Public School System

Hannah and I walk onto the stage. I throw gum leaves into the audience and Hannah does a little koala dance. Little Anna in the front row jumps up and yells "Binky". Before we know it she is on the stage holding hands with Hannah and me, and singing the Blinky Bill song. We are laughing so much that Hannah's mask falls off.

At the end of the parade our Principal comes onto the stage to announce the winners. Jed and his dog win third prize. A fairy and a pirate come second.
As Ms Tran gets ready to announce the first prize my mums cross their fingers.
"And the winners are the two koalas and their little friend from the audience!" We pick up Anna, climb onto the stage and collect a beautiful gold medal.
Hannah and I look at each other and then loop the medal around Anna's neck. She smiles from ear to ear!
After the parade I suddenly feel tired. I smile while mine mums give me a very big hug and carry me all the way home to bed.
Somehow this is seen as being something that is so subversive—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will desist from constantly interjecting.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: These publications can hardly be called subversive. They are in fact simply books that will be used—
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Or intellectual.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Well, they might be intellectual for members of The Nationals! Five-year-olds are the target audience. I am sure that they are pretty much age appropriate! These books simply are used in some schools for children from single sex parent families who might be subject to bullying. It is about getting children to recognise that they should be tolerant, that they should not make value judgments about other children at school and that they should accept children regardless of their race, family make-up, religion, ethnicity, et cetera.

It is about encouraging children who are the product of the New South Wales public schools system to be tolerant and accepting. It is not propaganda. It is not the type of material that the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, would use on a slow news day to beat up the New South Wales education system. It is not the type of material that dedicated and talented professionals who work in the New South Wales education system would use in any improper manner. As I have said, it is up to principals to decide which of the approved educational materials are used in their schools.
I have heard a few redneck hoots from Opposition members asking where the publications are used. Many of them are used in inner-city schools, but that simply reflects the population make-up in the school's area. The comments made by the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, were insulting to professional education workers in New South Wales. He took a very cheap shot at people who work in the education system and his comments show a completely inadequate understanding on the part of someone who claims to be an appropriate person to be in charge of the education system in New South Wales. The Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, simply is not an appropriate person to hold that position.
I conclude my remarks by concurring with comments made by the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Della Bosca, who said, in response to those outrageous allegations and insults, that Mr Stoner had been highly selective in his use of examples from the curriculum and that his strong views about Aboriginal history and sexuality should be a case study as to why a Nationals politician who is desperate for votes should not write the primary school syllabus. The Minister went on to state:
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is a good reason to say that if The Nationals and the Coalition in New South Wales have any integrity, they would not have a person of this nature, with these bigoted and biased views, holding such a sensitive shadow portfolio.
I reiterate that the syllabus is designed in consultation to be in the best interests of children in New South Wales. People bemoan the fact that young people do not have respect, do not understand and are badly behaved. The issue addressed by the publication is the type of issue that is being addressed not only in public schools but also in private schools. The Independent , which is the newsletter of the Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales Limited, refers to the aim of children who graduate from independent schools having exactly the values espoused in the material—care and compassion, respect, integrity, understanding and a sense of responsibility, as well as a tolerant and inclusive attitude toward other people in the community. That is what the Government thinks New South Wales public schools should be doing, and public schools are doing so by using educational materials and resources of the type referred to during this debate.
Educational materials and resources assist people to understand the disaffection that exists within the indigenous community regarding events such as Australia Day. We should be supporting all possible efforts to ensure that children who graduate from the public school system have all the qualities I have referred to. We should be supporting teachers to inculcate those values in students. We should support people involved in the consultation process and who assist in devising the curriculum that is part of the public school system. Conversely, we should condemn people such as the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, and ask him to apologise to the educational professionals in New South Wales for his appalling comments and for his cheap political shot.
Members of this House should support the motion because public education in New South Wales is a very valuable resource. Unfortunately, it is continually under attack from the Opposition, which criticises the content of education, the results achieved by school children and the physical environment of New South Wales public schools. It is about time the Opposition talked up public education instead of talking it down.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.03 p.m.]: It is absolutely extraordinary for the Hon. Amanda Fazio to argue against herself by moving this motion. She exhorts values, standards and ideals, and they are all ideals that the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, was espousing. They are all the values that the Opposition wants to include in public education. The Leader of The Nationals was advocating for a balanced approach to public education. The right sorts of values need to be taught in public schools.
The Hon. Christine Robertson: He does not talk about balance.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: There has been no denigration of public school teachers by the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner. He is simply saying that teachers, parents and students deserve a balanced approach and they need to know that the public education system that is offered in this State is the best in Australia. It is far from the best, and that is not the fault of schoolteachers. Despite the wonderful work schoolteachers do, the public education system in this State is far from the best because the Labor Government refuses to direct resources to areas where they are most needed and refuses to back up or support parents and teachers by providing an environment that is conducive to good education. The comments made by the Leader of The Nationals were about the Government's failure to provide the right sort of environment that should exist in the public schools system.

New South Wales public education should be the best in Australia or in the world, but that is far from the case. It is extraordinary that the Hon. Amanda Fazio has argued against herself during this debate. The policies espoused by the Opposition are the values we would like to see inherent in public education, and that is what the Leader of The Nationals was saying. The timing of this debate is also extraordinary because the need to keep schools free from politics has been referred to. What about the current campaign by the Teachers Federation in the lead-up to the Federal election? That would be approved by the Labor Government, despite the fact that talkback radio has been inundated with calls from members of the public who report that students are receiving political propaganda. That is a direct result of the forthcoming Federal election. The Teachers Federation is campaigning against the Howard Government.

In response to the motion that has been moved, I point out that schools are a community asset. The New South Wales Coalition values all New South Wales schools. Parents are entitled to express their views on education, the administration of schools and the values that are taught in schools. Businesses and corporations discuss values and they know what consumers and employers are looking for. They promote the values that their businesses stand for. If we put together a list of the qualities we want in our students?such as integrity, responsibility, respect, citizenship, courage and compassion, as referred to by the Hon. Amanda Fazio?they are exactly the types of values that the Coalition wants in the school environment in New South Wales. They are exactly the types of values that the Leader of The Nationals was espousing on behalf of the Coalition.

New South Wales is blessed with outstanding schools and outstanding principals and teachers. Recently I visited some fantastic schools in the South Coast and Bega electorates. I met students and staff at the Bateman's Bay Public School. The school community is organising a trip to Uluru next year. I also visited the Havenlee school, where I met dedicated teachers and parents who are committed to providing quality education for special students in an appropriate environment. Those teachers and parents have been let down by this Labor Government. They were told that the school would have a security fence within the second school term, but no security fence has been provided. They have been let down by the Labor Government and the Minister for Education and Training. The Government talks about safety, security and protection, and balancing the rights of children with sound public education values in schools. However, parents and teachers of the Havenlee school have been let down by this Labor Government.

The handful of people who are smearing the good reputation of public schools in this State are those who seek to use schools as propaganda against the Howard Government. Earlier this month on Radio 2GB, Ray Hadley broadcast a series of calls from members of the community who were concerned that students had received political leaflets. Callers were concerned that children were being used to spread political propaganda and about where, and from whom, the children had received the material. On 12 September Ray Hadley interviewed the Director General of the Department of Education and Training, Michael Coutts-Trotter, about these instances. He said, "There is no place in our schools for political propaganda of any kind." He went on to say:
There is almost a sacred relationship between a teacher [and student] that should not be compromised with the introduction of political views, partisan political views, of any kind.
On 12 September Ray Hadley read on air a statement issued by the director general to schools:

I've been made aware that the NSW Teachers Federation has recently provided supplies of postcards entitled "Can We Afford A Government That's Turning Away From Public Education". This material is overtly political. We've advised the Federation any distribution of the material at schools contravenes department policy. Any attempt to use students in political campaigns breaches long established policy, is unacceptable and puts at risk the wonderful reputation of public education.
I must admit that I had many concerns about the appointment of Michael Coutts-Trotter. Unlike the directors general of education in other States, he has no background in education. In South Australia the chief executive has 20 years experience in education and training. The director general in Queensland, Rachel Hunter, started out as a TAFE teacher and went on to hold positions such as director general of Queensland's largest training provider and chair of TAFE Queensland. The director general of education in the Australian Capital Territory started out as a teacher and went on to have senior roles with the Department of Education, including director general of school education services. As I said, I was concerned initially about Mr Coutts-Trotter's appointment but I must admit that, despite his political background, he is correct on this occasion. Unfortunately, the Minister for Education and Training is in complete denial about the issue. On 5 December he said on the ABC:

In the case of the 700,000 Government school students, Mr Stoner has not produced a single meaningful example of a teacher indoctrinating a student. It's just simply not happening—it's never happened, it's a fiction.
On the one hand, the Minister for Education and Training is saying that nothing is going on while, on the other hand, the Director General of the Department of Education and Training is issuing a warning to schools about the inappropriate distribution of political material to students. That is another Labor contradiction. How can parents have any confidence in the public school system?

