Education Amendment Bill 2009

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [11.22 a.m.]: Like a number of Opposition members I do not oppose the Education Amendment Bill 2009 but I express a number of reservations about it. In this modern era it is important for our children to have as much education as is available to them. Keeping them at school for one more year might afford them that opportunity. We all know about the relationship between the lack of education and crime, in particular, for boys.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Ms PRU GOWARD: I appreciate the importance of ensuring that young women have a decent education and decent access to training, and I appreciate the correlation between those with a year 11 education or less and higher birth rates. I understand the correlation between boys with a year 11 education or less and crime rates. In principle, there is no reason for anyone to object to the raising of the school-leaving age. However, this falls down in the provision of education facilities, in particular, alternative facilities. Today young people increasingly have options—options such as welfare support. If children aged 15 are unable to fit in at home they are now eligible for youth allowances that enable them to live away from home.

Children now live in an era where they have a range of options other than attending school and living at home with their mother and father. It is important for the State Government to ensure that it provides this group of young people with options. If it does not do so it will condemn our schools to being reformatories. If we do not provide options and we do not recognise that those children aged 15 who want to leave school because they are not happy at school, they are not coping at school, and they find school to be irrelevant to their interests, will be difficult to manage for a further compulsory year at school unless they are provided with alternatives.

The Government is committed to increasing resources for education and it recognises that there will be additional strains on schools. However, it goes further than that. We are now talking about young people approaching adulthood who cannot be constrained just by having an increased number of teachers. As I said earlier, they need options—different ways of being taught and different skills. The TAFE system is on its knees. It never seems to have enough money and it cannot provide courses for the kids who want them. Employers cannot afford to take on apprentices, in particular as a result of the economic times in which we find ourselves today.

If we do not help out the TAFE sector those kids for whom school is already irrelevant will have no options. I am sure that all members are aware of where that would lead. These resourcing issues are not just about creating a few more teaching positions and building a few more classrooms; they are about addressing options for children between the ages of 15 and 16. If children who have reached the age of 15 want to leave school, quite a lot has been missing in the years leading up to that point. We know, for example, that there is a high rate of learning disability amongst people who leave school before year 11, for the obvious reason that they cannot read. School and learning have little relevance to them and they struggle daily with confronting their failure.

If we force children to remain at school for an extra year we should provide them with more teachers. The Government must accept that it has to put a lot more resourcing into early intervention for children with learning disabilities, in particular dyslexia and in particular boys. By the time those children reach the age of 15 schooling will be relevant and they will have a desire to stay and learn. They do not necessarily want to do honours in English but they must be able to read textbooks and skills training journals. The concept of reading and being able to write fluently should not be one with which they struggle every day. Another year at school does not mean another year's worth of schoolteachers; it means a creative and resource-intensive alternative pathway, perhaps through TAFE.

We should put a lot more resources into the school system. We also require a lot more resourcing for the early years, in particular, for those children with learning difficulties who will leave school at 15 or stay for an additional year and be a disruptive influence or be unhappy people who will get no more out of it. The Education Amendment Bill 2009 will be a hollow piece of legislation if it is not supported by the allocation of additional resources for teenagers and more resources for early childhood.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.28 a.m.]: I speak in debate on the Education Amendment Bill 2009 and echo the comments made by many Opposition members relating to this bill—all comments with which I agree. It is time to raise the minimum school-leaving age for students if they have completed year 10 but have not reached the age of 17 years. Year 10 can be completed in a number of ways—at a public school or a private school, through the Catholic education system, or by being registered for home schooling. Several families in the Burrinjuck electorate have chosen the home-schooling option, which has produced some amazingly talented and well-presented young men and women. A child will have completed year 10 through homeschooling when he or she is registered to do so under the Education Act, and meets the conditions on which his or her registration is granted. Recognition also will be given to the achievements of children who have completed the equivalent of year 10 outside New South Wales.

