Sky News Australian Agenda Peter Garrett 12 August 2012

Interview with Peter Garrett Australian Agenda program, 12 August 2012

Peter van Onselen: Welcome back. You're watching Australian Agenda and we're joined now by the Schools Education Minister Peter Garrett. Mr Garrett, thanks for your company. Peter Garrett: Morning Peter. Peter van Onselen: The Olympics wrap up tomorrow. 12 years ago you quite famously had "Sorry" T-shirts that you sprung on everyone... Peter Garrett: That's right. Peter van Onselen: ...when you were playing as part of Midnight Oil. What's happened? Now you're part of a Government that is advocating everything from offshore processing in Malaysia to US troops up in Darwin. Peter Garrett:

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Peter, what a Sunday morning hit you've gone in there. Peter van Onselen: We will move on to education though. Peter Garrett: Look, I was really absolutely proud of what we did at the closing of the Olympics here in Sydney and the Olympic Games were a great success for Sydney. That was an important issue for us as a nation and it was a good thing for us to do, and I think subsequent events have showed it to be the case. Paul Kelly: Isn't the fact when it comes to the Olympics that competitive sport in schools has been on the decline? Are you concerned about that? Do you want to look at the schools system to see what can be done to put a greater emphasis back on competitive sport? Peter Garrett: Paul, we will have physical education and health coming into the national curriculum for consideration and that means that there's a common learning entitlement for all students around that curriculum. It's still a matter for schools to determine timetables about sport. But I do think many parents are concerned about the fact that kids spend so much time on computer games and there's a lot of online activity for young people and they probably want to see their schools have specific time allocated to make sure that the fitness levels that we want out of our kids are there. It is something that will be considered in terms of the national curriculum implementation. Paul Kelly: But what are your feelings about this? I mean, you are the schools Minister, I mean, what do you want to do about it? What's your response?

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Peter Garrett: Well, I think that it's very important that kids get the opportunity to exercise at school and most schools do have organised sport and activities that take place. I also think there's a real management issue within the classroom because if each time we address an issue by saying we've got to try and fit it within the classroom day then it's teachers that have got to manage that application. So of course proper physical health and education ought to be a part of the national curriculum and it will be. But it's still a matter for the states, school systems, independent schools and others to work out how they're going to implement that in the timetable available. David Crowe: But do you think it should be compulsory? Peter Garrett: No, I don't. I think that there should be the provision of appropriate opportunities for kids to have exercise of one kind or another, but I don't think we should be forcing kids out on to a sporting field if they've got other interests. But you know what, there's another - a lot of other aspects to this. One of the things is that we've now got kids who, when perhaps some of us were heading off to school we were going on a pushbike or we were walking and now kids are getting dropped at school a lot. As a society we've got kids who essentially are not doing as much activity physically as they did before. School's one place for that to be addressed but it's only one of them. Greg Sheridan: You know compulsory activity, Minister, is not necessarily a bad thing. Paul and I went to the Christian Brothers. You had play rugby league whether you were any bloody good or not. It was a bit like being in a conscript army. It meant you had to relate to fellow Australians in a way you wouldn't otherwise. Peter van Onselen:
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

That is, a conscript army a good thing necessarily? Greg Sheridan: Well, you know, a lot of societies think so. It gets you out of your comfort group if you're a nerd or a musician or something. Peter Garrett: You know, the two things I think we really would like to see more happening within the school curriculum are, from my perspective, creative activities and that means the arts and that's coming into the curriculum as well, and physical health and recreational activities too because we know that they provide the wellbeing component for students in school. But you know, we've got to marry and match and balance the requirements for a curriculum that delivers kids with the right academic qualifications and skill potential as well as them being well-rounded kids who've got good wellbeing on board as well. So look, it will be an issue for us to consider as Ministers, it will be an issue for us to look at. Paul Kelly: Okay, let's move to the Gonski report. We've got Government decisions on this coming up very soon. We know the report recommended very substantial increases in funding, in the figure of 5 billion was the benchmark mentioned in the report. Is that going to be achievable? Can you deliver 5 billion or will you have to shoot for less than that? Peter Garrett: Well Paul, the $5 billion figure was an estimate by Mr Gonski and it was based on an appropriation across the states and the Commonwealth. What we've said is that we want to deliver the opportunity for us to have a funding model which is fair and effective and sustainable. We expect the states to make a contribution and we want to do it in a way which is obviously manageable within the budget constraints that the Government has. But the long-term point here is the most important one and it's this: if
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

