school tour yesterday from my own community, a year 7 group, and in this very chamber (on the floor; not all the way in, but just up there) I enforced upon them, at grade 7, the need for them to complete their year 12 studies to ensure that they have the opportunity to make a choice as to whether they go on to university education or trade training areas, but, importantly, it gives them the flexibility to ensure that their lives can be all that they possibly have the opportunity to achieve.

I am interested in the member for Reynell's contribution. A lot of information was provided, and I thank her for that detailed contribution. Firstly, regarding the 1992 compared to 1994 comment on the number of young people who are completing year 12, I am somewhat amazed that the issue that flowed through from that was that the Liberal Party, upon coming to government in 1993, was responsible for that significant drop quoted by her as being from 92 per cent completion of year 12 down to some 50 per cent.

After a 12 month period of being in government, I am not sure how a government can be held to account for such a significant drop. There must be a lot of issues involved in that. The member for Reynell has spoken about the fact that, even now, it is only back up to a 75 per cent completion rate, and I support her fully in the fact that that is disappointing. It demonstrates that our young people are not being sufficiently motivated to ensure that they do go to that effort to complete their year 12 studies to give them every opportunity in life.

However, the member for Reynell needs to reflect upon the fact that she has been part of a government for the past eight years that has presided over that achieving of a 75 per cent rate. It is a challenge for governments of all persuasions—there is no doubt about that—to ensure that our young people get the education opportunities provided to them, because we need really talented young people out there to pursue university and to pursue trade training areas, to ensure that our economy has the flexibility, through a skilled workforce, to reach its potential and not be held back by a lack of skill development.

I also take up the issue of trade training, and in this area I reflect to the house that my son is a third year apprentice electrician. He always wanted to be an electrician, ever since he was about 10. I was very pleased that after completing year 11 and after doing a six month TAFE course in general engineering, I think it was, he was able to take up an apprenticeship opportunity in the city and he works for really good people.

We need to reflect upon the fact that it was the Howard government that actually put funding in place to establish trade training skills. There were three colleges, I think, intended to be established. It is federal Labor that has actually withdrawn from that commitment. I know that in the member for Reynell's area, I think at Christies Beach, it is the Catholic education system that has actually had to take that over.

Ms Thompson: Right, because Howard's model didn't work.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know that in the northern one there are some 300 students (I believe) who are going through that, and job outcomes are very strong from that. So, it is an example where there have to be principles and policies in place from all governments to ensure that those young kids have that chance.

The member for Reynell has also spoken about the investment by the federal government in the construction of buildings. This is very important, not just as part of the stimulus package that was prepared to ensure that Australia did not go into a recession, but I think some $16.8 billion has been committed over the three or four years of that program. However, an inquiry is being undertaken into the cost implications of many of these projects. Constant media attention is being devoted to examples of relatively small buildings. I agree that some of these are in remote locations, but often they are in large centres where the costs have been enormous—

Ms Chapman: Three times.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Three times, the member for Bragg confirms to me, in some cases—and the outcome is certainly not what the school and the children require. It is easy to make accusations across the chamber about the withdrawal of support, but there is also the need for governments to ensure that dollars are spent appropriately, especially in this case where it is borrowed money. These examples are terrible. They were on the front page of The Australian constantly for weeks. The investigator that the now Prime Minister has appointed has a lot of work to do to ensure that those monies have been spent appropriately.

I do believe, based on the briefing that I have had from DTEI, who have coordinated the construction activities in South Australia, that it has been a far more efficient method of delivery. So, I sit comfortably with that, but in other states there are great concerns. The opposition is fully supportive of education opportunities for our children. It does recognise that in difficult economic times it is very important to still invest significant dollars and a significant proportion of the budget in this key area. Health, education and law and order are the key issues that any political party take as part of their policy development into an election period and, importantly, must deliver upon.

We are approaching a federal election, potentially not that far away, depending on what all the media reports might be. This is an issue about young people either learning or earning. I understand that, yes; that is Rann government policy. I personally support that very strongly also, because we need to ensure that none of the young people fall by the wayside, fall through the cracks. I want to ensure that every teacher that operates in all of our schools, public or private, is motivated towards making a difference to young people's lives. That is where support for teacher training is important too. Let us hope, as we work towards a federal election, that both political parties really continue the very strong support they have for education, because education will determine the future of our great nation.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:37): This motion is interesting in that I do not believe the federal opposition can do anything in relation to cutting funding. It says, 'intent to cut', but they will have to put that to the people and the people will make a judgement at the next federal election. As we know, if you have been around a while in politics, if you do not have your schools on side you run the risk of not being in politics.