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Do you want to go back to the 1950s?
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: It is outrageous to assume that students can be used as a postal service for unions in the lead-up to an election.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: There were more kids in public education then.
The PRESIDENT: Order! All members will cease interjecting. The Hon. Robyn Parker should be allowed to continue her contribution in silence.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: This is not the only occasion when politics has been brought into the classroom. The Minister waited until the eleventh hour before attempting to dissuade students from taking part in protests against the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] meeting. But the horse had already bolted—in this case the horse did not have equine flu. It was a clayton's attempt to stop students from being involved in political protests and to discourage politics from entering New South Wales schools during school hours. When the Minister for Education and Training is in denial about political propaganda in schools while the director general admits that there is no place for such campaigns in schools, how can anyone take this Government seriously? I remind honourable members of the memorandum that the department circulated earlier this year, which bears repeating. It states:
Schools are not places for recruiting into partisan groups. Schools are neutral grounds for rational discourse and objective study. They are not arenas for opposing political views or ideologies.

That is exactly what Andrew Stoner said. Unfortunately, Davidson High School was in the limelight earlier this year for all the wrong reasons as a result of a Rock Eisteddfod performance that was given at around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting. That also raised questions about bringing politics into the classroom. We need a balance. Teachers, who often leave an indelible impression on their students, must also have their students' respect.

It must be noted during this debate that there is a movement of students from government to non-government schools. Parents are voting with their feet when it comes to where they send their children to school. In 2006 there were 739,307 full-time students in New South Wales public schools. Students are now leaving public schools at a rate of 125 students each week. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] figures on schools in Australia reveal that not only is the number of students who attend public schools decreasing but the number of students attending non-government schools has increased substantially over the past 10 years. Since 1996 the number of full-time students attending non-government schools has increased by 21.5 per cent. That is a huge increase over the past decade that mirrors the availability of choice for parents and families. The Australian Bureau of Statistics report found that the number of full-time students attending government schools decreased from 70.7 per cent in 1996 to 66.8 per cent in 2006. Why has that happened? It is because this Government's policies are ripping the heart out of education in this State and parents are showing their disapproval by sending their children to non-government schools.
Government schools are falling apart. The maintenance backlog is unbelievable. When I visit schools teachers and parents tell me that they are most concerned about maintenance and the school environment. But the Government has failed to back them. Why would parents support the education policies of this Government? For example, in New South Wales schools the teacher-student ratio is the worst in Australia. One in four year 7 students in New South Wales fails to obtain the national benchmark standards for numeracy. Government schoolteachers are not receiving adequate mentoring and support. Some 17 per cent of teachers resign in their first five years of teaching and 26 per cent resign in their first 10 years. The criticisms that the Hon. Amanda Fazio had the audacity to make should be levelled at her Government. She endorsed the comments of Andrew Stoner in her contribution.
Impartiality and balance are vital to education values. Schools have a major influence in shaping young minds and parents have the right to say whether they like the values that their children are taught. I cannot conclude my remarks without mentioning the Australian Education Union [AEU]. Last year Kevin Donnelly wrote in the Australian:
Instead of strengthening the government system, the union has been instrumental in causing the move to non-government schools.

He continued:

By becoming politically active in its support for the ALP, by aligning itself with the trade union movement and by refusing to free government schools from provider capture, the AEU also shows that it cares more about politics than it does about education.

Even Professor Tony Vinson wrote in his report on New South Wales public schools:

Some parents expressed doubts about the environment of such schools, the handling of unsatisfactory teachers, and whether sufficient emphasis is placed upon students' acquisition of good values.

Parents do not want unions dictating what their children learn in what should be an academic, as opposed to a political, environment. It is not the job of teachers to espouse a union doctrine to their students. Teachers are there to teach our kids the curriculum—and many of them are doing an outstanding job.

Parents also want to know that their children are safe and that their school environment is secure. Earlier this year it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that police were called to schools 108 times in a 20-week period. There have been several cases of violence and threats of violence in State schools. There are examples in today's newspaper of children whom the public system is letting down. Children are shifting schools because of bullying, which the department cannot resolve effectively. Teachers are taking out apprehended violence orders [AVOs] for protection. It is certainly not a safe environment, and it highlights the failure of the State Labor Government to resource New South Wales schools properly.

So what is the Government's strategy? Its strategy is to go on the attack and sweep the problems under the carpet. In some schools I have visited it is not possible to sweep anything under the carpet: the carpet is threadbare! It might be possible to poke things through the holes in the carpet. In New South Wales the Teachers Federation has called for 700 school counsellors. On the one hand we have the Hon. Amanda Fazio suggesting that we ought to have the right values taught in schools, and on the other hand we have the Teachers Federation acknowledging that there is a need for more counsellors and admitting that teachers are not being supported by this Government, that they are being let down.

What a contradiction. The Government is hiding because it knows that it is not providing the right environment, the sort of environment that Andrew Stoner is talking about and that would certainly be provided by a Coalition government. Education was certainly better before this Government came to office. It has failed to resource and support teachers, parents and students in the education environment.
The timing of this motion could not be more inappropriate. The director general has admitted that politics has entered the classrooms. The Minister has his head stuck in the sand and is still denying that this has happened. He is denying the existence of campaigns by the Labor Party and the Teachers Federation. That is okay for the moment, of course, because we are in the lead-up to a Federal election, and State and Federal Labor will do whatever it takes rather than provide an education environment that is free from political influence, that is balanced, that has the right sort of values, and, as Andrew Stoner says, that parents want to send their children along to. That is what Andrew Stoner has been saying, and that is exactly what would be provided under a Coalition government.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio cannot have it both ways. It is time this Government was held accountable. It is time this Government supported teachers, parents, children and the public education system, and provided the type of environment that we know our children deserve.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.22 p.m.]: I support the motion of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. The fact is that two-thirds of New South Wales students are currently educated in public schools. Many of our public schools are experiencing rapid increases in enrolments. Many of the most rapid rises are in the early years and in areas where very successful senior colleges are located. This is despite the array of schooling options available to parents and the constant attempts by Mr Stoner and his conservative colleagues in the Federal Government to downgrade the value of public schools.
Despite the Coalition's continued attacks on public education, the vast majority of parents in New South Wales understand that public education can offer their children a firm foundation for their future development. State schools are great schools for the precise reason that they, and only they, can offer children a firm grounding in basic skills and at the same time provide them with a broad perspective on the world in all its increasing complexity.
The Leader of The Nationals continues to demonstrate a zero commitment to public education. His ideological rantings of the so-called left-wing indoctrination and politically correct culture demonstrate how little he understands about the great work that is happening across New South Wales. One of the constant refrains of the Leader of The Nationals is the tired line about "black armband" of history. I do not believe that acknowledging the impact of white colonisation of Australia on the Aboriginal owners supports a black armband view. It is a perspective that speaks to the truth and seeks to advance understanding of the impact on Aboriginal people, something of which we hope all our children have some understanding.
As an example, at Darlington Public School, where kindergarten enrolments have recently doubled and many of the children are indigenous, a willingness to teach Australian history from an indigenous perspective is undoubtedly a strength. Given the great difficulties that we face ensuring that indigenous students attend school and achieve good outcomes, it is important that teachers are able to present subjects to indigenous students in ways that are appealing rather than alienating. If schools succeed in doing this by including indigenous perspectives in their teaching of history, they should be applauded, not berated.
Principals and teachers in New South Wales public schools are trained and supported to teach subjects from a diverse range of perspectives in ways that are sensitive to their pupils' varying ages and to the varying expectations of the diverse local communities that they serve. That is the point of public schooling. That is one of its many strengths and is not a weakness. Recent reforms to staffing arrangements in schools help to ensure that schools continue to reflect the needs and expectations of their local communities. It is a fact that since reformed staffing agreements were introduced in 2005, 72 per cent of principal positions have been filled by candidates chosen by a local selection panel that includes community representation. It is Andrew Stoner who is out of touch with the community, not public schools.
It is also completely misinformed to imply that teaching subjects from a range of perspectives is done solely in the interests of so-called "minorities", whether they be Aborigines, recent immigrants, gay parents, or that minority that is actually a majority: women and girls. In fact, teaching subjects from a range of perspectives is of great benefit to all students.
The political founder of public education in New South Wales, the great statesman Henry Parkes, believed that public education would strengthen democracies because it would help people make informed choices. He also believed that a general education would help lift people out of poverty by preparing them for whatever career they chose to pursue in later life. He believed, in other words, that public education would benefit the State because it would help people to think, and to think laterally and critically in whatever situations they found themselves and about whatever choices with which they were confronted. That was true in the late nineteenth century and it is even more critical now in the early twenty-first century.
Mr Stoner may not have noticed that we live in a rapidly changing globalised world and our children will be confronted by a world that is even more complex and less certain than our own, a world in which anyone who thinks that there is only one way of thinking, one way of doing things, will be in for a very rude awakening. If we bring up our children to believe that there is only one view of history, they will struggle to survive, let alone thrive, into the future. As John Raulston Saul commented at the recent Cornerstones Conference:

If ever there was a time for the expansion of a humanist approach towards education filled with questioning, with doubting and thinking, this is the time for it. That is the right preparation for the kind of society our kids are going into.

Mr Stoner might prefer the comfortable certainties of a white picket world, circa 1950, but such certainties are now obsolete and I, for one, am glad that my children's education will not be predicated on them. I am also proud that my daughter goes to the public school where the very books that the Hon. Amanda Fazio was talking about were developed by a young girl who, in year 2, realised that she needed to have books that reflected her family circumstance.

Another great fallacy is that teaching alternative perspectives is a distraction; that it somehow prevents teachers from focusing on their core business: teaching children basic skills. This fallacy is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the curriculum works, especially in the early years of schooling. In fact, the teaching of basic skills is integrated throughout the curriculum. Put simply, learning to spell "indigenous" is just as important and useful as learning to spell any other word. Public schools teach a rich and dynamic curriculum at all levels, one that is able to meet the needs and hold the interest of a very diverse range of students.

At the same time, our public schools produce literacy and numeracy outcomes that, despite the scaremongering of the Federal Government, are among the best in the world. Such outcomes are possible only because of the dedication of public school teachers, supported by a State government that is committed to public education. The recent report of the productivity commission on government services confirms that the New South Wales Labor Government has boosted investment in education by significantly more than the national average. In fact we have almost doubled the investment per student. It is this investment that ensures that the public school system will continue to meet the needs of all students in a rapidly changing world. Investment is needed to fund new technologies, to upgrade buildings and facilities, to expand numeracy and literacy programs, to review and develop curriculum, to reduce staff to student ratios and to support professional development of teachers. We also provide targeted programs for struggling students, for gifted children, for disabled students and for disadvantaged school communities.

Instead of denigrating public schools and the people who work in them, the Federal Government should be trying to invest in them. Unlike the State Government, the Howard Government has a record of chronically underfunding public education. If it really cared about the future of public schools, the Howard Government would put its money where its mouth is and be more generous in its funding allocation.
One last great falsehood is constantly perpetuated by conservatives and members on the other side of the House about public schooling: the belief that, if it were not for public school teachers and if it were not for classrooms, parents could protect their children from unorthodox ideas and alternative lifestyles. Well, schools have playgrounds as well as classrooms and children have classmates as well as teachers. It is a truism that you cannot stop children talking, and neither should we want them to stop talking. In public schools at least, children come from all kinds of households, all kinds of families, all kinds of religious backgrounds, with all kinds of more or less openly held political views. This is one of the great strengths of public education and one of the ways in which children prepare for the broader world. There are children in public schools whose parents are atheists, environmentalists, Christians, Muslims, unionists, lesbians and even members of the National Party. Children are insatiably curious. Questions arise and teachers must respond to them.
That is part of the reason the school curriculum is inclusive of a diverse range of experiences and perspectives. That is why our public school teachers build on children's experiences, on their everyday encounters with difference, to teach about diversity, tolerance and acceptance. They are helping our children to live with difference—to see it as an opportunity and not a threat. They teach them that we do not all have to be the same in order to live together. It may be too late for Andrew Stoner to learn how to look at and live in the world in new and better ways, but fortunately it is not too late for the next generation. I commend the motion to the House.
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.30 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. There is much to debate in the administration of public education, from the allocation of funds between the public and private sectors to the amounts of money that go into public education, and from ensuring that there is adequate support for children with special needs to replenishing the teacher workforce as it ages. The maintenance and enrichment of the physical environment of public education also needs to be debated. I am not the first to have been saying over the past 10 years that the Labor Government has not got it all right, that there have been major faults in the way the Labor Government has administered public education and there is a need for the Government to answer for that. Certainly, there is always in any government—and even when the Greens form a government—room for criticism of the performance of government, but all of us who are critics of government education policy walk a fine line because we do not want to talk down public education.
Public education is already under stress from an aggressive private sector and from dealing with increasing educational outcome demands. Public education does not need politicians who talk down the achievements of public education, who launch consistent and persistent attacks on the values of public education, and who launch attacks on the way public education serves the diverse communities of New South Wales. Unfortunately, Mr Stoner has done those three things on more than one occasion. On 2 July 2007 Mr Stoner was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in the following fashion:
The Opposition education spokesman, Andrew Stoner, said students and parents were voting with their feet. He said families were abandoning the public system because of the shabby condition of schools and because of a lack of discipline.
"Public education is becoming the first choice for relatively fewer people, which is a concern given that the population of the state is increasing," he said.
"School discipline policy lacks teeth at a local level. We are hearing more and more serious reports of bullying, not only of students but also of teachers.
That sounds good. The only problem is that it happens to be absolutely wrong!

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Haven't you read today's paper?
Dr JOHN KAYE: If the Hon. Robyn Parker listens, she will learn something. Between 2005 and 2007 public education increased its share of students. Far from parents voting with their feet and deserting public education, the feet of parents were heading back to public education in increasing proportions. It is remarkable that they did so, and it is a tribute to the teachers, parents, students, support staff and public school communities that they did so, because they did so despite huge funding inequalities between the public sector and the private sector. Since the election of the Howard Government hundreds of millions of dollars have poured into private schools that were not there previously. Indeed, between 1995-96 and 2005-06—these figures have been adjusted to 2006 dollar terms—public education received an increase of $1.17 billion from the Howard Government and private education received an increase of $3.18 million from the Howard Government. That is, for every new dollar that went to students in public education, the Howard Government gave $6.34 to students in private education.
Public education is winning back students despite the Howard Government's abolition of the new schools policy. So since 1996 a private school operator has been able to open a private school on the doorstep of a public school. The Howard Government tossed out the window any sense of planned provision of education. Public education is winning back students despite the massive funding to the wealthy private schools. Last year the Howard Government gave $115.8 million to the wealthiest private schools, creating a flagship of wealthy private schools that creates a demand for parents sending their children to private schools. Public education is winning back its share of students despite socioeconomic status funding, which is fuelling the growth of low-cost private schools that compete directly with public education in areas of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Even with the Howard Government's bias against public education, ever-greater proportions of children are returning to public education. What Andrew Stoner should have done in the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald , which is what I did, is celebrate the success of public education and the ability of teachers in public education to overcome odds and to win back students. The responsible thing to do is to talk up the successes of a system that is under stress. It is the obligation of all education spokespersons to talk up those successes. One thing Andrew Stoner—
[ Interruption]
I am about to say something nice about Andrew Stoner, so the Hon. Don Harwin should hold off for a second. I agree with one thing Andrew Stoner said. The Leader of The Nationals said:
It's a crying shame—
that is, the punitive loss of students—

