Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

About this Item
Speakers	George Mr Thomas; Draper Mr Peter; Speaker; Aplin Mr Greg; Humphries Mr Kevin; Acting-Speaker (Mr Thomas George); Cansdell Mr Steve; Hodgkinson Ms Katrina; Constance Mr Andrew; Piper Mr Greg; Dominello Mr Victor; Deputy-Speaker; Williams Mr Ray; Firth Ms Verity
Business	Bill, Division, Message, Agreement in Principle, Passing of the Bill, Motion

EDUCATION FURTHER AMENDMENT (PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL RESULTS) BILL 2009

Page: 17559

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 8 September 2009.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.08 a.m.]: I wish to take part in the debate on the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. The object of the bill is to amend the Education Act 1990 to repeal certain provisions that create an offence in relation to the publication of school results. The provisions were included in the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Act 2009 by amendment in Committee when the bill for that Act was before the Legislative Council. The provisions make it a criminal offence, with certain exceptions, to publish, in a newspaper or other publicly available document, a ranking or other comparison of particular schools according to school results or the identity of the school with a percentile result of less than 90 per cent in relation to school results.

I have grave concerns about the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. I believe that we must put our children first. Children throughout New South Wales are receiving a high quality of broad education that is stimulating and relevant; it is an education that prepares them for success in the real world. As a result of the introduction of league tables—which encourages a bland teaching environment where children learn how to pass tests rather than how to achieve their true potential in all fields of study—that high quality of education would change. I received an email from the principal of one of the better primary schools in my electorate:

That sums up the situation in country and regional New South Wales. I have four towns in my electorate and each has only one high school. If the school tables are published, I know where the ranking of those schools will be. As the principal stated in his email, regional schools provide a good education, but their focus is not always primarily academic. Parents in regional communities do not have the option of sending their children to another school if they are not happy with the school their children are attending. That opportunity simply is not available.

For argument's sake, let me take the example of a school in a low socioeconomic area that happens to be at the bottom of the list. Regional towns have hospitals, doctors, police and other community services. How will they be able to attract people to move into the community if there is concern about whether the high school is listed in tables published on the front page of newspapers indicating where the school stands within the education community? I have received plenty of emails and criticism from other members of Parliament that suggest the Coalition is listening to teachers' views on league tables. Many members of the Coalition have a strong association with teachers: I declare quite proudly that I am married to Deborah, who is a teacher. I must listen to teachers who can provide unique insight into matters addressed by the bill and what teachers are up against.

It is wrong to criticise the Coalition for listening to teachers. Teachers are the voice of our local schools and they inform the community of their everyday experiences at schools. When a principal of the calibre of Ralph Taylor, who runs the very successful Wyrallah Road Public School which is up with the best of them, expresses grave concerns for the fate of other schools as a result of the bill, I will certainly listen. I thank him and all the other teachers from various schools throughout my electorate who have contacted me. I received representations from a federation councillor, Gae Masters, who has expressed grave concerns. Gae teaches at the Richmond River High School. She was brought up in country New South Wales and understands exactly the impact that this legislation will have on rural and country areas.

I have received an email from David Hanley who is a teacher at the Richmond River High School in Lismore. That school is not currently accepting new enrolments in year 7 because it has the maximum number of students attending the school. Richmond River High School is another very successful school in my electorate. David has expressed his concerns to me and stated, "I ask you to consider the implication of the Government's action ". He asked me to urge the Government to rethink this legislation. He urged me not to support the bill before the House. I also received an email from Peter Campbell, who is the principal of the Lismore High School, which is another great school in my electorate. It is ironical that principals and teachers are prepared to put their name to an email and publicly support opposition to an education bill.

The Coalition has consistently opposed the Government's proposal to allow publication of school results. The Coalition's decision, which was not taken lightly, is based on the Coalition's resolve to put our children and country and regional schools first. I have no hesitation in supporting the Coalition's opposition to the Government's bill. I record my disappointment that the Government has introduced the bill.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [10.16 a.m.]: My contribution to debate on the Education Further Amendments (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 will be brief. The bill amends the Education Act 1990 and repeals certain provisions creating the offence of publication of school results. The provisions that the Government proposes to repeal were in the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Act 2009, which was passed recently by this Parliament. At the outset I state that the proposal to publish league tables of school results is counterproductive. I have received a great deal of correspondence on this issue from organisations such as the Isolated Children's Parents Association, Catholic schools, the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the Primary Principals Association, the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations, the Independent Education Union and numerous individual teachers and principals. Individuals and peak organisations are unanimous in their opposition to publication of league results, which begs the question: Is the Government running out of people to offend?

Mr Steve Cansdell: Well said.

Mr PETER DRAPER: I simply cannot support this legislation. A single document that ranks schools according to academic performance will be detrimental, particularly to country schools. I have listened to Government members who clearly are out of touch with the education sector. In the last six years since I have had the honour of representing the Tamworth electorate I have visited every school in my electorate on a number of occasions. Of all the things I do, visiting schools is one of my favourite things. As recently as a couple of weeks ago I spent a day visiting three very small public schools with student enrolments ranging from 12 to 40.

The schools I visited are in small and isolated communities, yet the attention received by students from the teachers, the support staff and the parent body is absolutely outstanding. At one school all the kids were next door at the hall practising their version of Australian Idol. Numerous parents were in attendance as well as a music teacher who had travelled a significant distance to support the kids. At the next school one student's grandfather was teaching kids how to build bird boxes so that galahs frequenting the playground could have somewhere to nest. Our children will not get that support, education and experience in the big city schools, and I guarantee those sorts of activities will not appear on a league table. The schools in my district deliver the most wonderful education opportunities for our children that any parent could expect. I am delighted that my children have gone to Nemingha Public School and that they have done particularly well—mostly because they have inherited their mother's brains and not mine—and they are enjoying school life immensely.

The Hillvue Public School in Tamworth is one of the most outstanding schools in our area—it is unique in my opinion. It has a large number of students and the highest proportion of Aboriginal children of any school in the State. It delivers outstanding programs and initiatives to continually improve the opportunities for every one of those students—a student does not have to be an academic child to get a good education. The community support and dedication of the teachers and support staff make the Hillvue school an example of exactly what public education can be so proud of. Despite the innovation and dedication clearly on display at that school, it will be compared and ranked in comparison with schools in Sydney and other major centres. A school such as Hillvue cannot be ranked in that way as there are no other schools with its demographics.