we want to maintain our productivity as a nation, if we want to have a high-skilled workforce then clearly education is central to that. Gonski's findings were absolutely crystal clear and they've been accepted by the majority of commentators, stakeholders and others who know this area. We do need a funding model that is effective. We do need a funding model that drives school improvement. And we'll have something more to say about it, as you know, in the coming weeks. Paul Kelly: Okay, well, I noticed that you didn't endorse the 5 billion. Peter Garrett: Well, it's always been an estimate on Mr Gonski's part and I've always said we're not going to start talking about it. We're not going to bandy figures around at this point in time. Paul Kelly: Well I mean, figures are important obviously. I assume from what you've said that the Government will end up with significantly less than 5 billion. Peter Garrett: Well again Paul, I'm not going to get drawn into a numbers game here this morning. What I can say is look at the significant commitment in education unarguable that we've made as a Government since day one. We nearly doubled spending on education federally on schools. Our commitment to actually... Peter van Onselen: Not so much in the areas that Mr Gonski's talking about. That's really part of a stimulus role, a lot of it. Peter Garrett:
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

Look, some of it was a stimulus but a significant part of it has been national partnerships on things like teacher quality, literacy and numeracy, really looking at what we need to do in terms of bringing our classrooms into the 21st century, the provision of computers in schools. I mean, there's an incredible amount happening in reform already. But an important way of making sure that that reform journey is concluded properly is to get the funding right. David Crowe: Do you accept that you cannot proceed with a reform where the states pick up 70% as they do in the current arrangements, that the Commonwealth has to come to the table with much more than a 30% share? Peter Garrett: Look, I think what I accept is this: that we will want to negotiate with the states on the basis that we've already done two things. We've already provided significant additional investment right across the school sectors and we've done it sector blind as well. We've done it in partnership with the states. I mean, I've negotiated the implementation of a national curriculum with state Education Ministers from different political persuasions as we have things like national professional qualifications for teachers and we will have to have the same kind of negotiation, depending on what we bring forward, with states then. The question of quantum, the question of shares, that is a matter for us to negotiate with the states. Greg Sheridan: Minister, let me ask you one question then about a specific issue of quality. Your Government has told us about the Asian century, how important it is. Asian languages are disappearing from Australian schools. They are in a state of freefall and collapse. You've spent all that money and yet fewer year 12 students study Indonesian now than they did in 1972 when we had the White Australia Policy. Why has your Government

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

done nothing about this and when is it going to do something about it? Or is it, in fact, not a priority for the Gillard Government? Peter Garrett: Look Greg, I don't accept that we've done nothing. I mean, you're right, we've spent over $60 million and what did we see? I mean, let's be blunt about it, we saw the decline that you've just referred to. What have we done to respond to that? Well look, there's a couple of things that are important to mention briefly. The first is we will have the Ken Henry white paper come down for our consideration. The second thing is you probably know I've convened a group of business and academic leaders to look at how we might best approach this issue in the context of the reforms that we want to drive through in education generally, and we've also provided the opportunity in languages in the national curriculum for a consideration of Asian languages and Chinese Mandarin is one of those languages that come into the curriculum in the next tranche of subjects for consideration. Peter van Onselen: It's really interesting though because if you are aware of it and if money is going in, and I don't doubt that, but people are still walking away from studying Asian languages. Why do you think that is? Peter Garrett: Well, it's an interesting question and it's one which we could discuss because from my perspective we have a lot of things in place that are there to provide opportunities for greater engagement with Asian languages and, in fact, we've made some announcements about that. I think, for example, NBN-enabled education transmission is absolutely up for us because we can get access to, say, language teachers in ways that schools might not be able to through the NBN. But the fact is that we don't have a driving culture in this country at this point in time which is saying from a parental point of view we want our kids to be in these schools learning these Asian languages. Now,
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

we believe it's very important. We'll continue to push through and look at ways of increasing that engagement. We understand how important it is. Greg Sheridan: The truth is though, Minister, that the previous program which existed was effective in increasing the number of students studying Asian languages. The Howard Government ditched that program. You've done nothing to restore it. That was an effective program. Peter Garrett: Now that's not true. We spent an extra $60 million... Greg Sheridan: Over several years. Peter Garrett: Well, on a... Greg Sheridan: ...a year. Peter Garrett: On a program that Mr Howard's Government had got rid of... Greg Sheridan: Yeah. Peter Garrett: And then when we look at the response to that program, we can see that it didn't do what it set out to achieve. I mean, no-one can argue that we don't have a commitment
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