because public education should be the first choice if we are going to address inequity in terms of providing educational opportunities regardless of how much you earn.
That is one of the few things Andrew Stoner said as education spokesman with which I agree. But that is the minor of the two attacks on public education by Andrew Stoner. The first attack came in May of this year when he totally let fly about the values of public education. He talked about curbing the culture of political correctness within the New South Wales public education system. One might have thought that was a media misrepresentation. So I got my hands on Andrew Stoner's media release of 2 May 2007, in which he talked about public education. He said that public education is "a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination", that public education perpetuates "a black arm band view of Australian history", and that public education uses "emotive terms including 'British invasion'". I made a note of something else but I cannot read my handwriting.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: You should have gone to a private school!
Dr JOHN KAYE: I note the Hon. Charlie Lynn's comment that Andrew Stoner should have gone to a private school. I thank him for putting on record the Opposition's education policy. Andrew Stoner talked about public education promoting gay parenthood—I presume the Hon. Charlie Lynn agrees with him. Andrew Stoner talked about public education increasing the infiltration of left-wing ideology at some schools and the importance of ensuring that the left-wing union movement does not have a disproportionate influence on issues such as syllabus content. Mr Stoner seems to have three complaints about public education. First, he claims that it promotes gay parenthood; second, it has a so-called black armband view of Australian history; and, third—and this is the most outrageous complaint, although all three are incorrect—he accused the Board of Studies of being biased.

I will refer, first, to same-sex parenting. In every community there are same-sex partnerships, and I am sure that includes Mr Stoner's seat of Oxley. I am sure that Mr Stoner would not join with Iranian President, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in saying that there is no such thing as homosexuality in his bailiwick. It is important for teachers to have access to materials that encourage sensitive treatment of children who come from families with same-sex parents. An important role of public education is that we foster acceptance of all children regardless of the gender of their carers or parents. We must recognise the diversity of lifestyles that makes up the great community of New South Wales.
Every child must be accepted. It is an obligation of public education that every child should be accepted. Although it is not, it should also be an obligation of every private school. Mr Stoner goes on to state that public education is promoting a black armband view of Australian history. Some people call it a black armband view but other people call it speaking the truth. We cannot and should not try to ignore what happened when the British landed in Australia. We should not and cannot ignore the 220-year history of dispossession and abuse that has befallen the Aboriginal people.
To not talk about that or recognise it in schools is to abandon telling the truth and give up on the education project, which is to equip people with an army of facts and understanding that enables them to be citizens, and to hand over to a propagandistic support of a relaxed and comfortable view of the future. I want to quote from a statement by Mr Jeremy Bradley, chairperson of the Hastings Reconciliation Group, reported in the Port Macquarie News of Friday 11 May 2007. Mr Bradley made no apologies for erring on the side of political correctness when it comes to teaching children about Australian history. He said:
Reconciliation with this nation's first peoples is a political undertaking and the correct version of our history is the one that should be taught to our children.
The hard, cold historical and legal facts did not, and never will, support England's claim of just possession of Australia.
It is an issue that we must attend to sooner or later and hiding our heads in the sand will not serve us, or future generations, well.
Mr Bradley is stating what ought to be obvious to us all: we cannot hide from the fact that we have a history that involves dispossession and abuse of the Aboriginal people. We should not seek to hide our children from reality. They must know where this nation came from and be part of plotting a very different future for it. The third part of Mr Stoner's media release was an attack on the Board of Studies and on the curriculum taught in New South Wales. Mr Stoner was not being original here—he was copying his counterpart, Federal education Minister Julie Bishop, who, in a leaked draft of a speech she had prepared, accused the New South Wales Board of Studies of being infiltrated by Maoists. I note that Ms Bishop did not make that speech in public after there was a public outcry.

It is not only an insult, it is also downright silly to suggest that somehow or other Professor Gordon Stanley, head of the Board of Studies, the teachers who willingly give of their time in curriculum and syllabus development, the educational professionals from universities and other institutions who put their shoulders to the grindstone and who try to create for New South Wales a world-leading curriculum and a world-leading set of things that our kids will be studying, are infiltrated by Maoists, Trotskyites, Stalinists or anybody else. Over the past five years New South Wales has achieved a world-leading set of outcomes in syllabus development. I have not always publicly agreed with Professor Gordon Stanley but I think there are parts of the syllabus—matters that I do not express as a politician but that I would express as a private citizen—that ought to be different.

I place on record my appreciation for the work of Professor Gordon Stanley, the Board of Studies, teachers, educational professionals and volunteers who work damn hard to create a curriculum that reflects the diversity of our community, that reflects where our history has come from and that reflects the incredibly complex needs of our educational future. John Robertson, Secretary of the Camden Haven Teachers Association, when speaking of Mr Stoner, was reported in the Port Macquarie News of Friday 11 May 2007 to say:
Mr Stoner ... had lost sight of the bigger picture.
This is one reason why we don't have a member of a minority group like The Nationals writing educational materials.
As far as the syllabus content is concerned, it is not just written by one person, it is written by teachers and academics, who want to challenge students and create a thinking population rather than a bunch of sheep.
Mr Robertson said what everybody of goodwill is saying: we do not want to politicise our curriculum. We want to defend the professionals and teachers who are working damn hard to create good quality outcomes. Mr Stoner owes the teachers, students and parents of public education and the Board of Studies an apology for what he said about them and the work that they do. He stands condemned by his own words.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.45 p.m.]: Many words have been spoken on this subject in the time that has been allotted to debate it, and it is easy to be overwhelmed by the feigned emotion that went into its presentation.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: But underwhelmed by their presentations!
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Charlie Lynn to order for the first time.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Before the commencement of this session and as a demonstration of practical interest in education, upper House Nationals and the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, spent a considerable amount of time meeting with teachers, parents and members of the community in western New South Wales to gauge their views on a variety of matters. It is plain that Mr Stoner's interest is in seeing practical outcomes for the members of our community, not in engaging in feigned rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric itself. Before those meetings he identified plainly—and it remains the case—that, sadly, there are fundamental weaknesses in our education system.
What I say is not in any way an attack upon educators or hardworking teachers; it is an attack upon a system that fails to equip teachers and to provide facilities for children in our schools. I will point to one group in particular rather than give a general spray. How are Aboriginal children performing in our schools? I refer, firstly, to general retention rates in our schools. In 2002, 95.9 per cent of children in years 7 to 10 in schools in New South Wales went on to year 10. Nationally, the figure was slightly better, at 96.9 per cent. How did Aboriginal children fare in the figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? In 2002, 81.6 per cent of Aboriginal children in years 7 to 10 went on to year 10 as opposed to 95.9 per cent of all children in New South Wales in years 7 to 10.
I refer to another set of figures—year 12 retention rates for children who start in high school. For all students the figure is 63.6 per cent, but for members of the Aboriginal community the figure is 29.6 per cent—less than half the retention rate of non-indigenous students, and that is a tragedy and an indictment of this Government. People spend time attacking Andrew Stoner, the shadow Minister for Education, when on the ground we are witnessing a living, breathing tragedy.