Many members of Parliament seem to be focused on the legality or otherwise of the publication of school rankings in newspapers—that has dominated the debate—and they have also referred to what is happening in other areas. The issue is really about giving all schools a fair go. If members spoke about this issue with their local teachers they would be firmly opposed to the legislation. I have received many representations on teacher transfers and giving TAFE college teachers a fair go, but no more representations than I have received on this issue. As the member for Dubbo rightly pointed out, we should not be talking about league rankings; we should be talking about truancy rates and bullying in schools, and about the support available to give children with disabilities the best options and opportunities in the public education system. I have personally spoken to many teachers. Similarly to the member for Lismore and the Speaker, I am married to a teacher.

The SPEAKER: And what teachers they are!

Mr PETER DRAPER: Fantastic teachers. In my six years of representation in this House I have not received a single representation from a school, a teacher or a parent asking for school rankings. Plenty of information is available. Assessing a school against the outcomes delivered by other schools in the local area is already easy to do so without the introduction of a mandatory official ranking system. This is an ideological position that will not deliver a fair outcome for country or disadvantaged schools. I strongly oppose the bill.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [10.22 a.m.]: I do not support the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. I observe at the outset that this bill has occupied far too much time of the House with something that is best summed up by a quote I saw on a calendar just a few days ago: The wind of anger extinguishes the lamp of intelligence. That clearly is the case with the Government's position on this bill. Often in this State it comes down to a question of money, and we have seen far too many examples of that in far too many debates in this House. But both sides of the House have acknowledged that money will flow from the Federal Government whether or not the bill proceeds. We must look for other reasons for the bill. Is it the Government's predilection for government through spin or government through the media? That would certainly explain the amount of hot air being expended by the Government!

A couple of weeks ago I met in my office with a delegation of people involved in the education of our children. The group typically represented the type of people with the means of delivering and assessing education and demanding from the Government changes where changes are needed. I speak of the President of the Albury Teachers Association, the President of the Albury Secondary Principals Council, the President of the Albury Primary Principals Council, the President of the Albury District Parents and Citizens Association, and the principals of the various Catholic schools in Albury. They all spoke with a united voice in their opposition to the publication of rankings or league tables. They said that the publication of league tables for schools was dangerously simplistic and would do more harm than good.

Jan Hastings, the President of the Albury Teachers Association, told me that tests represent a very small part of what schools do and serve no good education purpose. She said that the tables do not say a lot about the students, where they come from and how far they have come, and that not every school starts from an equal platform. She further said that for some schools it is an achievement just being able to get students to attend the school but these schools, and thus their students, will be stigmatised as losers, which will have all sorts of negative consequences, even for job prospects. Jan said the tables are based on two tests: numeracy and literacy, and that these tables would force schools to teach to the test rather than in the best interests of the student body. Those comments are of concern. We had a long discussion about the publication of tables and, more importantly, the access by teachers and the department to information that was derived from those tests.

I questioned the principals on their attitudes to those tests. We looked for the benefit, which is what we should be doing in this House when a bill such as this comes before us. The media does not benefit from this. It is not about the publication. Not even the Government benefits from this. The students and the institutions in which they study should be the ones that benefit. That should be the sole reason for the debate in this Chamber: to improve conditions and outcomes. I stress that present at the meeting were representatives of the principals of the schools of this State, not only of the teachers. At the meeting we focused on two topics: first, for what purpose will the results be produced in a league table format and, second, what educational benefit will be achieved? I put those questions to the Government as a matter of concern to us all. Anne Nolan, President of the Albury Primary Principals Council, wrote to me, and I quote from her letter:

Anne continued:

That is exactly the point, and that was the conclusion that was reached at the end of the meeting: it is but one component of all the information required to support schools and to achieve outcomes for students. It does not underpin the whole learning environment; it is just one component. Clearly, a benefit should be derived from the use of the information. In fact it is incumbent upon the department to use that information to improve situations where it distinguishes the need. That information should be used throughout the State by the Government to improve the conditions of those schools and better resource the schools, and to counsel teachers where problems are identified.

That is obviously the benefit that should be derived. For the Federal Government to require that information suggests that we are embarking upon a national curriculum, and perhaps it intends to do the same across the country, as the role undertaken by the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Following the meeting I received from the President of the Albury and District Council Parents and Citizens Association, Margaret Gavrilovic, a letter that stated:

That sums it up. No-one is talking about accountability for schools, which is absolutely critical, but the information must be provided on an equal footing. Lest one think that it is only the principals representing their schools who have been coming to see me, I have also received various petitions from schools. I take as a random sample a petition from Billabong High School, situated at Culcairn, that is signed by some 40 teachers, principals and people associated with the school. The petition, which is representative of so many from across the State, states:

Mercury

Courier Mail

The New South Wales Public Education Alliance produced a document that it distributed at various schools throughout the State. In that document the alliance declared that the "education community is united", stating:

Clearly, that is the situation. A united group of people delivering education are speaking with one voice, but clearly the Government has chosen not to listen to them. Another article in the same publication, "Getting the full story on school performance", states:

This is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated, but clearly the message has not got through to the Government. The article further states:

That is incumbent on the Government, and that is why there is a Department of Education and Training. The article continues:

As a parent who has received these results in the past, I know that that is true. Why does this information fail to get through to the Government? Clearly, there is an enormous amount of information. Those of us who have sat on school councils and parents and citizens associations know the amount of information that is now available and the comparisons that are available through all those publications and school reports. Interestingly, in the same publication another article states:

Principles and Protocols for Reporting on Schooling in Australia, June 2009:

The article that was removed stated:

The avoidance of harm to members of the community:

It is intriguing that that particular principle was removed. Finally, schools are not football teams. A child's achievement at school cannot be reduced to the equivalent of scoring a try or a goal. We know that in rankings someone holds the bottom line: someone is declared as the wooden spooner of the competition. Is that what we want to achieve? Is that what we are setting out to do with this legislation? How proud we can be if that is the result, because that is exactly what will be achieved from any publication of league tables. There must be a ranking; there is no other way to produce league tables. Consider this: One team could go through the year and lose every match by a single point. For a team in the National Rugby League or the Australian Football League [AFL] to lose by a single point consistently throughout the year is hardly something to be totally embarrassed about. That team has simply been unlucky all year.