on the basis of investing in education or spending money on programs. I mean, we spent that money. I mean, to be frank, I have to look at it as a Minister and say "Look, we need to do this better, we need to think about ways we can do that". That's why I convened a special group to look at it. That's why Ken Henry will have this issue in the midst of the white paper response, and it's why, incidentally, we know that we need to do something about education funding because it is true that our Asian neighbours are starting to outperform us educationally, particularly in areas such as mathematical literacy. David Crowe: Just on getting back to the Gonski report, can you proceed with a reform plan that has one or two states proceeding with the blueprint, or do you need them all to sign up? Does it have to be nationwide or nothing at all? Peter Garrett: We want to have a delivery of funding for education which sets the standards for school improvement nationally that's consistent with what we and the states have done up to this point in time. And bear in mind that since Mr Gonski's report was released we've had a period of intense negotiation and workshopping around various aspects of that review. That's been done with the states. In the most part I think it's been done with a great amount of goodwill and cooperation. So my expectation is we sit down with the states as equal partners, as we should, and we begin to look at ways in which we can reach agreement. David Crowe: Could you trial some of the ideas in it? In the same way the NDIS has been trialled before being rolled out, can you trial a Gonski model first? Peter Garrett:

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Well David, let's see what the Government announces in coming weeks. One thing I'd say is this: is that the work that that review did showed us two things which are important. One is that we're losing our competitive edge in terms of our best capacity students and the second is we've got a high equity gap with kids in low SEC schools. Now can we can afford neither of those things to continue. Long-term productivity as a nation is dependent on the high skills that come out of kids concluding school, finishing school and doing well, and internally for us to be able to get the best capacity out of our populations. These kids - I mean, we have kids who are finishing school somewhere between two and three years behind kids from better-off school environments. Paul Kelly: If we just go to this question of the states again, how confident are you that all the states are going to come on board for your Gonski vision? Peter Garrett: Well, you know, Premier O'Farrell and the NSW Government have made positive remarks about the Gonski review and that work. We're sitting in a ministerial council and I was able to brief Ministers only two weeks ago, Paul. Now some states are sort of holding their cards close to their chest and that's my expectation in this political environment. Paul Kelly: What happens if some states hold out and don't come on board? Peter Garrett: Well again, it's a hypothetical. Let's just look at what states are missing out on if they don't recognise the opportunity to lift school improvement nationwide. It's an investment for them. It's an investment for their Premiers and their First Ministers and it's something that I suspect all of their constituents want to see happen.
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

Peter van Onselen: But Minister, it is a hypothetical question but you must be planning for it because you know that states, like in particular say Western Australia like to do their own thing. You must be planning what you will do going forward if you can't get all the states on board. Peter Garrett: Well you know, what I can say is that we have had good, constructive discussions and negotiations up to this point in time around some of those issues which we knew needed to be worked on. People have been impatient for this reform. I understand that. But those of us sitting here and some people watching know that the road to hell on education reform has been littered with a variety of intentions. Our intentions are good on this but we do want to make sure that what we bring forward is something which can work, both in the national interests and which we can negotiate with states to make sure that we have school improvement happening everywhere. Peter van Onselen: But putting politics to one side just for a moment, do you at least feel a little bit sorry for state treasurers who, vertical fiscal imbalance, they rely on regressive taxation? Julia Gillard's hitting them over the head about electricity price rises vis-a-vis getting dividends from that, at the same time as asking them to pay a lot more for the NDIS and presumably through Gonski. I mean, they're pretty wedged, aren't they? Peter Garrett: Well, the states have been the recipients of a really considerable amount of support and investment from us on education, and that's something which I think they recognise and understand. Additionally, they have their own systems to work through. And I think what we need to do is make sure as a country that we focus on investing on the things that we know can work, and that has to happen through state education
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

systems because they're running the govy schools in the states. So we have a mutual shared interest in doing that. I think that the ultimate goal for us as a country is to be able to succeed successfully in this century. We can't do that unless we're getting education right and that means getting the model right. David Crowe: Minister, the 5 billion figure in the Gonski report was in 2009 dollars so is it right to think of that reform plan as effectively 6.5 billion now in today's dollars? Peter Garrett: Look David, I've seen those figures around and I know we're going to keep on batting this one across the table, and I did a bit of table tennis at ANU, Greg, as you probably know years ago. The key here for us is to make sure that we take the opportunity that's in front of us. I mean, this was a very good important piece of work. It's one which laid out very clearly what we need to do on education and it was consistent in part with what we'd already started. I mean, we've already started the focus on things like teacher quality. We're already spending over half a billion dollars, for example, in areas of low socio-economic schools. We're the ones that brought the computers into the classroom. We're the ones that have brought the national curriculum into play. We're the ones that have brought My School in so... Peter van Onselen: I don't think people doubt the Labor Party's commitment to these sort of value issues but what I think that they wonder about is the funding side of it. I mean, the NDIS, we still don't have long-term funding discussions. You're refusing to talk to us about how you're going to fund the Gonski report. People don't doubt your passion. I think what they doubt is your ability to find the numbers for it. Peter Garrett:

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Yeah but you know, Peter, let's look at where this Government sits in terms of managing the economy. I mean, we've successfully managed the economy. We're a western country that isn't in recession. We've had jobs added in the last week in this country. We've had a carbon tax scare campaign from Tony Abbott that's falling flat on its face. And we are an economy which is in a stable position, where our growth prospects are good and where we've brought the... Peter van Onselen: So then let's talk about funding. How much money have you been able to twist out of Penny Wong and Wayne Swan? Peter Garrett: And I'm not going to start telling you about my private conversations with Penny Wong and Wayne here on telly. David Crowe: Minister, what about the transition timetable then? Because it is such a major reform requiring so much money, how long do you think the transition time frame needs to be? Does it need to be four years, does it need to be eight years? Peter Garrett: Look, it's a good question and I think the key to this, there's two parts to this which are important. One is when we make our announcement to know that we've done all of the work that we had to do so that the model as proposed is one which can work. The second thing in, is to work out how to most effectively deliver and negotiate that. If that involves consideration of transition, I'm open to that. David Crowe: So eight years would be okay?

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Peter Garrett: No, I'm not responding to an eight-year transition. Let's just wait and see what we announce. Paul Kelly: So if we can just go to the politics of this. The Shadow Minister Christopher Pyne has made it pretty clear that the Coalition will be opposing your Gonski package. What are we going to see here? Are we going to see another sort of carbon tax brawl? What's your view as to how this is going to play out and how important will this be as a political issue at the next election? Peter Garrett: Well Paul, I think, and I really do genuinely believe this, that the population, our voters, Mr Abbott's voters, expect us to reach agreement about an education system that best serves the purposes of all students. And I think that Christopher Pyne's response to the Gonski review was extraordinary. He dismissed it out of hand and he's now saying effectively that he'll repeal any reform which we are able to secure and execute. That is an extraordinary position. Greg Sheridan: Minister... Peter Garrett: Well, hang on a minute Greg. That's an extraordinary position for a Shadow Minister. I mean, he hasn't seen what we've put forward yet and he's already rejected it. Greg Sheridan: Minister... Peter Garrett:
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

How extraordinary is that? Paul Kelly: So do you think this will be a front-line election issue? Peter Garrett: Well, I think it's an absolutely central issue for us as a Government, it's right at the heart of Labor values and it's right at the heart of our future prospects as a nation, and I do believe if we are able to secure agreement with the states on a model which we think is going to best serve the interests of all Australian students, then of course it will be a part of an election debate. Peter van Onselen: And if you're not though - if you're not? Peter Garrett: Well, that's my intention, is for us to - well, we'll release what we have to release, you'll have an opportunity to see what we've detailed in terms of our response, the states will have an opportunity to respond, as will the independent schools sector, and we'll go on from there. Greg Sheridan: But Minister, isn't there a broader context? You just sketched Australia's competitive economic performance. The truth is the whole western world is in a crisis of entitlements, Government spending and Government debt. We've also had the Grattan Institute show us that increased spending in education has not got us better results. Surely the challenge for contemporary social democracy is not just to respond to every problem with a great big new bucket of money, but to use the enormous amount of money we're already spending on education to get better results?

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Peter Garrett: Well, I don't think anyone can say that if we didn't properly invest in the things that we know make a difference in terms of improving education, that that wouldn't be a better thing for us to do. And that's the bottom line here. We have got enough evidence and advice in front of us as a country, and I have as a Minister, to know what will improve the education performance of our students, and that's what we need to do. That's the most important challenge. If we are going to provide the opportunity, particularly once we see the mining boom roll through its various stages and so-and-so, if we are going to be innovators, if we are going to be able to create and compete successfully in the region that we occupy, our kids need to be performing better. And the way to do that is invest in the things that will help them do that. David Crowe: So more money is absolutely essential. Peter Garrett: There's no question that you will require additional investment. I mean, I think that that is understood. The question of the quantum obviously is a matter for negotiation and for the Government to determine. Paul Kelly: I'd like to ask you about another point that Christopher Pyne has raised in talking about his own reform agenda. Essentially what he's saying is he's saying that government schools have got to start to look more like and function more like non-government schools. And he's looked at the model in Western Australia and said that he would like to broaden this on a national basis. What's your response to that? Peter Garrett: Paul, Pyne's credibility in the education domain is low for the - no, I want to make this point.
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