What we have is a failure to adequately allocate resources. We have a fundamental neglect of the Aboriginal community. That is plain for all to see, and that is what some members opposite know is happening, yet they sit quietly in support of a motion of fluff—a motion to distract attention. However, let us continue and not talk about retention rates. Let us have another thought and see how our kids go in basic skills tests, for instance. If we look at basic skills tests for year 3, Aboriginal children achieving band 4 or higher in 2006 was 21.1 per cent. How does that compare to the rest of the community or the State average? It was 46.2 per cent. That means our Aboriginal students essentially are achieving at half the level of the balance of the community.
What about for year 5? Unfortunately, again we have the same sort of consistent failure. We have the same shortcomings in all the results. This indicates, regrettably, a failure of our education system to adequately provide for an important sector of our community—one of the most disadvantaged. Again, why is it up to the Opposition to point this out? Is it part of the political correctness with which we are confronted that we will not talk about the shortcomings; that we will sweep under the carpet the failings simply because what we really want to do is to distract and deceive? The reason this motion should be rejected is that it is designed to cover up the shortcomings of this Government.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.51 p.m.]: The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is critical of the Opposition education spokesperson, Andrew Stoner. It calls on him to apologise to educators in the public school system for his comments that schools are "a vehicle for left wing indoctrination", and that the Government should "rein in the PC culture" within the Department of Education and Training, and the New South Wales Board of Studies. Obviously, as is happening with this debate, such a motion opens up discussion on education in this State and the various problems that are occurring. I take this opportunity to contribute my thoughts on that matter.
I believe Mr Stoner was seeking to reflect community concerns, and as a member of Parliament he has a responsibility when information comes to his attention to make those views public. Certainly the community belief, whether it is the majority or minority, is that some parents would endorse his comments. So it is a question of whether he or the parents are wrong, or whether he is simply reflecting the views of parents that he meets as he carries out his duties as a member of Parliament, particularly in his role as Opposition education spokesperson.
We must face the reality that there is widespread concern in New South Wales by parents about the education system. One would have to have one's head in the sand not to know that! The supporting evidence is this continuous shift from the public school system to the independent or non-government sector in our State. Without any great publicity campaign and with all the efforts of the education department and the New South Wales Teachers Federation to promote public schools, parents still are moving their children out. I believe it is the responsibility of this House to ask why. Why are parents so unhappy with the State public school system that they are prepared to move out of the State system into a system where they actually have to pay twice? They pay firstly in their taxes and then secondly in school fees. Even in the low-cost Catholic and Anglican schools it is still expensive for the average family, especially working-class families which, I believe in many cases, is the group that is moving into the non-government schools.
This trend is increasing greatly in the western suburbs with many non-government schools that commenced operation in past years maintaining and increasing their student numbers. In fact, I have been surprised sometimes when visiting a non-government Christian school to learn that it has 1,000 to 1,200 students—larger in number than some of the public schools in the area. The Government and members of this House must ask why. Parents must perceive that something is wrong with the public school system to make this decision to move their children to independent schools. I believe we have to be realistic in examining those issues and not pretend that they do not exist.
One of the concerns I have had for many years, which I know would not be accepted by some Government members and certainly not by the Greens, is the overinfluence of the New South Wales Teachers Federation in the running of the State school system in New South Wales. That influence keeps recurring in an almost arrogant manner towards the education department. This happened when the previous Minister, the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, introduced the new reporting and marking system as a response to the concern of parents who could not understand school reports when they received them from their children's schools. I believe what the Government introduced on that occasion was a practical and positive move forward, but the New South Wales Teachers Federation said, "Oh no, we do not want that." So, the federation actually issues a directive through its members through the schools to disobey a government policy implemented through the education department! In fact, that is what occurred.
Those developments undermine the confidence of parents and cause unrest amongst them, and parents then become very uneasy about what is happening with the education system in this State. On a number of occasions I have said that although the New South Wales Teachers Federation obviously wants to keep public schools going because they provide employment opportunities for their members, because of its policies public schools lose students and then lose staff. This results in teachers being left in the difficult position of either having to move to another location or not having a permanent position at that particular time.
The challenge is how to change that situation. I am sure the Government spends a great deal of time and thought on how to bring about a solution. However, the reason the Teachers Federation has such strong power is that it is one of the largest, if not the largest, unions in the State. It can threaten the Government and if there is no cooperation from the Government, the federation then can disrupt the whole education system, which would then affect every family and parent. No government wants a disrupted school system, but being faced with that kind of threat places it in a very uncomfortable political position, so the Government caves in to the New South Wales Teachers Federation.
For more than 20 years I have had conflict with recognised sections of the federation that have a very influential role in promoting the teaching of homosexuality within the State system, even to producing and promoting material and encouraging teachers to use it. We can only hope that sensible principals reject that material as it is not official education department material; it is merely material that the federation has produced over the years. I have seen it and I believe it is totally unsuitable to be used in an educative setting, but it has been given tacit support by the Teachers Federation.
The other issue on which the Teachers Federation again was adamant was to have no corporal discipline in State schools. The federation campaigned for that policy and the Government finally adopted it. That same policy now applies also in non-government schools. Instead of a violent or unruly child at least facing the threat of corporal discipline, we now have a complete reversal in this State where teachers are being attacked and threatened, especially female teachers.

That has become a regular occurrence. We hear weekly reports of teachers being intimidated by students. In the most recent development, students have used Internet sites to exhibit defamatory material and to make allegations relating to their teacher's lifestyle and activities. I assume the allegations are not true and have been made simply to damage the reputation of teachers who have maintained strict standards, tried to be a good influence and perhaps have rebuked students. Students are punishing their teachers by the improper use of the Internet.

There has been a noticeable shift in enrolments from the State or public school system to non-government schools, mainly to schools in the religious education system, such as Catholic schools, because parents are seeking to have moral values taught to their children. When Sir Henry Parkes instituted the education system in the 1880s, he set up a system of free secular education. Sadly since Federation, some people have interpreted "secular" to mean non-religious or non-Christian education, and in a sense the term has been used to reject Judeo-Christian values. Sir Henry Parkes had no intention of the term "secular" being interpreted in that way. In the 1880s, the term meant non-denominational. Sir Henry Parkes meant to ensure that the public school system would not be used to promote the beliefs of one particular denomination or church over another. He sought to ensure that neither the Catholic nor Anglican or Presbyterian faith would not be promoted through the public school system.

Obviously mainstream religions have similar core values, but the interpretation of "secular" in the 1880s is completely different from its interpretation in 2007. In the 1880s, the Catholic religion was regarded as separate from the Anglican religion and the Anglican religion was regarded as separate from the Baptist religion. That is why the 1901 Commonwealth Constitution states that the Commonwealth has no power to establish a religion. In that context, the Founding Fathers were thinking particularly of the Church of England, which was the established religion in the United Kingdom, and nobody, except Anglicans, wanted the Church of England to be the established religion in Australia. Any suggestion of that was strongly opposed by the Catholics, the Presbyterians and the Baptists. That is why there is a constitutional prohibition against the Commonwealth establishing a religion.

Unfortunately, that provision has been wrongly interpreted as a bar against the Christian faith. The prohibition had nothing to do with the Christian faith and referred only to a particular religion. The constitutional provision applies to the education system and should be interpreted to mean that the education system should not be used to promote a particular denomination. I agree with that, but that should not be interpreted as a statutory barrier to promoting Christian values, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the teachings of the Ten Commandments—values that are widely accepted throughout our community. Sir Henry Parkes worked around the erroneous interpretation of "secular" by having the Bible used in the public school system virtually as a textbook to instil values while teaching children to read. The Bible , rather than any particular church or denomination, carried Christian values into education.

In the 1880s Sir Henry Parkes permitted religious instruction in the public school system by a visiting representative of each denomination for one hour a day: An Anglican clergyman visited Anglican children and a Catholic priest visited Catholic children. Over time, owing to various religions being challenged by the provision of sufficient teachers, religious instruction was reduced to one period a week in the State school system. I am very pleased that religious instruction has been retained and that it is working very effectively in the great majority of high schools and private schools. I have encountered rare exceptions when a principal has not understood that religious instruction is a legal requirement. Some principals think they have a discretion relating to whether religious instruction or church teaching will be carried out in their schools and have tried to prevent clergymen from visiting their schools. In such instances, I have been able to provide them with information that makes it clear that religious instruction is a legal requirement and outside the discretion exercised by a principal, and that very quickly straightens out misunderstandings.
I do not believe it is right to attack the Leader of The Nationals, Mr Stoner, in the terms of the motion before the House. I believe he was sincerely reflecting the concerns that have been expressed to him by parents. I have had very similar concerns expressed to me by parents, and I believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire. The Government should carry out a thorough examination of the issues to ensure that there is no bias in materials used in State schools that are provided by the Department of Education and Training. I believe that by adopting such a measure, the Government will halt the shift of enrolments from the State school system to the non-government schools system.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.05 p.m.]: I agree with some of the comments made by each member who participated in debate on the motion before the House, but the overriding principle of this issue is that public education should be the public's first choice. Over the past decade in New South Wales, that simply has not been the case. I also agree that we should ask ourselves why that is so. The more that families move out of public education, the greater is the stress that is placed on public education. My child, Jack, attends a public education school. I attend the parents and citizens association meetings when possible, or my husband attends. My family is very proud to be a part of the school community. It takes only a brief chat with a principal or people involved in the school community to appreciate the pressures that are causing people to walk away from public education, and those pressures are beginning to show. We have to ask ourselves why that is happening.
Dr John Kaye made the positive point that 2005-06 statistics indicate a trend back to public education. I contend that the reason for that is simply the policies put forward in 2003 by the Brogden-Souris Opposition advocating a reduction in class sizes for kindergarten and years 1 and 2—a policy that was quickly adopted by that very astute reader of political change, Bob Carr. In 2005-06, that policy was in place and parents quite cleverly worked out that it is better to send a child to a public school for kindergarten and years 1 and 2 and have a student to teacher ratio of 1:22 than for their child to attend a private school where the ratio is probably 1:28, 1:30 or 1:32. It should be acknowledged that parents have made a conscious choice and have realised that kindergarten and years 1 and 2 in the public school system is a better investment because of the student to teacher ratio.
The Coalition, led in 2003 by John Brogden and George Souris, devised a landmark policy that subsequently was adopted by Bob Carr for the 2004 election campaign. I cite comments made by Mr Warren Mundine, the President of the Australian Labor Party:
Parents who sacrifice their lifestyles to send their children to private schools should be thanked and supported ? I think they're great parents, I take my hat off to them. They're paying for education twice. Not all are wealthy people, they're just ordinary, average Australians trying to do the best for their kids.
That is a brave statement and it is quite correct because it poses the question: Why are parents prepared to sacrifice between $3,000 and $30,000 a year to send their children to a private school? That is the question that this Government has failed to ask itself.