Yet we are saying that a school that produces poor results consistently throughout the year will be on the bottom of the list and held up to ridicule. That will be exactly the result if this bill goes through. As for league tables not being published in the media, I make one point. In one case relating to a place near my electorate—it is in Victoria—the media published the results of a comparison of a class in one small school with other schools across the State to see how many students had gone on to university. The small number at that school produced very few university students because they had gone on to work, taken a gap year or entered apprenticeships. Yet the school was held up to ridicule: it affected the school and the community. That is the result of league rankings.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [10.37 a.m.]: Before I comment specifically on league tables I reiterate and reinforce what the member for Albury said about governments and their mandate and responsibility to provide resources to ensure that quality education is provided not only across the State but across the country. Two weeks ago $1.5 billion of the Rudd Government's infrastructure funding for schools was cut. Some of the most disadvantaged schools in this State—most of them are in my electorate, in places such as Mungindi, Boggabilla, Collarenebri, Gulargambone, Trangie and Baradine—were advised that their funding for either science laboratories or language unit centres had been suspended. Some city cousin schools, including non-government schools, have had two bites of the cherry in terms of funding for school hall upgrades or science laboratories. The situation is totally inequitable. I have asked the Minister for Education and Training what part the New South Wales Government played in that decision-making process. Our Federal counterparts are calling for an inquiry or report into the way in which that money is being spent.

Mr Gerard Martin: Point of order: I ask that the member for Barwon be drawn back to the question before the House, that is, the school league tables.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! What is the member's point of order?

Mr Gerard Martin: The member is not addressing the matter before the Chair.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Debate on the bill has been wide ranging. I am sure the member for Barwon will refer to the bill.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: School league tables are all about reporting on the quality of education that is provided in our schools, or the lack of thereof. When successive Federal and State governments compromise that quality it potentially impacts on the reporting process. Yesterday the member for Bathurst said that if New South Wales did not enter into an agreement to publish this data we would be the laughing stock of the country. There is no need to enter into an agreement because New South Wales is already the laughing stock of all the States. We do not have to reinforce that image. New South Wales had an opportunity at the Federal level to help improve the quality of education, but that outcome has been compromised for many of our most disadvantaged schools. Last year the Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, said that the results of the first national literacy and numeracy tests, which commenced around May 2008, would provide information to parents and schools but that the information would not be made available more widely. The Rudd Government, in an education policy document under the heading "Greater accountability", said:

A Rudd Labor government will publish the annual results of individual primary and secondary schools on national reading, writing and numeracy assessments for students in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9. Publication of school performance information will form an integral part of federal Labor's plan to improve literacy and numeracy ...

However, there was no agreement that these results would be published. At the time Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia were opposed to so-called league tables. Queensland and New South Wales had agreed to provide school-by-school results to the Federal Government on the condition that the results were not used in the compilation of league tables. The then New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, John Della Bosca, said that he opposed the results of literacy and numeracy testing to determine disadvantaged schools funding. He said that league tables were a silly idea and that using literacy and numeracy results to determine disadvantaged schools was too simplistic. What has changed? Do schools need to publish information? Do governments have access to information in order to assess whether schools are entitled to or in need of additional assistance? They already have that information.

I was a school principal for 15 years. That information was provided readily to State and Federal governments, and indeed decision making was based on that information in relation to disadvantaged schools, country areas and specific indigenous programs. That information has been readily available to all concerned in the education industry. The then Queensland Minister for Education and Training, Rod Welford, reinforced opposition to the publication of league tables by saying that any representation would be "both misleading and deceptive". The question is: Is it right to rank schools in terms of performance? To date, the arguments have been relatively naïve and immature. We have not had a proper debate in this State about the whole issue of school league tables and their publication. On 13 June this year, as reported in the Herald Sun, Ms Gillard said:

"The Rudd Government is not interested in simplistic league tables, which rank schools according to raw test scores. For instance, schools will not be ranked according to NAPLAN results."

The article also reported that she said:

"I don't support league tables but I do support the full information being available." So much for logic.

All the information is available, and Ms Gillard does not believe it should be published. Yet we are arguing over simplistic league tables. The debate is going around and around. It is sympomatic of this Government, which is managing in crisis with no definable framework. At the time the Federal Government and its State counterparts were constantly called upon not only by teachers and principals but also by the wider community and academics to stop the creation and publication of league tables. The comparison of results of like schools, as has been proposed by this Government, has been criticised also. The argument is that, if the results are to be published anyway, banding schools together will give only a restricted or narrow sample. It will not necessarily give parents any greater information. Parents tend to vote with their feet. There are terrific ways, which I will refer to shortly, to assess the role and effectiveness of schools in our community. At a recent rally held at Rosehill racecourse the proposed school league tables were described as a disgrace by the Teachers Federation and all those who attended. Interestingly, the Minister, who had been well informed that the rally was being held, failed to attend.

I want to refer briefly to the British experience. When I was in Britain some years ago one of the issues I looked at was school league tables. What has happened in Britain—and it will happen here and it is the reason why school league tables are of significant concern—is that league tables have been politicised. We do not want to follow that path in this country and take our education system down a political line. The achievements that are published in the league tables in Britain mask the school divide. The Labor Government of New South Wales and the Minister for Education and Training, by pushing this naïve, immature progression of league tables, will divide our communities. For example, in England the published results have shown markedly over time a migration to non-government and independent schools. As a result public education entities providing school and educational opportunities in many disadvantaged areas are suffering. The league tables stigmatise not only those schools that are underperforming according to national benchmarks but also their communities.

A number of teachers who have recently returned from London, where they were teaching on a daily basis, told me that they will not go to schools that are continually at the bottom of the published league tables. They do not want to go to those schools because they perceive them as having too many problems—behavioural, academic and so on. These schools are getting a double whammy and disadvantaged communities will never be able to rise above that. Ms Gillard brought back the same experience from the United States. I suspect that the New South Wales Labor Government has not looked at the current trends in reporting. Right across Britain they show the closure of not independent schools or private schools but state schools. And that is what we will see in New South Wales.

Once simplistic league tables are published communities will be stigmatised and schools will close. That is a debate we have not had because the Government has not done its homework. In stage one the Labor Government will preside over the closure of State-run schools. Such trends have been revealed overseas, but this Government has not done its homework. It should go to the community and explain which schools will be closed. The Government should ask the Minister for Education and Training and its senior bureaucrats what information they have available that is supportive of our disadvantaged schools. We can identify such schools in our communities but publishing their results will not create better outcomes for any schools. In fact, it will have the reverse effect—and if the Government had done its work it would know that is true. The Government will be cutting off its nose to spite its face.

When I was a principal I encouraged parents to look at the following principles in order to ascertain what was a good school and which school suited their needs—not every school suits every child's need. Parents should attend open days and talk with the principal and staff. They should look at whether the school promotes extracurricular activities or sports events and consider ways that the school could positively enhance their child's development. Is the working environment of the classroom cheerful and are students readily engaged? Does their work reflect the appropriate standard for the grade level and the children? Does the school have a fully equipped library? What role does technology play in the school? Does the school have computers and, if so, what is the ratio of computers to students? Are there music programs? Are the school buildings and grounds well maintained? Are there change rooms? Is everything in good working order? Does the school have safe playgrounds? Is there a prospectus or a mission statement that reflects the everyday activities and operation of the school?