Opposition members have mentioned the value of the TAFE system—the old tech system in New South Wales. As a former TAFE teacher I can espouse the wonderful virtues of the New South Wales TAFE system. For several years I taught at Queanbeyan and Yass TAFE colleges in labour market programs. In the late 1980s and early 1990s Joint Secondary Schools TAFE courses covered literacy and numeracy, business skills and various other courses as required. The different people utilising the TAFE system never cease to amaze me. One of my first classes at Queanbeyan TAFE involved teaching office skills to people who were deemed unemployable to help them get a job as a receptionist or other position in an office. I taught typing, business English and that sort of thing.

The class was a mixture of boys and girls aged from 14 years to 28 years. The two 14-year-old girls had children and the 28-year-old was a grandmother—you can see where I am coming from. In Australia many girls continue to become pregnant at an early age. I am afraid that will not change because it is part of the Australian life. Despite all our messages to young girls about completing their education and thinking seriously about entering into relationships—pursuing constructive and practical relationships into the future in a loving way and acting as responsible parents by raising children as part of a stable family—there will always be many who, for one reason or another, end up becoming pregnant and giving birth. We must make sure that our system fully supports those young girls.

I agree that the school-leaving age should be increased and that all boys and girls should finish year 10 at least. I also fully support students remaining within the education system, going on to some form of apprenticeship or having meaningful employment for a minimum of 25 hours per week until they reach 17 years of age. However, those young girls to whom I have just referred will always find that task particularly difficult. Many of them come from country communities and have to travel a distance to attend TAFE. Some of them are too young to get their drivers licence and public transport is not necessarily available, and the cost of courses can be quite significant. The tyranny of distance because TAFE colleges are located in other towns and the availability of subjects play a vital role in ensuring these girls can obtain access to various courses.

As the member for Goulburn quite rightly pointed out, many young men also struggle, particularly with literacy. I have around 37 nieces and nephews—my husband's family is rather large. Many of the boys are now aged in their thirties. I have watched them grow up; they have really struggled, particularly with literacy. They left school early because they wanted to but, fortunately, they obtained apprenticeships and other forms of employment after a lot of hard work. Apprenticeships are particularly difficult to find, especially as we face pretty tough financial situations because businesses are struggling to keep afloat and employ more people. The member for Goulburn also mentioned the needs of young men, particularly those with a practical mindset. I am trying not to be sexist; I am just speaking from my knowledge of the differences between boys and girls. Boys tend to be much more hands on and more practical, particularly with things like motor mechanics.

I recall that the motor mechanics course conducted at Goulburn TAFE had several units withdrawn—Goulburn was formerly in the Burrinjuck electorate. That decision proved dreadful for Goulburn because suddenly all those young men had to drive to Wollongong to finish the course modules. Travelling that extra distance must have been tough on them. It could be particularly tough now that it is much harder to get a drivers licence or a motorbike licence. The roads are dangerous without having to travel great distances, particularly when many of these guys undertake this course at night by trying to combine it with apprenticeships. Every time the Government removes modules and courses, particularly from country TAFE colleges, it has to think about the impact on students.

I implore the Government to think seriously about the impact on the lives of those students before removing more TAFE courses. Why not consult with the students? It might be some bureaucrat who just looks at the numbers on a page in his office, wherever the Department of Education and Training is in Bridge Street, and says, "Oh, look, there's only a dozen people doing this motor mechanics course. Let's wind it up." No thought appears to be given to the impact on the lives of those 12 people or where cutting the course will take them. I also raise the need for environmental management courses and more practical courses within our TAFE network to provide those without an academic mindset or desire to continue with academia the ability to pursue more practical interests. Some wonderful environmental management courses in forestry are available. Tumut TAFE college has a brilliant forestry course, obviously because Tumut is a softwood plantation area. I compliment the people involved with that course at Tumut TAFE because they are turning out students second to none. However, more of that could be done, particularly in rural TAFE colleges.