In terms of computers in schools, there has been a significant advance. Obviously, they are an important tool, an important aid, but we still need to encourage creative thinking—that goes along with the use of computers. I think some people see computers as a substitute for creative thinking, analysis, and so on. They are not.

Trade training is something that I have had a particular interest in for a long time. I am aware that two of my local high schools are putting considerable effort into improving trade training options. We know that students at high school now can participate in a trade as well as attend secondary school.

Aberfoyle Park High is in the process of converting a building into a technical studies area, building on what they have. It has been a wish of mine for a long time that Aberfoyle Park High, which has been and still is a great high school, does have a greater offering in terms of technical training. So, I am delighted that, finally, Aberfoyle Park High is getting some additional resources and facilities to facilitate technical training.

Likewise, Reynella East High School has been very active in providing technical training. In fact, they have become so popular with technical training that they cannot accommodate all the students who want to do technical training there. That is a welcome change from a few years ago, when everyone seemed to have an aspiration to be a lawyer, or something like that. Nothing against lawyers, expensive as they are, but we need tradespeople, we need all sorts of people.

The program, for example, at Reynella East, which has been supported by the state government and, one would hope will be supported by the federal government, can be expanded because there is a great demand. As I said, the recent expansion has been in the area of metalwork. There is CAD/CAM (computer assisted design)—all the possibilities are there—and the school, as a result of its success and the quality of its programs, is battling to accommodate all the students who want to go there and do technical-type training.

One of the related aspects of that—and I used to work for what is now the University of South Australia—is when they got rid of the Underdale campus (which is still a sore point with me) for a measly $30 million, and also got rid of the Salisbury campus, in order to create a facility in the city and for other reasons that are probably questionable. At Underdale they destroyed trade training facilities for technical teachers, facilities that were excellent.

They had parquetry flooring, which is not the most important thing, but they had all the machinery, properly ducted for dust and everything, and it was all bulldozed; likewise, the home economics facilities, which cost a lot of money to create with ovens and all the other facilities which are critical as part of hospitality training, were all destroyed by the University of South Australia. I have reminded them, in a letter to the Vice Chancellor, Professor Peter Høj, of what happened. He is not to blame as he was not there at the time. It happened when Denise Bradley was supposedly running the show.

If someone wants to be a technical teacher now, they have to do their theory at Mawson Lakes and then find somewhere to do their practical, which is probably in TAFE, and that is not anywhere near as good as what was available before. It is totally inadequate compared with what used to exist and was destroyed for the sake of a few pieces of silver by the University of South Australia.

The then minister for education, Malcolm Buckby, should be criticised, too, because he allowed the university basically to do what it liked with the Underdale site, and we lost not only teacher training facilities for home economics, hospitality and technical areas but also the nursing building, one of the best in the state, was bulldozed. It was a disgraceful act and the University of South Australia will forever stand condemned for doing that, as will the minister at the time for allowing it to happen.

People now wanting to promote the training of technical teachers are hampered in this state because we do not have a one-stop shop, one location where it can be done; likewise for home economics and hospitality training for people going into teaching. That is a very sad commentary on what has happened in the past.

In terms of trade training, we saw the Howard government create an alternative to TAFE. This has been raised before, but it was done purely because the Howard government did not like trade unions or the AEU, which represented people in TAFE who were involved in technical-type activities. The criticism and fear of those unions was unfounded and unwarranted, and as a result now we have the creation of some additional alternative facilities to TAFE, when the resources should have gone into TAFE to build up what I used to call South Australia's best kept secret, that is, TAFE SA.

I know that TAFE has taken a whack around the ears in recent times, but it is a critical part of trade training, and it is also important in terms of its linkages to schools and the relationship it has with schools. I was intending, as minister at the time, for TAFE to sponsor its own technology high schools, but sadly that did not come to pass.