Does the school have rules, regulations or uniforms? How strict is the school? What is the appearance of students and what are their behavioural standards? Are parents listened to and do they have an opportunity to participate? Has the school been ranked and, if so, from where can one get information about its performance? Is there a school website? Is an annual report produced? Those factors weave in with the school traditions and mottos that parents can already access. They are the debates and discussions that we should be having in this Chamber to make sure that parents know that schools are doing a good job. Simplistic league tables will not show that, and the Opposition opposes the legislation.

Mr STEVE CANSDELL (Clarence) [10.52 a.m.]: I speak in opposition to the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. The Liberal-Nationals are opposed to crude and simplistic league tables that rank every school from top to bottom, regardless of their differences. One cannot rank fairly and compare, for example, schools in Wilcannia with those in Woollahra, Brewarrina, Baulkham Hills, Mount Druitt or with The Scots College. It is stupid for the Government to think it can do so. Schools in western New South Wales, and some in my electorate, have a very low socioeconomic base. Their students come from dysfunctional families and indigenous communities on missions that have a culture that does not promote school attendance.

Teachers at those schools work very hard and are passionate about doing nothing more than getting the kids to school and teaching them the three Rs: reading, writing and 'rithmetic. They try to get children to stay at school, at least to year 10, so that they leave with a simple education and can read and write. The real achievement is that those students leave school knowing they can work with other kids and are knowledgeable about their community—which is like getting a triple-A rating at Scots College. Simplistic league tables disadvantage such schools by placing them at the bottom of the rankings. As a consequence, a teacher with a passion for trying to improve the lot of disadvantaged children at Wilcannia or Brewarrina will also receive a low ranking. She will not get credit for her work, which is a great failing of the league tables concept.

The Liberal-Nationals strongly support parents getting more information about their child's performance, their school's performance and how that school compares with similar schools. That type of meaningful information is already available. Crude and simplistic league tables stigmatise great kids and teachers, who are given a low ranking by bureaucrats. Schools, teachers and kids should not be tagged for life, which is what league table rankings will do. Labor is simply playing politics with this matter, and therefore with the lives of kids. The legislation will not interfere with Federal Government funding. On 8 September my colleague the member for Murrumbidgee said:

a pack of garbage that does not support anything. The member continued:

Hansard,

It is hypocritical for the Government to say one minute that the funding will be jeopardised and the next that it will not. It all depends on what the Government wants to say on the day. The member for Murrumbidgee went on:

The five peak education bodies across the State, including the New South Wales Teachers Federation, principals, the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations, the Catholic schools and independent schools, oppose leagues tables and their publication. It is not just about teachers protecting themselves; parents are realising that their children will be stigmatised. For example, children from Somali families who attend school may have limited English language skills. Their teacher's role is merely to get those children to assimilate, learn English and get a basic education so that when they leave school they can integrate and mix well in the community and hopefully have a good life.

But if those schools are listed on league tables—whether they are schools in Mt Druitt, Marrickville, Wilcannia, Brewarrina or any disadvantaged area—and are compared with Scots College or schools at Woollahra or Baulkham Hills then of course they are going to be down the bottom of the list. But that does not mean the teachers have not achieved, it does not mean the students have not succeeded and it does not mean the school has not reached its goal and its object of being there—to give these kids a chance in life.

I believe that simplistic league tables give a false indication of a school's performance. They give teachers simple criteria to teach the kids: just concentrate on the league tables and forget other social policies; just concentrate on exam results, achieve there, and that will give the school a high ranking. That does not cover myriad education issues that most schools now try to cover now. We passed legislation recently that made it compulsory for children to stay at school until the age of 17. Many kids are behind in their schoolwork and want to leave school at 15 or 16 to try to get a job or move on. If we are going to make kids stay at school until they are 17, especially the kids who do not want to study French literature or history or other subjects that have no value for them whatsoever, then at least put programs into schools.

Schools should have hands-on programs and pre-trade programs to give kids some future. Such programs would give kids a reason to want to go to school. They would be interested in going to school and would not be disruptive for the whole class and make it difficult for the teachers and the other students. Hands-on programs, such as woodwork, metalwork and other trade areas where there are jobs and employment opportunities available, would give kids pre-job training so they want to stay at school and are job ready when they leave at 17. I am opposed to league tables that stigmatise kids, teachers or schools, and I hope members of this House see some sense on this issue.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.01 a.m.]: I speak on the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 and state my opposition to this amendment bill. Many speakers have made contributions to this debate so far and I put on the record that I oppose the publication of simplistic league tables as a measure of a school's performance. I cannot but be extremely disappointed with the performance of the current Minister for Education and Training. I very rarely say this sort of thing, but time and time again numerous requests I make to her for things that would benefit schools in my electorate are knocked back.

She clearly is not a Minister who cares about schools in rural and regional New South Wales. I do not know if she has even been to a school in the electorate of Burrinjuck but I take this opportunity to invite her to come to see schools in my electorate. I would like her to come to Murringo, Young and Cowra to see some of the smaller schools that cope with everyday challenges. We should not be discussing this matter today. Nobody I know wants the publication of simplistic league tables as a reflection of how their school is performing. I have received a petition from Cowra High School headed, "School League Tables Statement of Opposition". The petition states:

Mercury

Courier Mail

Quite a number of parents and citizens of the Cowra community have signed the petition. I also put on the record a letter I have received. It is one of a number of letters I have received and I think it sums up the issue quite nicely. The letter is from Emma Curry from Illabo, a beautiful part of my electorate in the Riverina. She states:

When you live in a country town there is often not a lot of choice in what school your child can attend. Are parents going to be able to shop around if they are living 30 minutes or 60 minutes from the nearest school? Of course they are not. It is absolutely ridiculous of the Minister to imagine that parents will be given that opportunity. I urge the Minister to think about the geographical logistics that those living in rural New South Wales—and a very large number of people live in rural New South Wales—face on a daily basis. Emma goes on to say:

She urges me to oppose the Rees Government legislation "as students, schools and communities will only be damaged by the publication of such tables". She put it so well that I wanted to put a significant amount of her letter onto the record. It is pretty much what I wanted to say to the House today.