At this point I pay tribute to all the schools in my electorate, from Cowra to Grenfell, from Collector to Crookwell and Cootamundra—right across the board. We have an amazing school network in the Burrinjuck electorate. I give full credit to all the principals, teachers, and the parents and citizens associations. In country areas parents and citizens associations work harder than anywhere else because they are not given the same levels of funding and do not have the same access to sporting venues and so on as their metropolitan cousins. I give full credit to all those teachers who are willing to stay in the public education system, but also to those in the Catholic education system and, obviously, to the students and to the parents and carers who support them.

This bill will impact on some parents and students who have been looking forward to leaving school at an early age. The member for Mount Druitt said he left school at age 15; many people in that bygone era did the same. We must remember that people are living a lot longer now. The average age expectancy for men and women has increased by something in the order of 20 years since the 1960s. We need to be better educated. We need to ensure that our young students have a positive mindset and do not just go through the basic level of education and then go on the dole. There can be no more positive message for a young person than to say, "You are going to get a job or you are going to continue with your training in some shape or form. You are not going to go on the dole." That is a message that I have endeavoured to share with students in the Burrinjuck electorate. It is a message that was instilled in me at a very young age by my grandmother at Vale View.

I remember my grandmother complaining vehemently about the union movement's strike action. At this moment I can hear the protests of corrective services officers outside Parliament House. It has been difficult to speak in the Chamber because of the noise. My grandmother was very strongly opposed to strikes of any form and very strongly opposed to people not fulfilling their obligations to an employer. Employees must understand that they are answerable to their employer and if they do not like that, they can do something else. I have never been on the dole, and obviously I would not rely on social security. That is my mantra and that is my attitude. I would do anything else before I went down that path. We need to make sure that students in the future develop a very positive attitude to education and employment.

I point out to the Government that apprenticeships are becoming harder and harder to get. The State needs apprenticeships, particularly country towns. Anything that the Government can do to stimulate and encourage apprenticeships will never be enough because we will always need more. The Government must ensure that TAFE colleges provide relevant courses that encourage young people to enrol. Young girls who give birth at an early age must be encouraged and supported, and young men who wish to pursue more practical activities also should be supported. I reiterate that the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr CRAIG BAUMANN (Port Stephens) [11.41 a.m.]: I support the Education Amendment Bill 2009 because it goes to the heart of a cause about which I am very passionate, the Beacon Foundation's No Dole or Real Futures Program. I refer members to my predecessor's contributions in this place. John Bartlett presented four separate private members' statements about this program. He was Chairman of the Tomaree Real Futures Program and remained chairman until his death last year. After John's death, I assumed that office. I quote from a statement John Bartlett made in this place on 16 September 2003 when he advised the House of the inaugural charter signing ceremony at the Tomaree Education Centre:

At the ceremony year 10 students signed a charter in front of many distinguished visitors. The charter said that by 31 March next year they will be back at school, doing a TAFE course, doing a further education course or working.

The people who came to the charter signing said that, for their part, they would endeavour to ensure that people leaving school would go into a small business or into a job. The community made a commitment to get young people in year 10 to commit themselves to a future that did not involve the dole. This program is the initiative of the Beacon Foundation. Tomaree High School is one of approximately 10 schools in Australia now being funded, I believe to the tune of $20,000, to ensure that the things the community is promising come together. The project is co-hosted by the Tomaree High School, the Beacon Foundation, the Port Stephens Council and the Tomaree Work Placement Committee. These groups have come together to say to the kids, "We want you to change the culture. Do not look at the dole as a way of living your life in the future because it is not going to give you the income and it is not going to create the wealth that will give you a good standard of living. We want you to commit yourself and be involved in further education or work."

They are John's words on a subject about which he was very passionate. I believe it is impossible to talk about this bill without acknowledging the fabulous work of the Beacon Foundation. For more than a decade it has been encouraging school students to agree voluntarily to what the Government is now proposing to make law. The mission statement of the Beacon Foundation is:

the conscious and public commitment of students to pursue further education, training or employment coupled with active support and involvement from local businesses and a focus on individual career planning have proved key ingredients in assisting young people make a positive transition from their school years.