The Teachers Federation continues to run education in New South Wales. Last year I witnessed that fact when my child came home with a brochure that had been handed out by a teacher as part of the workers rights campaign. I was offended and disappointed—and I was not alone—that the Teachers Federation was prepared to countenance the devaluation of all teachers in the school by allowing some politically motivated teachers to hand out propaganda. That is what is destroying confidence in public education.

There are two issues to consider. First, rightly or wrongly, it is perceived that political correctness is setting agendas at schools that are contrary to families' personal beliefs. That perception should be investigated. The second issue—which I touched on earlier—is that, as a result of the exodus from public education to the private system, predominantly students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds remain in our public schools. I have spoken to teachers about the problems they encounter because of family and relationship breakdowns and single parenting. In socioeconomically disadvantaged areas there are more children with challenges who take up more of their teachers' time. In some cases teachers suffer the added pressure of assuming parental responsibility for their students.

Teachers are an amazing resource in our community. But it is tragic that the Teachers Federation controls many aspects of public education in New South Wales. I give the Department of Education and Training credit for taking one decision that we heard about during our visit to Menindee in western New South Wales. Menindee Central School receives special funding of about $300,000 a year under an Aboriginal program that assists indigenous education. The school had a real victory when it was able to select its principal. We heard about the hoops that the school had to jump through to make that happen. Some officers at senior levels of the Department of Education and Training assisted the school—for the sake of their tenure I will not mention their names. That is a most encouraging development. The Teachers Federation did not win in this instance and Menindee Central School was able to appoint a suitable candidate who was eminently qualified and who is producing real results for the school. The leadership of some schools does not meet community expectations. I do not claim that that is a problem everywhere but I often hear of cases that deserve further investigation.
It is important to point out that over the past 10 years 125 students have left public education every week. This equates to 46,000 students leaving public primary schools and 19,000 leaving public high schools. In 1996 government secondary schools across the State had more than 67 per cent of total student enrolments. Since the Iemma Government has been in power that figure has dropped to 60.8 per cent. That means that 6.2 per cent of students have left public education since the election of the Carr and Iemma Labor governments. That says a lot for the Government's education policies but it also speaks volumes about the sacrifices that families are prepared to make because they have lost confidence in public education. Until the Government examines and resolves the problems in public education and stands up to the Teachers Federation the quality of public education in New South Wales will continue to be diluted.
I do not hold out much hope for the future of public education, and one of the Iemma Government's first major appointments to the New South Wales bureaucracy did not convince me of its ability to address the problems in that sector. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training is one of the largest education departments in the world—I think it is in the top three—and the position of Director General of the Department of Education and Training is by all accounts a most esteemed post. But the New South Wales Labor Government appointed a former press secretary to the position. It appointed an outsider to that strategic post at a time when public education enrolments were falling. That move directly affected public confidence in public education, and it speaks volumes about how the Labor Party regards the education bureaucracy in this State. The Government stands condemned for its decision.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.15 p.m.]: Like the Hon. Melinda Pavey, I have found much to agree and to disagree with in this debate. But I found her contribution something of a curate's egg: good in some parts and appallingly bad in others. Her attack on the New South Wales Teachers Federation—like that launched by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile—was absolutely unwarranted. The federation is a staunch supporter of public education and is prepared to speak out consistently in favour of a system that promotes inclusiveness and that caters to the needs of all children, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities or disabilities. Rather than suffering attacks, the federation deserves great commendation for its preparedness to state that access to quality public education is the right of every child in this State, and indeed in this country.
I believe the division between public and private education and the growth in the private education system have worked to the detriment of our community. That growth has encouraged divisiveness and exclusivity and has worked against the best interests of the community. However, I believe the Hon. Melinda Pavey was correct when she pointed out that any return to public education might be attributable to reduced class sizes in kindergarten and in years 1 and 2. Any move from public education should be attributed to the consistent lack of adequate funding for that sector. The decline in funding began in the 1970s and has continued unabated over the past three to four decades.
The problem has been exacerbated not only by the policies of both State and Federal governments but also by the policies of the Department of Education and Training, which has attempted to close many public schools. About eight years ago it tried to close Ashbury Public School, and Beacon Hill Public School was recently earmarked for closure. Vaucluse and Maroubra public schools were also under threat, and there were attempts to close Dulwich Hill Public School and Hunters Hill High School. That policy was extremely short-sighted because at the same time as the Government was moving to close schools in inner-suburban areas it was pursuing policies of medium-density development and encouraging greater population growth in those same areas. Indeed, families have returned to Sydney's inner suburbs—the flight to the suburbs has been reversed. They wish to send their children to State schools but find that the schools have closed. The public schools that remain open have large class sizes and inadequate equipment, and teachers have an increased workload that leaves them little time to prepare their lessons.

I believe Mr Stoner's comments are totally without substance and should be condemned. But I believe it is equally important to condemn the policies of a State Government that works actively against the interests of public education and that, by default, forces many people to find alternative places for their children in the private education system. Certainly I do not think there is any evidence of the Teachers Federation or teachers within public schools trying to foist particular viewpoints upon children. I think it is perfectly appropriate for teachers to make children aware that there is a diversity of viewpoints on almost any question you can ask. To say that there is only one right and correct view and that that is the view that is to be promoted is an incorrect way to see the role of education in our community. I conclude by saying that whilst I endorse the substance of the motion moved by Ms Amanda Fazio, I have no hesitation in condemning the Department of Education and Training for the practical outcome of many of the policies that it is implementing.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [4.21 p.m.]: Unlike the Hon. Amanda Fazio, I do not have curriculum materials from the Department of Education and Training to quote to the House so I thought I would put together a short multiple-choice test for the Australian Labor Party. If I said, "Articulate, strong values, community-focused, good-looking, suntanned, fit and surfs", would I be referring to (a) the Minister for Education or (b) the shadow Minister for Education? If I said, "Convicted drug dealer and no teaching qualifications", would I be referring to (a) Schapelle Corby or (b) the director general of school education in New South Wales? If I asked, "Which political party has been putting paedophiles into Parliament", would I be talking about (a) The Nationals, (b) the Liberal Party or (c) the Australian Labor Party? If I talked about dirt, smear, mudslinging, malice and relentless use of this House for personal attacks, would I be talking about (a) Amanda Fazio, (b) Amanda Fazio or (c) both of the above?