I mention a couple of other things. What we should be debating in this place today is not the publication of league tables but how we are going to get rid of bullying in our schools. A real tragedy happened on the North Coast in the past fortnight—the death of young Jai Morcom—and we should all be reflecting on that here today and how each of us as members of Parliament can address this bullying epidemic that is occurring in our schools at the moment. All the schools in my electorate are experiencing bullying as much as schools on the North Coast. It is not just contained in a particular area, I am sure it is right through Sydney. We have got to put an end to bullying. It is unacceptable that it is still occurring in our schools.

We should also address childhood obesity. I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training in July following a meeting I had with a personal trainer, Noel Schiller from Young. Mr Schiller is 39 years old, is very fit and active, has four kids of his own and has had a working-with-children check carried out on him. He has offered to go around to the small schools in my electorate that face really severe obesity challenges and physical education shortcomings because many of them are just single-teacher or two-teacher schools and the students do not have the motivation to get out and exercise themselves.

That is reflected in the children. Mr Schiller came to see me and offered to perform this community service for a small fee. He would probably have lost money, but he was keen to ensure that we tackle obesity in country areas because it is out of control. I was disappointed today to get a knock back in the mail from the Minister. She has no idea about the obesity problem facing country kids. This was a great opportunity for someone to go from school to school, covering a significant distance, to provide that assistance. However, the Minister knocked the proposal on the head. She does not care about obese kids, the geographical challenges that we face in the country, single-teacher schools or the additional pressures and burdens they confront. It is disgusting and disgraceful. Roll on the election, because I want to get that program in place. I hope the Minister reconsiders.

We are dealing with obesity, bullying and myriad other hurdles, but we are talking about league tables, further embarrassing schools and imposing more pressure on students and teachers. We must reinstate funding for positive educational outcomes for kids in country areas, including kids with disabilities. The Minister for Education and Training is laughing. She closed the Bellhaven Special School at Young a couple of months ago. The school had been operating for 50 years and has been strongly supported by the community with fundraising events throughout its history. The kids who attended the school have now been forced into mainstream schools. The community is still upset about that.

Country schools will always face challenges because of their geography. It is unfair that a city-based Minister for Education and Training does not see fit to have the Government's policies reflect the needs of kids in country areas, their parents, their P and C, their community, their teachers and their principal. It is time that she visited the heartland of rural New South Wales. Once again, I invite her to visit Burrinjuck so that she can see my schools and talk to the principals with me. If she were to do that she would see the situation as I see it. I would warmly welcome her and offer her generous hospitality. I want her to understand the challenges that we in the country face on a daily basis. I once again put on the public record my total opposition to the publication of simplistic league tables as a reflection of a school's performance.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [11.14 a.m.]: I will make a brief contribution to this debate on the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 as a member representing a country area. Like my Liberal-Nationals colleagues, I oppose this legislation. Again, I make it clear for the benefit of the Minister for Education and Training and the Labor Party that the Liberal-Nationals strongly support parents getting more information about their child's and their school's performance and how their school compares with similar schools. That information is already available and there should be more of it. However, that does not mean that we should allow for the publication of simplistic league tables that will do nothing more than potentially harm the reputation of schools around the State to the detriment of schoolchildren. That is at the heart of this matter.

We do not want ranking of schools from top to bottom regardless of their differences. The bottom line is that we cannot fairly compare a school in Bega to a school in Bankstown. It is simply not possible. To go down the slippery path that this Government and the Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, are going is not good public education policy. The disappointing thing about this debate is that there are much more pressing education issues in New South Wales than league tables. We must have that debate, but in recent times public policy debate about education has been bogged down on league tables. Of course, one of the main reasons for that is the crude politics being indulged in by the Labor Party. It is playing politics with the media and the Opposition and in doing so it is putting at risk the education and wellbeing of students around the State.

Many schools in country areas find it difficult to secure resources. Like most members, I understood league tables were used as a diagnostic tool for the bureaucracy to determine how to allocate resources appropriately to schools. They are not produced for media outlets to publish and in the process to shame a Government because of its resourcing of particular areas. The bottom line is that we must ensure that the league tables and other diagnostic tools used by the bureaucracy result in the appropriate allocation of resources without any political interference.

The primary focus of many country schools is attendance, particularly where there are low socioeconomic demographics and cultural issues involving Aboriginal students. We must not allow the publication of crude league tables because that will cause more harm than good. That is the public interest test. We should ensure that resources are allocated to schools not based on politics but on need. The media and politicians can interfere in that process, and do so in a particularly harmful way. We must not lose sight of that issue in this debate. We should also move beyond it, because, as I said, many other important education issues need attention in this State, particularly with regard to the professional development of teachers and the curriculum.

Only the other day I had a discussion with a school principal who expressed concern about the fact that maths is not a mandatory course for students in years 11 and 12. That is the type of debate we should be having. Instead, public policy discussion about education in this State is a mess that will potentially result in more harm than good. The media, government and politicians should step away from this and look at what we are trying to achieve in education policy. The Opposition opposes this legislation. We are opposed to the simplistic publication of crude league tables. As I said, league tables are diagnostic tools to be used by the bureaucracy to allocate resources to schools in need. That is the important point and it is being lost in this debate. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that she examines this very closely.

I also recognise the Minister is busy because of this type of debate. I am very keen that she meets with the delegation of school principals and parents and citizens associations from Bega, where we have had a very healthy community dialogue around the merging of two schools into one school site—not an easy process. The school community is very keen to get on with it because it is reliant on the Building the Education Revolution money to provide greater facilities for one new public school in Bega. I hope the Minister can make herself available for that meeting in a fortnight. We are going to oppose this bill but it is important we do not lose sight of what is key in education policy in this State, and that is the educational outcomes for students.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [11.20 a.m.]: I also contribute to the debate on the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. I will be opposing the bill. I have just come from the Jubilee Room, where I have been speaking with four students from Toronto High School, in my electorate. That is deep in Labor heartland, and it is one booth in my career in politics that I have never won. I would like to but I am not anticipating I will win it at the next election either. Speaking to those four students, who are in the Jubilee Room to be honoured for their efforts through their high school, I found they certainly understand the issue of concern about simplistic leagues tables, and they are also very much opposed to it. They were pleased I was going to speak on the matter today.

When the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 was first introduced to this House I opposed it because it created the information base and the opportunity for the media to compile simplistic league tables that will brand some schools as winners and some as losers. I believe there is a widespread rejection of this in the community, yet this is the inevitable result of changes that this bill will introduce. The amendment allowing a $55,000 fine for a media outlet that publishes league tables is a serious, albeit imperfect, attempt at preventing the abuse of data, although it would be of reduced value if applied only in New South Wales. However, at the moment these amendments are all that can prevent a repeat of sensationalist news stories such as the front page "Class we failed" story from 1997.