The Beacon Foundation began in Tasmania in the 1990s in response to the rapidly rising number of students dropping out of school and youth unemployment. At that stage the foundation's primary aim was to discourage as much as possible young people from going on the dole. At that time, a quarter of Australian school students were from households that relied on welfare. The foundation wanted to break that trend. I believe that for too long young people have needed greater encouragement, legislated or otherwise, to stay in school, or in training, or in employment in their younger years to ensure a better future for them and even their future families. For some, the temptation simply to get the dole and live off the system is too great—and perhaps too easy.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data revealed that around one in four, or almost 25 per cent, of Australians aged between 15 and 19 years was looking for full-time work in February this year. That should be compared with 15 per cent at the same time last year. Economic crisis or no economic crisis, that is a dramatic increase. Late last month, as the Chairman of the Tomaree Real Futures Program, I witnessed year 10 students at Tomaree High School and St Philips Christian School sign the Real Futures Charter, thereby formally committing to being in education, employment or training on 31 March 2010. I told the students that what they were doing was wise, brave and admirable because it was so important that it could potentially become the law.

However, I will raise the issue of funding for this legislation as a major concern. As Chairman of the Tomaree Real Futures Program, I have witnessed firsthand, like John before me, how this not-for-profit organisation has struggled to make ends meet to support the able and willing students who are taking part in the program. Its success requires the dedication of teachers as well as the support, financial and otherwise, to make the program a success. Without the hard work and dedication of local sponsors and school staff, I know the success of the foundation would not be what it is today. The Premier has acknowledged that the legislation will result in an additional 8,900 students staying in schools each year. Given this Labor Government's investment in schools in this State, that is a frightening thought. How will an already struggling education system cope?

The Government must have the funding and the resources to back up this legislation. There is no point raising the legal age, forcing students to stay in school or training or education if there is not adequate education, training and employment opportunities for them. But what is the status of schools that are already practising this legislation under the Real Futures Program? The Premier said that the new laws will require an extra $98 million for additional staffing at schools and $25 million in additional classrooms and associated infrastructure. If the Premier acknowledges publicly that keeping students in school or education or training is a costly venture, what funding support will he offer to schools such as Tomaree High School that are currently struggling financially to do just that?

I encourage the Premier to financially support the New South Wales Real Futures or No Dole schemes that are currently running. If one assumes that there are approximately 400 government secondary schools in the State, one realises that the implementation of this bill will cost approximately $250,000 per school. Unfortunately, as is so common with this Labor Government, many promises are made without the funding to support them. However, I hope that with the education and futures of thousands of young people at stake, the Labor Government will step up and get this one right. If those funding and resources are provided, I will give my support to the Education Amendment Bill 2009.

Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [11.47 a.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Education Amendment Bill 2009, which will amend the Education Act 1990. However, I will discuss matters that should be canvassed. The object of the bill is:

to change the current school leaving age of 15 years by requiring children:

(a) to complete Year 10 of secondary education (unless they have reached the age of 17 years), and

(b) if they have completed Year 10 but have not reached the age of 17 years:

(i) to continue with their school education, or

(ii) to participate on a full-time basis in approved education or training or, if they have reached the age of 15 years, in paid work.

Participation in approved education or training includes an apprenticeship, a TAFE or other vocational course or a university course.

Few people can deny the propositions that it is essential for our young people to receive the best possible education available and that they should be given every opportunity to achieve their full potential. The legislation stipulates that students cannot leave school until they reach the age of 17 unless, not having reached the age of 17 years, they have completed year 10, and continue with their school education or participate full time in approved education or training. Essentially, it means that young people could achieve year 10 status at the age 15 or 16, as I understand the current situation. Then they have literally 12 months in which they must either seek approved employment or an apprenticeship, or stay at school. That concerns me to some extent because many young people will never aspire to attend university and they have no real desire to do the Higher School Certificate.