[Interruption]

They can dish it out, can't they? But they do not like it when it comes back. I have looked at the Notice Paper and noted that in the last Parliament the Hon. Amanda Fazio proposed three motions against me. One motion referred to my not turning up to a rail corridor meeting on the North Coast and alleged, therefore, that I do not care about the train issue. Another motion she listed on the Notice Paper criticised me for having the temerity to question the effectiveness of people dressing up as cigarettes and bongs?in drug costumes. The Notice Paper is littered with other motions attacking individuals. I have looked at what the Hon. Amanda Fazio has on the Notice Paper at the moment. There is this smear against Andrew Stoner and there are two motions attacking the Federal Government. This State faces a housing crisis, a skills and training crisis, a major infrastructure deficit and a huge backlog of maintenance in our education system, and what is the Hon. Amanda Fazio using this House for? Smear, dirt and innuendo.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio has spent a good deal of time attacking Andrew Stoner. She has also attacked The Nationals candidate for the Federal seat of Richmond, Dr Sue Page. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has run around the North Coast saying, "Sue Page can't run for Parliament because she is not really an Australian citizen." That is a fabulous scare campaign. It got page 1 of the local paper. She must have been absolutely delighted with that effort. People are asking me, "Who the hell is Amanda Fazio?" To help them answer this question I have gone through the media coverage the honourable member has received to see what issues she has focussed on and how she has spent her time in the Parliament.
This has assisted me to advise my community where the Hon. Amanda Fazio is coming from: basically, she is a serial mudslinger who runs around the State lobbing accusations to try to bring other people down. I have explained to people in my community that she lives in Sydney's inner west?she has nothing to do with the North Coast. She worked in Labor's head office for seven years and was preselected to the State upper House in 2000. I take as my source the Sydney Morning Herald article called "Housekeeping for the keeper of secrets". I quote from that article:
She is, say some Labor insiders, the woman who knows where the bodies are buried.
The Hon. Ian West: Point of order?
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: In 2002 Ms Fazio was pilloried by the media for time wasting in Parliament after a bizarre speech that mentioned the death of a member of a rock band.
The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: I am more than confident that the Hon. Amanda Fazio would not be fazed by what others are saying about her. My point of order relates to relevance. I ask that the Hon. Catherine Cusack debate the motion before the House.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: To the point of order: I think the issue is mudslinging. The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is clearly directed towards that end. I am simply evaluating the credibility of the person making the allegations against the leader of The Nationals. Testing that credibility is integral to understanding the motivation of where this motion is coming from.
The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member should speak to the motion rather than become sidetracked.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I question the credibility of the mover of the motion who has made these allegations. I am referring to issues that are potentially more important. This motion is distracting our attention away from them. The mover of this motion tends to spend her time in the House on issues such as the death of a member of the rock band The Ramones. She confessed to the House that she had named her dog Joey, after the dead musician. She has a record of criticising not only the leader of The Nationals; she has also taken a strong stand against many of her Labor colleagues, arguing that they should leave Parliament.
The Hon. Ian West: Point of order: Again, I refer to relevance. As I said earlier, the Hon. Amanda Fazio would have no difficulty rebutting the completely irrelevant information that has been put before us. The Hon. Catherine Cusack should speak to the motion before the House.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: To the point of order: I argue that the Hon. Catherine Cusack is addressing the motion before the Chamber in relation to the mover of the motion and the importance of public education. I think she should be able to continue in that vein.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Further to the point of order: The motion specifically refers to claims that the Leader of The Nationals has said that schools are a vehicle for left-wing indoctrination and that the Government should rein in the politically correct culture within the Department of Education and Training. It refers specifically to Mr Stoner's criticisms of the Labor Party. I am dealing specifically with that culture and with those issues that I know are of enormous concern to the Leader of The Nationals. I again point out that people who like to dish it out ought to be able to stand here and cop a test of their credibility as to where they are coming from in making these allegations against him.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: I have no problem in defending my role in this House. However, according to the standing orders, if the Hon. Catherine Cusack wants to attack me she should have the courage to put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper and not ignore the important issue of public education. She is trying to vilify me with a bitter, twisted and, I would say, quite irrational display. I urge you to uphold the point of order and advise the Hon. Catherine Cusack that she should read the standing orders and work out where it is appropriate to make these comments. If she wants to do that, that is fine.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Which standing order are you referring to?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Mr Assistant Deputy-President, I ask you to make a ruling. I do not have to provide information to other members in the debate.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I have no idea of the standing order to which the Hon. Amanda Fazio is referring. She seems to want to use points of order to give me advice as to what motions I should or should not put on the Notice Paper. I have never put on the Notice Paper motions that personally attack people in the way she has. I have no intention of following that advice. I ask you to find that there is no point of order on the basis that the honourable member could not name the standing order to which she was referring.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: To the point of order: The Hon. Catherine Cusack said that the information she has is already in Hansard.
The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The point of order relates to relevance. If a member wishes to cast aspersions or imputations against another member, he or she must do so be way of a substantive motion. The Hon. Catherine Cusack will return to the substantive motion.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I undertake to refer to newspaper articles and quote information that is already on the public record. I will confine my remarks to what is already on the public record in Hansard and in newspapers. In 2002 the honourable member, according to—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order again relates to relevance to the substantive matter before the House. Under the standing orders, the Hon. Catherine Cusack can and is quite free to put on the Notice Paper a motion attacking, criticising or condemning any member of this House or the other House, but she is not free to do so by attacking the mover of a motion that is completely irrelevant to that matter. The motion before the House relates to comments made by the Opposition education spokesman, Andrew Stoner, in a press release. Those comments, which attacked the New South Wales education system, were reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The fact that I moved the motion before the House is irrelevant to this debate. If the Hon. Catherine Cusack wishes to make a personal attack on me, whether or not it is based on material that is on the public record, the only way she can do so within the standing orders is to place on the Notice Paper a motion attacking me. Using the guise of saying that this material is already in the public domain is not sufficient to allow her to contribute that material to this debate. I am happy to hear what she has to say in defence of Andrew Stoner and in relation to the public education system. There is a time and a place for all contributions in debate, and I ask you to direct her to make an appropriate contribution in this debate on public education.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Hon. Amanda Fazio is making a strong personal attack on the Leader of The Nationals. As part of this debate I am simply arguing the merit and the motivation of that attack as part of my defence of the Leader of The Nationals. I need to be able to refer to information that is already on the public record. The Hon. Amanda Fazio is saying that she should be allowed to say whatever she wishes about the Leader of The Nationals but we are not allowed to question where she is coming from and what is the real motivation behind this motion. I do not believe we can mount a free and effective defence of the Leader of The Nationals, as we are entitled to do, if we are not allowed to speak about the motivation behind this motion. It is absolutely integral to what I say, and I think the Leader of The Nationals is entitled to have this matter heard. I am not insinuating or making up anything; I am simply seeking to quote from newspapers that are already on the public record. I note that the Hon. Amanda Fazi o has had no difficulty using this tactic against other members on numerous occasions.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Further to the point of order: As I said at the outset, I am not afraid of responding to issues raised about me by the Hon. Catherine Cusack if she complies with the standing orders and puts a substantive motion on the Notice Paper . That is what I have done in terms of my concern about the comments made by Andrew Stoner in May this year. In this debate the Hon. Catherine Cusack is welcome—it is quite proper for her to do so—to comment on what I have said about Andrew Stoner in relation to the motion on the Notice Paper . However, she cannot use this debate as a vehicle to attack me. As I said, if she wants to attack me she can do so by way of a substantive motion.