In relation to teacher quality, to its credit Flinders University has just decided to revise its approach to teacher training. I think it is long overdue. I spent most of my working life before I came here training teachers. It is absolutely critical that the teaching profession has the best training. It is the mother profession. If you do not have top quality, properly trained teachers, who get not only theory but also practical experience, then you will not have the teachers you need to work in our schools. There has been a revision lately, particularly at Flinders University, of the way in which they train teachers.

I have had criticism from teachers in the field, saying that there have been a lot of shortcomings in the teacher training program. In one case a teacher told me that 13 different teachers had written negative reports about a student teacher but that person was kept on; and they failed to see how that could possibly be the case.

In terms of the final part of this motion, the federal Liberal opposition would be crazy to go to the people of Australia without having a commitment to boost funding for schools. It is vital that we see proper funding for state schools. Out of the BER, state schools got basically tin sheds, while private schools got better facilities. The private schools were allowed to manage the funds and got the best value for the dollar, but the state schools got tin sheds because they were not trusted to commission their own architects and building designers, and so on, and you can see the result around the state.

Hopefully, it will not happen again that we get an ad hoc approach to facilities in schools. We should allow the schools to run their own affairs through the governing council, the principal and staff so that they can deliver what is best in the interests of their children—as happens in the private school sector.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:47): I thank members for their contributions and I will respond to a couple of points that were made. The member for Goyder said that he does not understand why there was a sudden collapse. The message from the Olsen government emphasised the fact that young people would have a hard time in South Australia. The member for Goyder may recall the massive migration of young people from South Australia. People who were traditionally looking to manufacturing, etc., for employment interpreted this as, 'Well, there is nowhere to go and nothing will happen.' Young people told me that the message they got was that there was no hope for them and there were not any jobs for them, so they might as well get out of school and not get in the way of kids who looked like they would have a chance for a job.

This is a subtle way of operation, but many young people told me when I started campaigning in 1995 that that is what had happened to them. They believed that there was no chance for them, so they might as well go on benefits and get out of the way. Why it has taken so long to rebuild that is a mystery. If I knew more about it, I would have been urging more strongly the Minister for Education to rebuild it. I know that former ministers Lomax-Smith and White were really concerned about it. For instance, former minister Lomax-Smith commissioned the new SACE as a way to address it. It took a long time to develop it because it was necessary to engage in wide consultation with the education community, the industry, parents and children in order to try to develop a new SACE; and we are hopeful that the new SACE will address it.

In fact, the member for Goyder was not here in 2002 but the first act passed by the Rann Labor government was to increase the school retention age. We then amended the school retention situation again by requiring that children had to be learning or earning. We did not just say that as an open-mouth operation: we entrenched it in legislation and we backed it with dollars to ensure that young people were constructively engaged in learning for their future. This is part of our commitment to social inclusion; it is part of our commitment to education.

One important thing that did happen under, I think, the Olsen government by the time this happened was that the then minister for education, Malcolm Buckby, cut the school year by a week. He was very happy to deprive children of one week's education per year. This accumulates quite a bit: 12 years' education, 12 weeks' less opportunity for learning. That indicates the Liberal's commitment to education: 'We will just save some money, save some electricity'—that was one of the justifications given—'cut the school year by a week, it doesn't matter; the kids don't learn anything much in that week in any case.' But, of course, the final week of school still exists. It does not matter when it is held. It could be held at week two. If it is the final week of school, there would not be much going on.

I have been able to check the internet access figures in the interim, and in the areas that go through the electorates of Waite, Davenport, Heysen, Bragg and Norwood, across that area, fewer than 11 per cent of homes have no internet access compared with the one in three in some of the other areas. The trade training centres introduced by Mr Howard were not a model that worked. They only took in students in years 11 and 12. By that time children had already made their decisions about where they were going. They need exposure to trade training well before that so that they can develop their learning paths and make their choices.

The member for Fisher talked about the BER and continued the mythology about the fact that the outcomes are not good in the state school sector. I can assure members that most of my state schools in the area are getting the best buildings on their campus as a result of the BER. They are getting model buildings that have been built before at places such as Linden Park. They never had buildings like those at Linden Park. They have beautiful buildings coming, and they are very proud of them and very happy about them.

Motion carried.