At a time when our nation is looking for people with trade qualifications—it is universally accepted that there is a shortage of tradespeople—we should do everything in our power to encourage young people to get involved in a trade. I am concerned, and I have been concerned for some years, that in many cases tradesmen do not get recognition for their skills and the jobs they do. Often people underestimate the abilities of tradesmen. For example, I refer to the motor industry. It is common knowledge that the cars of the current era are much more complicated than those made in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even the early 1980s. They are complex because at the end of the day the modern motor car is basically evolved around a computer, and if the computer is not functioning the car simply will not go.

Gone are the days when someone could pull out the coil, the spark plug and the distributor cap and check the spark and the plugs, give it a turn and the car would go. These days the average amateur enthusiast, on buying a new car, will lift the bonnet and quickly shut it because he is frightened by what he may have seen. Today's cars are immeasurably complex. Many young people are trade bound, whether it be in the motor industry, the building industry or any other industry in which there is a solid apprenticeship structure and opportunities to establish a successful career. Let us be realistic: many tradespeople—and rightly so because of the tasks they fulfil—end up doing much better than those who have finished the Higher School Certificate, gone to university and got a degree, and then suddenly find themselves, at the age of 21 or 22, looking for a job although they have limited practical experience and qualifications. They are thrown into an employment market that is difficult at present.

I have absolutely no problem with young people being compelled to complete year 10 or at least sit the exam. We as a community should recognise that many young people simply are not earmarked to be academics or to undertake tertiary education because they have neither the desire nor the interest in undertaking a tertiary education course. Many of them simply want to get—to use a great Australian expression—on the tools and become meaningful members of the Australian workforce. Members will note that the recent Federal Government stimulus package devoted considerable funds, via the New South Wales Government—I acknowledge the presence of my friend the Minister for Housing in the Chamber today—to build housing in New South Wales for people presently on the public housing waiting list and those who are in urgent need of government-assisted housing. That is a commendable and worthwhile project.

However, the Minister would be the first to agree that we needs tradesmen. They are commonly called "tradies"—I guess that is the buzzword at the moment—but I keep referring to them as tradespeople. I suppose the expression "tradesman" is not entirely appropriate these days because so many girls are involved in the building industry, which is commendable. So, for the sake of clarity and to avoid confusion, I will refer to them as tradies. We need tradies to build houses, and no doubt we have a shortage of tradies. So let us aim for year 10. Let us aim to encourage young people to sit their School Certificate in year 10. The legislation provides that young people under the age of 17 do not have to continue at school, although they may have achieved their School Certificate, if they seek employment or undertake an approved educational training course, including apprenticeships and TAFE and other vocational courses or a university course.

There are two other issues. In my particular area of Baulkham Hills the lack of public transport is a big problem. Often young people have difficulty accessing TAFE because there is no cross-regional transport. The Minister would be the first to agree that public transport is a problem generally in western Sydney so often it is difficult for young people to access a TAFE college or employment opportunities. When the Government introduces legislation such as this it must also provide a support network and transport must be available to enable young people to access TAFE facilities to undertake an apprenticeship course or other vocational course, or even a university course. Everyone knows that young people who have completed year 10 can become bored. Often they present social difficulties. A young person can feel isolated if most of the kids in their class are hell-bent on attending university to become lawyers, doctors, accountants, et cetera, which is wonderful. We do not want to encourage a small group of kids to sit in the back of the classroom saying, "Look, I've done year 10. I don't want to go to school any more", "I can't get an apprenticeship", or "I can't get the job I'm interested in because it's 15 or 20 kilometres from home." Those are the kinds of distances we are talking about in western Sydney.