[ Interruption]

For the benefit of the Hon. Robyn Parker, I am saying this twice because it does not seem to be sinking in.
The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will address the motion before the House. The member must not use a newspaper article as a means of casting aspersions against or making imputations about another member.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The Leader of The Nationals is concerned about education funding in New South Wales and the way funding is being misdirected. In some cases, the funding is insufficient, particularly in terms of maintaining government schools. He is concerned that that we are wasting money on inappropriate expenditures around the State. For example, in 2003 the Hon. Amanda Fazio was named in an article in the Australian Financial Review called "More NSW junkets". There was an outcry about the amount of travel by State members of Parliament—it is on the public record—and the system was reformed. However, as the Daily Telegraph reported, "It ain't over until the Fazio lady sings. Ms Fazio courageously defended overseas travel by State MPs and described the reforms as follows: 'This is namby-pamby pampering'—
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: On three or four occasions you have directed the Hon. Catherine Cusack to return to the substantive motion and not to use this debate as a vehicle to cast aspersions on the Hon. Amanda Fazio. Your direction to the Hon. Catherine Cusack could not have been any clearer, yet she refuses to accede to your direction. I ask you to direct the honourable member to address the substantive motion and not use this debate as a clever, smart or sneaky way to attack another member of the House.
The ASSISTANT DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will continue her speech and will confine her remarks to the question before the Chair.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Obviously Government members are not interested in hearing me detail this significant material. I can understand that; it is embarrassing and hypocritical. Maybe we will save this for another time. I do not intend to use my position in Parliament to put on the Notice Paper motions attacking members and others. However, I say to people who like to dish it out: You can dish it out but you cannot take it. That has been made clear in this debate. I feel sorry for the Leader of The Nationals, who has made an enormous contribution. He is a man of integrity, he has a fine reputation and he is a person of ethics and character. Not everybody agrees with what everybody says, but I have no doubt about two things: first, the Leader of The Nationals is a sincere man; and, secondly, he would be a huge boost and improvement if ever he were to have the opportunity to lead education in New South Wales. These smears are merely a distraction from the real issues, which the Leader of The Nationals is addressing.
I feel sorry for other people who have been smeared, such as Dr Sue Page, a former State and Federal President of the Rural Doctors Association. She has directly and indirectly saved hundred of lives, is enormously respected in our community and, without question, has achieved more during her five minutes involvement in public life than the person who smeared her has achieved in a lifetime. I feel sorry for people such as Gary Punch, who was attacked in Parliament for being a wife beater. I feel sorry for people such as Sandra Nori, a former Minister who retired at the election, whom the Hon. Amanda Fazio accused of being a non-performer. The list is endless.
I feel sorry for all the colleagues on the Hon. Amanda Fazio's little list who needed to be removed from Parliament. Most of them have gone now, but there is a pattern of smear, innuendo and dealing in dirt. Each time we have to listen to the Hon. Amanda Fazio read another dirt-casting motion in the House or make disparaging remarks in debate I urge honourable members to bear in mind where it comes from and what the record shows. We are unable to debate the real issues and difficulties confronting the people of this State because the Hon. Amanda Fazio has used her opportunity to debate private members' business to smear the Leader of The Nationals, a fine man who works hard and does his best for the children of this State.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank most honourable members who contributed to this debate, in particular those who spoke about this motion. Even though I did not agree with everything that they said it was quite heartening to see an underlying commitment of sorts from everybody who spoke to supporting public education. I would like to make some specific comments on the contributions made by honourable members. The Hon. Robyn Parker seemed to be able to do very little apart from continuing to talk down public school education in New South Wales by highlighting maintenance backlogs and alleged violence at schools. At the same time she lamented the fact that enrolments were dropping in public education. No wonder when Opposition members spend their time talking down and denigrating the public education system in New South Wales.
The Hon. Robyn Parker made no comment and expressed no concern about the impact of the disproportionate Commonwealth funding to public schools verses private schools. Once again she attacked the Teachers Federation and said that we needed more school counsellors in New South Wales, but she made no comment about the fact that the only contribution the Federal Government made was to give schools chaplains. The Hon. Trevor Khan talked about the retention rates of Aboriginal students verses non-Aboriginal students. He spoke about Aboriginal performance rates but he did not talk about the social and economic disadvantages being faced by Aboriginal communities, the fact that many Aboriginal students do not have anywhere to do their homework, and the fact that there are very few employment prospects for young Aboriginal people in remote and rural areas of New South Wales.
It is little wonder that those kids do not see any point in going to school and that they might not feel welcome when any attempt to show a balanced side to Australian history is denigrated by the Opposition's spokesperson on education. Andrew Stoner said that there is too much of black armband history in schools in New South Wales, so it is a contradiction for one of his members to display concern in this House for Aboriginal children at schools. I think the Hon. Trevor Khan should think about that and perhaps talk to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Stoner, who is also the shadow Minister for education. He should talk to him about making the school system much more friendly for Aboriginal children, which might contribute towards increasing retention rates. In general the issue was pretty much a red herring. He said that this motion was designed to cover up State inadequacies. It is not; it is to highlight the excellent curriculum we have in New South Wales that teaches tolerance and harmony in schools.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that Andrew Stoner was reflecting on the views of parents who have perceptions about some aspects of the education system. My response to that would be to say that some parents have perceptions about a lot of issues that are generally not acceptable in the community. I do not think we should be too swayed by what people tell us as members of Parliament. It is responsible for members of Parliament to filter the information that they are given and come up with a balanced view rather than just uncritically regurgitate it to people. We have a responsibility to take on board the views that we are given by people in the community, but not to accept views that would be detrimental to other sections of the community.

I think that the tide has turned in private verses public school enrolment. That brings me to the outrageous contribution of the Hon. Melinda Pavey, who somehow tried to claim that the Brogden-Souris Opposition was responsible for the turnaround in enrolment trends in schools in New South Wales. I think that was one of the better examples of drawing a long-bow that I have seen in some time, but it was completely unsubstantiated by fact, statistics or anything else. However, I give the Hon. Melinda Pavey five stars for trying. She said that political correctness policies are contrary to parent beliefs and she thinks that is an issue. A lot of things that are now considered mainstream and generally acceptable in the community were regarded as politically correct a little while ago—things such as equal opportunities for women, not having any racism in schools, not segregating people with different religions or whatever else in the school system. Those things used to be politically correct.

Community and education policies and community attitudes are continually evolving and we must take that into account. I do not concur with her statement that parents have lost confidence in public education. I think that was another cheap shot. From her comments I wonder whether she intends to send her child to a State school from kindergarten to year 2. Ms Sylvia Hale's contribution was typical. She wanted to condemn not only Andrew Stoner but also the State Government, which is the norm. I will say no more about her contribution. I refer now to the contribution of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. When I first spoke in debate on this motion she continually interjected and seemed to be of the belief that if we believed it was appropriate to teach the Aboriginal viewpoint of Australian history in schools somehow that automatically meant we did not want to celebrate Australia Day, that we wanted it changed and renamed invasion day. That is typical of the logic we have had from this member.

I think her contribution to the debate shows appalling judgment. Her multiple-choice test, probably one of the worst examples of mud-slinging that I have seen in this House, is typical of the crazy contributions from this person. She did not address in any way, shape or form the serious issue that is in front of us. She showed again that she is very thin-skinned. She is an example of a shadow Minister in the current Opposition which demonstrates yet again why it is clearly unfit to govern and why it was rejected so resoundingly by the people of New South Wales at the State election held in March.
I want to examine the comments and the values of the judgment of the person we are talking about. The shadow Minister for Education and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that he is unfit to hold such a responsible position as shadow Minister for Education. He has demonstrated exceedingly poor judgements for many years, not just since entering Parliament. One case in point is his behaviour while manager of the social security office in Mount Isa. He tried to introduce compulsory prayer meetings every morning for all staff. There is nothing wrong with prayer meetings, but not compulsory prayer meetings for everyone, and certainly not when they are employed in the public sector. He did not just want to hold a prayer meeting for those staff that wanted to attend; he wanted compulsory prayer meetings for public servants.
That ridiculous act did not take long to reach the ears of senior management, who quickly had to relieve Andrew Stoner of his position. He was shuffled off to undertake years of study leave until he finally took the hint and left. He eventually turned up in New South Wales and joined The Nationals, where he continues to demonstrate his lack of commonsense, lack of good judgment and his total unsuitability to be shadow Minister for Education. I hark back to the comments made by the Minister for Education and Training in response to Andrew Stoner's original comments: that they demonstrated clearly why we would not let someone from The Nationals interfere in the curriculum development of New South Wales schools.
The public education system in New South Wales is an excellent system. We could do with more money but we do not even have an agreement from the Commonwealth Government to have a capital works program. The Commonwealth Government has its own funding program, which does not mesh with the State Government's capital works programs in schools. The Commonwealth Government is throwing money around. It is pork barrelling with money that was dudded from the GST distribution to New South Wales. We have a system that is massively overfunding elite private schools and massively underfunding the public education system.
Running parallel with that we have these capital grants programs under which the Commonwealth Government is throwing money around in an uncoordinated fashion. Those who listened carefully to the debate, who have a genuine interest in public education and in ensuring that the children who come out of the public education system have the capacity to be tolerant and to respect others in the community, will say that the motion I moved is quite reasonable and that they will support it. I urge all honourable members to support public education. I urge them to demonstrate that by supporting my motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.