When that bill was first introduced to this House the Minister for Education and Training spoke about the need for meaningful information for parents regarding school performance. This would be in the public's interest and should be supported. Information comparing schools should be used by the Department of Education and Training for the purpose of planning the effective and efficient operation of schools, but there are risks in allowing comparisons by others. This newer version, the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009, will pave the way for a new social inequity. The stigma of being educated at a poor-quality school can have lifelong impacts on individuals, and lead to a reduced opportunity in further education and employment. Worse, it could have lasting effects on whole communities. The former amended bill was, in my view, supportable—this bill is not.

A major objective in school education should be to provide a level playing field with equal opportunity. If simplistic comparisons are made some suburbs will be considered to be of lower social status, at least in part because the local school is seen to be a comparative failure. If this bill is passed there will be only one thing to prevent the media from publishing simplistic league tables—that is, the conscience and sense of fair play of news editors. I am sure we can all understand that this is a huge risk to take and in long-term social costs the stakes are high. With the media-driven events of the last fortnight, the New South Wales Government should be particularly attuned to the impact an editor can have when breaking new ground with a subjective opinion on what information should be published. Many think that extraneous personal information is irrelevant if it does not affect a Minister's performance and that what matters is the way he does his job. Personal matters should not necessarily lead to public humiliation. I feel that an even wider majority of the population would see that the way to assist schools is not to expose them when they perform poorly, but to assist them to perform better.

Anyone responsible for the wellbeing of our children and the future of New South Wales as a whole should be educating to a particular minimum standard and taking appropriate steps to help schools reach that standard. This means that there should be a way of identifying schools that need help and this is an appropriate time for comparisons. It is not appropriate to allow comparisons that will prompt parents to abandon their local school, make it difficult to attract good teachers to certain communities, and brand school leavers as having a lower worth than their peers.

I have listened closely to the debate from both sides of the House and I am pleased that members on the Opposition benches are opposing this bill. While I am pleased that is the case, I am also absolutely surprised at the comments and the content of much of the debate that has come from the Government benches. I have generally grown up as a supporter—I believe anyway—of the ideals of the Left. I have always been a strong unionist and supporter of many social issues and social causes, and I am absolutely appalled that the New South Wales Labor Party has moved so far to the right that it has reached a stage where it could be exposing communities, and many of them in lower socioeconomic circumstances, to this risk of impact on their sense of wellbeing. That flies completely in the face of what I understood the Labor Party to be about. I suspect that has come about because it has been forced into it to a large degree by the Federal Government and by the Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard. This is a time to show resolve, to show some backbone and to stand up for what is right to look after the students and communities in New South Wales. I oppose the bill.

Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO (Ryde) [11.26 a.m.]: I oppose the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. I have heard the debate in this Chamber and on the whole the contributions appear sincere from our side of the ledger. I have been around the community of Ryde and have been listening to school principals and parents. They have all told me unanimously that they vigorously oppose the publication of simplistic league tables. I have spoken to the Teachers Federation, whose representatives have come into my office and asked me again to strenuously oppose the publication of simplistically tables because it is not in the interests of children. To me, the most important hallmark of a healthy democracy is a free and independent press. Only in exceptional circumstances should governments attempt to control—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Barwon will come to order.

Mr VICTOR DOMINELLO:

When Robert Menzies first talked about the poor and the weak he was talking about children who could be exposed to public humiliation through the publication of simplistic league tables. I strongly urge the Government to join with the poorest of people in the community, teachers, parents, principals and those who genuinely care about the welfare of our children to ensure that this bill is not passed.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS (Hawkesbury) [11.30 a.m.]: I shall make a brief contribution to the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. My children have completed their schooling in the last couple of years. I am directly involved in a wide variety of schools across the Hawkesbury electorate. As the local member and in my previous role as councillor I have attended many school presentation evenings. Every year I attend about 30 presentation evenings. I am patron of three or four rugby league, soccer and cricket clubs involving thousands of children. Therefore, I come into contact with many parents on a weekly basis. The people with the most at stake on this issue are parents. They give their children, their greatest asset, into the care of schools, principals and teachers. They hope to get the greatest return for their assets. They hope their children will be given the best care and education that is available.

I always judge any issue on the opinion of the people most affected by it. When this issue first came up I sat back and did not have a view—other than to remember that I was very happy with the wonderful public education that my children received, first at Annangrove Public School and then at Galston High School. I was extremely satisfied with the way that they were cared for and educated. I thought, "What difference would it make if those schools had advertised in the paper how they performed or did not perform?" I waited to hear the views of the parents of the schoolchildren in my electorate. I state first and foremost that my electorate would perhaps have more school-aged children than any electorate across Sydney because it is a rapid growth area, a strong family-orientated area, with a plethora of schools and schoolchildren.

Despite all the media attention and profile of this issue, as yet I have not received one phone call, text message, email or statement from one person that the publication of league tables would be of benefit. The issue has not been raised at all. The Government has done itself irreparable damage in the eyes of teachers by trying to advertise simplistic league tables. Teachers know they have my total support. I know them personally and I get on well with them. Teachers provide a standard and quality of education second to none. This country is lucky to have such good quality education. The last thing I want is to degrade the role that teachers play. I shall give a broad overview of schools in my area. Currently Lower Macdonald Public School near St Albans has nine pupils enrolled. It is a beautiful area and it has been a pleasure to visit that school whenever I am out that way. That school provides wonderful education, to the same standard as other schools. I have attended Rouse Hill Public School, which now has a population of some 870 students.

Beaumont Hills Public School is just down the road. It is a wonderful school that is new to the area. It has been operating for the past five to six years and has some 600 students enrolled. Sherwood Ridge Public School, a new school located in the Kellyville area, has 650 students enrolled under the tutelage of Principal Jan Marshall. Kellyville Public School, which is an older school, has some 500 students enrolled. Glenhaven Public School has some 400 students enrolled, while Dural Public School has 350 students enrolled and Middle Dural Public School has fewer than 50 students enrolled. Glenorie Public School has 200 students enrolled, Hillside Public School has 100 students enrolled—the list goes on. My electorate has a diverse cross-section of schools in these closely populated residential and rural areas, yet I have not heard one word from one parent suggesting the need for more information to be advertised.

Ms Verity Firth: That is not what I've heard.