Paul Kelly: But what's your response to the idea and the proposal? Peter Garrett: I'll come to that in a second. I mean, he's got $2.8 billion worth of cuts on the table in relation to education. So I'm not sure how he's going to do anything in terms of an agenda that he might have. He has cherrypicked one aspect of a reform that the Commonwealth, along with the states, believes is a positive one and that's greater school autonomy. So to that extent I've got no argument with him coming along and saying "Oh, by the way, I think this is a good idea" because it's an idea that's been in place previously and it's one which we are supporting with our investment. Christopher Pyne's got a problem though with education and that is he wants to take nearly $3 billion out of the budget and school autonomy measures. The amount of money that we're providing for schools, which is a considerable amount of money, it's over $400 million over the next six or seven years, is money that's needed to enable those schools to deliver that autonomy. But there's a more important point here and it's this: Pyne has also said he doesn't want to change the way in which we fund schools. That is appalling and the reason for that is that we've got a very eminent review that showed us that the way in which we fund schools now is illogical, it's not transparent, and it's not fair. It's not acceptable for us to be in receipt of that information from an expert review and not act on it. He's prepared to dismiss it out of hand. I don't take him seriously on this issue. Peter van Onselen: A major point of difference seems to be over class sizes. Christopher Pyne and the Opposition aren't as concerned as you are about class sizes. Peter Garrett:

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

Well, he's ticking class sizes because it's one of those sort of, you know, gets-in-the-paper-easily type issues. Peter van Onselen: But he's taking the counter-intuitive position. He's saying "We don't need to reduce them". Peter Garrett: Well, he's not showing that he's thought at all about education. I mean, if you think about education you have to look at all of the components that you need to have in place for school improvement. Transparency, they had nothing to say about that. Targeted investment on teacher quality, they've had nothing to say about that. A greater opportunity for participation, both at the school level and at the parental level, they've had nothing to say about that either. All they've got is $2.8 billion in cuts. Greg Sheridan: But there is a lot of international and research evidence that marginal differences in class size make no difference to education outcome. They're exactly the sort of thing which waste government money and don't - I mean, the East Asian societies which do much better than us educationally don't focus on class size. They generally have much longer school days and work harder. Peter Garrett: Well, you're right Greg, but at the moment in Australia I think it's unlikely that we're going to see parents and kids going to school at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock on a Saturday morning and spending five or six hours there. Actually, they're doing sport on Saturday mornings which is a good thing. But in relation to this question, we are absolutely clear that we have started a school improvement reform that is focussed on the things that make a difference to kids in schools. We are starting to see some early signs of

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett

improvement as a consequence of our investment but we must get a funding model right that delivers the goods for it. Paul Kelly: I think there's one final question that we've got to ask you. We had the Attorney on the program last week and we asked her whether she'd changed her mind given that she'd said in February that she was not prepared to serve under Kevin Rudd if he returned to the Labor leadership. Given the comment you made in February we'd like to ask you the same question: have you changed your mind or is that still your own position? Peter Garrett: Paul, this question keeps coming back to me. I stand by what I've said. I don't propose to say anything more about it. I want to get on with the business of dealing with education reform. Paul Kelly: So you won't serve under Kevin Rudd if he returns. Peter Garrett: I've no more to say about it. I've already said what I have to say. Peter van Onselen: One final question from me though before I let you go. Peter Garrett: The final, final question. Peter van Onselen: I asked about the Olympics off the top. It is a hypothetical question but I hope you'll bear with me. If you were still a political activist rather than a politician, what would be
Australian Agenda 12 August 2012 Peter Garrett

your mantra today as opposed to in the decades gone by when you had a whole range of issues you were passionate about? Peter Garrett: Peter, you love coming back to this and I know others do as well. I absolutely value the fact that I've got the opportunity to be the Education Minister in this Government. This is the biggest and most important and most exciting thing that any person I think in public life could be doing and I'm totally committed to seeing these reforms through. Peter van Onselen: All right, Schools Education Minister, Peter Garrett, we appreciate you joining us on this episode of Australian Agenda. Thank you. Peter Garrett: Thanks for having us.

Australian Agenda

12 August 2012

Peter Garrett