[Interruption]

The situation in country areas is completely different in terms of distances; the distances I mentioned are negligible in country areas. We must provide opportunities for young people to seek employment, an apprenticeship or a TAFE qualification. That is particularly necessary in western Sydney, where people have no public transport other than buses. There is no rail network. The Government promised to build a rail network, which was to be completed by 2010. However, not one sod of earth has been turned to date. The Government also promised to provide a metro by 2010. That promise lasted seven months. Young people who live in Baulkham Hills are captives of the bus network. Although the Government owns the bus network there is a shortage of buses. Although we support this legislation, we say to the Government, "Please, for the sake of young Australians and of our community, give these young people a chance to get an apprenticeship, go to TAFE and complete their education." Young people want to become worthwhile members of the community, whether they be tradesmen in the building industry or the motor industry.

They need meaningful jobs in which they can earn good money and become good Australians. The community is screaming out for them. Yes, introduce legislation like this but first make sure that all possible facilities are available to enable it to work so we do not end up with a few kids sitting at the back of the classroom or running amok because they do not want to be at school, are captives, and are bored witless. If that happens, the Government should look again at the legislation very carefully and realise that something has gone wrong. The Government has the power to make this legislation work. The Opposition supports the legislation and wants it to work. The Opposition wants the Government to give young people the support, networks and opportunities they need so that this legislation will be implemented in the way I believe the Government wants it to be implemented. Do not walk away from it.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.01 p.m.]: I support the Education Amendment Bill 2009. The overview is to change the current school leaving age of 15 years by requiring children:

(a) to complete Year 10 of secondary education (unless they have reached the age of 17 years), and

(b) if they have completed Year 10 but have not reached the age of 17 years:

(i) to continue with their school education, or

(ii) to participate on a full-time basis in approved education or training or, if they have reached the age of 15 years, in paid work. Participation in approved education or training includes an apprenticeship, a TAFE or other vocational course or a university course.

This is truly a bill for the times and one that recognises the importance of formal education and achieving that end goal—that is, a year 10 certificate. I concur with what the member for Baulkham Hills said, which reminded me that when I left school at 16 with a year 10 School Certificate I became an apprentice motor mechanic. The member for Baulkham Hills is right in saying that the expertise needed for repair work these days compared with the late 1970s and early 1980s has come such a long way. When I was an apprentice I noticed that the children who left school at the permitted age of 15 without a School Certificate got employment in motor repair industry garages and workshops, not as apprentices but as assistants with the aim of one day becoming an apprentice. They invariably would miss out on an apprenticeship when they competed against people who had attained the formal qualification of a School Certificate.

The proprietor of a garage or workshop or dealership, such as where I worked, had to compare applicants who had the School Certificate with applicants who had no formal qualifications. Invariably the person with the formal qualification got the job, which greatly disadvantaged those people who would otherwise have become good motor mechanics or tradesmen. That was my personal observation a long time ago. Before young people go out into the real world it is ultra-important for them to attain a qualification to show they have reached a level of competence and analytical ability to cope with an apprenticeship, for example. In my view this bill is focused on apprentices. TAFE was mentioned by the member for Baulkham Hills. TAFE has 500,000 students, 42,000 of whom are apprentices. TAFE is an enormous institution with a budget of approximately $1.73 billion.

For six years in the late 1980s and early 1990s I was a TAFE teacher in western Sydney, and I have watched TAFE very closely over the past 20 years. It is an enormous institution that has adapted very well to the changing needs of industry and the community and provides an excellent education. Maitland has an excellent TAFE college that does just that. This bill is one that puts out the clear message to our youngsters at school to keep going with their schoolwork and to make sure they attain their School Certificate because that will increase their chance of obtaining a formal apprenticeship or traineeship. Employers look for that formal qualification. The motor vehicle industry is the perfect example of an industry where the skills needed to be a mechanic or technician these days involve mathematics and English skills to interpret workshop manuals and to make sure that the job is done properly. From my personal observations, I believe the bill will increase opportunities for young people when they leave school with a formal qualification. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Thomas George and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.