Mr RAY WILLIAMS: The Minister has said that is not what she has heard. That is right. I challenge any member to say that parents have raised this issue personally with them. I posed this question in the party room and my Coalition colleagues agreed with me. Parents have not challenged them on this issue. I put it to the Minister of Education and Training that parents are not knocking down her door; they do not regard this as a massive issue. However, she pushes ahead with it and will only get offside with our great teachers across this State. If the Minister is happy to do that, good luck to her. New South Wales principals and teachers know they have the support of the Liberals and The Nationals on this issue. We are more than happy to stand up for them.

Ms VERITY FIRTH (Balmain—Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Women) [11.36 a.m.], in reply: Before I begin with the clear and unambiguous reasons that demonstrate why members should support the Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill I will address issues raised by the Opposition in the course of this debate. I thank all members who contributed to this debate. However, I must also state on the record that only one member of the Opposition, the member for Vaucluse, addressed the substance of this bill. All other members of the Opposition, knowing that they had no intellectual merit behind their position, regaled the House with their opposition to league tables. It is a safe argument, but not relevant in respect of the issues at hand.

I think we have established that everyone is opposed to league tables. The Government has no intention of introducing the policies of the United Kingdom or the United States of America in relation to school closures into New South Wales. The bizarre assertion of the member for Murrumbidgee about New South Wales introducing the New York model is not even believed by the member himself. He has misled the House and he knows it. We have complete confidence in the professionalism of New South teachers to teach the Board of Studies curriculum without being distracted by assessment. New South Wales teachers understand that assessment is not the purpose of their teaching.

But among the desperate arguments of the Opposition there were some surprising assertions. The member for Wakehurst seemed to be arguing that just getting students through the school door is enough in some communities. No member should ever suggest that this is an adequate expectation for any young person. I reject it utterly, and so should every member of this House. The member for Murrumbidgee argued that at the very least students should leave school with hope. That is not good enough. The Government believes that all young people, even those from the most disadvantaged and difficult backgrounds, should leave school with a little more than hope. In their embarrassment at having hastily agreed to an amendment that they no longer support, Opposition members exposed some alarming prejudices about the capacities of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and about the liberating effects of schooling. Many members argued that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds should not be expected to perform well in assessment.

Mr Geoff Provest:

Ms VERITY FIRTH: That is exactly what many members argued. Nothing better illustrates the soft bigotry of low expectations than these arguments. Of course disadvantage creates barriers to success. That is precisely why education is so important and why making sure that schools are given every opportunity and every resource to improve the outcomes of these students is a fundamental part of a good government. Any teacher listening to Opposition members last night could be forgiven for changing careers. Opposition members seemed to be arguing that there is simply no point in doing what they are doing, that demography really is destiny, and that there is only so much that governments and education systems can even aspire to do when it comes to some school communities. I reject that assertion and the prejudice behind it.

Many members on both sides of this House were given their most important, and in some cases their only, opportunities through schooling to escape the poverty of their backgrounds. For many young people school is their only chance to escape from the limitations imposed by postcode and background. And that is why it is our job and our responsibility to get it right. One of the criticisms of the Australian education system is that, although we are achieving when it comes to excellence, we are still not achieving as we should when it comes to equity. I will now quote Julia Gillard on the SBS Insight program on 18 August 2009. The reason I do this is that it goes to the heart of what the Commonwealth's reforms are actually about: equity, and driving equity in educational outcomes. Julia Gillard said:

It is no mistake that the vast majority of the new funds from the State and Federal governments as part of the national partnerships are being directed to schools serving low socioeconomic status communities. This is where Government's focus, both State and Federal, has to be. These children and their parents deserve the same information and the same expectations as those from privileged backgrounds. The assumption that postcode equals outcomes is not only discredited but offensive. This Government will never differentiate between schools and allow them to operate under different definitions of success. Nor will we allow some parents to be given access to information that others are denied because of their personal circumstances.

Surprisingly but accurately, these were some of the arguments raised by the member for Vaucluse. It would be useful for his colleagues to read his contribution from last night. Transparency and league tables have occupied a huge amount of energy, meetings, papers, speeches and argument in this House, as well as over dinner tables, at the sidelines of sporting matches and at barbeques this year. They have become the hot topic among educators, parents and observers. But amidst the swirl of political interests and media hyperbole there are real issues at stake. The balance is between the public's right to know, the Government's responsibility to be transparent, and the consequences of knowledge and the effects of this transparency.

At this time I would like to clarify the issues involved in this debate, because these are significant matters and there are serious consequences for getting it wrong. These are the challenges of government—a privilege that the Greens do not aspire to and that the Opposition has not earned. We have made it clear from day one that we are opposed to school league tables. A clear indication of this is the robust discussion on this issue, and this legislation, on our side of politics—a debate that we all know is mirrored in the party room discussions of those opposite. Only the Greens, with the benefit of ideological purity and the certain knowledge that they never have to enact their policies, are beyond productive engagement in this issue.

What is implicit in these discussions about league tables is that schools are not yet, and never should be, a commodity. They are not retail outlets. And virtually everyone in the community wants to protect schools, and their principals, teachers and students, from unwarranted attack. Geography, religion, philosophy and economic circumstance all intersect when parents choose where their children will go to school. This is not a decision taken lightly by parents anywhere. And it is rarely based solely on school results. As I have said before and will say again here, leaving your child at the school gate is one of the most significant acts of trust an adult ever faces. We choose schools for a variety of reasons, but there is always some level of trepidation in the process and a desire that our decision will be vindicated through the happiness and successes of our children. Why would one not provide parents with factual, contextualised information to help them in this process? That is what I do not understand about the Opposition's position.

League tables—a ranking of schools based on student results in tests—are a crude measure of school success. They tell us something, but not everything, and they do not tell us why. We oppose league tables because, in the absence of other discriminators and other information, and with the emphasis given to them by the media, they may achieve a level of importance that they do not deserve. Teachers and schools do not all begin their work on a level playing field. A school or a teacher may lift a child's performance, knowledge, understanding and happiness to an extent that the child's life is transformed. We know that raw score comparisons do not easily measure or identify these achievements.

Schools' student populations can be so radically different that comparisons or rankings become nonsensical. In rural and remote communities, where there may only be two or three primary or high schools, stark comparisons and possible enrolment shifts have even greater consequences. And there is an underlying and understood sentiment that such comparisons are simply not fair. So we are all opposed to league tables. But that is the easy part of this debate. That is the part of the debate that the Opposition has been politically exploiting and trying to simplify. The difficult part of this debate—which Opposition members cannot grasp because it is all about politics—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: The difficult part of this debate is about defining transparency. Being opposed to simplistic reporting—which we all are—does not equate to being opposed to the public provision of information. The New South Wales Government has been providing information to parents via annual school reports and other means for a decade. This information has gradually become more complex but also more important. The way that information is provided is not consistent, nor is it mandatory that any of the schools provide comparisons with like school groupings. So the information is not all out there. We believe in transparency, and we support the Commonwealth's endeavours in this area.

As I have argued before, the key issue in this debate is how governments, both State and Federal, respond to the consequences of transparency. We will support this transparency with investment to those schools that require it and publicly defend schools that are treated unfairly. We will make sure that the complexity of education practice and the context in which schools operate are understood. And we will disseminate good practice and address outstanding problems. The Commonwealth website promises a new era in information provision that ultimately will benefit schools, students and their parents. This is not about attacking schools, principals or teachers; it is about trusting the community and bringing it fully into the debate about quality schooling. But a solution that differentiates between people on the basis of their access to technology is no solution at all. And that is the effect of the Greens-Coalition amendment. It says that if you own a computer and are connected to the Internet you have access to information that those who read the daily newspapers do not have. Even if the information is crude and simplistic, to discriminate between media, as the Greens-Coalition amendment does, is actually to differentiate between the users of different media.

It is the view of the Government that our opposition should not be expressed by selective bans on media reporting information banks that imply a distrust of the community's capacity to make decisions. This is why the Opposition's stance has created such consternation in the liberal community. It is a "we know best" mentality, which is the hallmark of the Greens attitude to the general population, but it is an unusual position for those opposite. The member for Murrumbidgee has allowed his concern for the possible consequences on some of the school communities in his electorate to cloud his responsibility to respect his community's right to make its own decisions with all of the facts to hand. The New South Wales Government has done all it can on league tables through legislation. We did it 10 years ago and those same protections apply now.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: No, they do not.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: I am sorry, they do. They have been made firmer by being moved out of the regulations and into the Act. To say anything else is misleading the House, and the member for South Coast knows it. But school outcomes data—this is something that has not been grasped by any Opposition member—will now sit in a national repository. That is, national testing and data now sit in a national repository. It is no longer an issue for New South Wales alone. It is neither possible nor desirable that New South Wales erect a firewall on national data. Moreover, the wealth of information that demonstrates how schools are working should be in public hands. It should be contextualised information. It should be rich information. It should be robust information.

We need to tell the whole story of school performance even if some sections of the media only use simplified grabs. This is the only real answer to league tables: to encourage debate and provide information. In fact, the real answer to league tables is more information and transparency, not less. As I have told the House before, if a simplistic league table is published by a media outlet, I will be the first out of the blocks to condemn it as a simplistic league table. I will then point the community to the Federal Government's website—complete with rich, factual and contextual information about every school in Australia—and say, "You do not need to look at that simplistic league table. The information is here: information for parents rich in context and only allowing comparisons between schools serving similar communities."

Mr Victor Dominello: By that stage the damage is done. You cannot do anything.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: While I will acknowledge that the intent of the Greens-Coalition amendment was to protect school communities, I do not think the intent was wrong. They must also acknowledge that the amendment will not work. That is something that the Opposition will not take on board. It knows it will not work and it wants to politically grandstand. It fails the fundamental test of a democracy by infringing on the freedom of citizens to see, understand and have an opinion on the services their society is delivering. I cannot believe how far the Coalition has walked from its principles on this, but it does not matter.

The Greens-Coalition amendment should be removed from law because not only can it not deliver on its intent but it also has a range of unwanted and unintended consequences. It is therefore poor law. Despite the way this debate has been characterised, it is not an argument where one side, the Government, is in favour of league tables and the other side, the Greens and the Coalition, are opposed. The Opposition knows very well that the Government is not in favour of league tables but it is in favour of information—information to define policy, to enable communities to get the help they need and to shine a light so that those communities get the services they deserve. It is not good enough to argue that there are certain people and communities where just going to school each day is enough. That is not good enough and that is exactly what the Opposition has argued in this House. The Opposition does not want the shining light of transparency on that performance and that is exactly what it has been arguing.

Therefore, the key points on the reintroduction of this legislation are: Will the legislation work and what other consequences will it have? The answer to the first question is a resounding no, the legislation will not prevent league tables. The answer to the second question is a clear yes, it will create all sorts of problems. I have already outlined them in the agreement in principle speech but they should be listed again so that those opposite are completely clear about the effects that will flow from their support of the Greens position.

Mr Victor Dominello: It is about transparency—let's get that right.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: I did not hear that in the member's speech. They are wrong in principle. They lack proportionality—the fines do not reflect the seriousness of the offence. They will cause people outside New South Wales to commit offences without being aware they are committing them, including the Queensland Government. They fetter free speech, public debate and academic freedom, possibly so as to be unconstitutional. They irrationally discriminate between what can be published by different kinds of media organisations. They thwart responsible public reporting of school performance, not just irresponsible reporting. They overturn the system of accountability of government schools.

The league table debate has been a healthy one. It demonstrates this Parliament's legitimate concerns and its responsibilities with regard to education. It arouses passions and disputation, but it has ultimately been an important debate. One of the reasons why it has been important is that it has been extraordinarily productive. No participant or commentator will now publicly back simplistic and unfair comparisons between schools—that is true. It is true that both sides of the House have enabled that to happen. The Greens-Coalition amendment now needs to be removed. Any reasonable analysis divorced from party-political argument demonstrates this.

Mrs Shelley Hancock: You supported it before.

Ms VERITY FIRTH: As the member for South Coast knows, the Government voted against it in the upper House. She knows that, so she can keep saying that. The numerous problems have been identified and debated. It is not the solution to a problem; it is a problem in itself. The Opposition hastily supported an amendment and now it does not know how to get itself out of the mess. It is easy: The Opposition should support the Government's legislation.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 45

Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Ms Beamer
Mr Besseling
Mr Borger
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Collier
Mr Coombs
Mr Corrigan
Mr Costa
Ms D'Amore
Ms Firth
Ms Gadiel
Mr Greene

Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Ms Hornery
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Khoshaba
Mr Koperberg
Mr Lalich
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Dr McDonald
Ms McKay
Mr McLeay
Ms McMahon
Ms Megarrity
Mr Morris

Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Terenzini
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan

Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin

Noes, 34

Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Dominello
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Ms Goward
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hazzard

Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humphries
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Mr O'Dea
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Piccoli
Mr Piper
Mr Provest
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts

Mrs Skinner
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stokes
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr J. D. Williams
Mr R. C. Williams

Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire

Pairs

Mr Daley	Mr Fraser
Mr Furolo	Mr Hartcher
Mr Gibson	Mr Page
Mr Harris	Mr Stoner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Education Further Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009

Legislative Assembly

Legislative Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council