Mr MELHAM (4:02 PM) —It is fitting that the minister's time has expired because, come the next election, his time as education minister will expire. I estimate that, if the election is held in December, which is probably the last possible date, he has nine pay packets left as a minister. Judgment will be passed on him at the election for all the rhetoric and the propaganda that he has been going on with today and that he continues to propagate at taxpayers' expense in the community. I can tell you that, from my reading of the electorate at this point in time, it will be brutal. The more times this minister gets up in a public place the more votes will flow to Labor. Why? They do not believe him. They now see behind his rhetoric and they judge him on his deeds. When he first got into the ministry in 1996 he was not good enough for the cabinet so he stalked Senator Vanstone, the then minister, until he got into cabinet. He undermined her, and ever since he has been in the position he has been undermining public education. That is what this debate is about today.

We recently had Public Education Day and I spoke with a number of constituents. They organised to meet with all their local members and they were concerned about public education. I spoke to teachers, parents and students, and they are all in despair over the state of public education in this country. They are doing it tough. Who is the one person that they blame? The one name that comes back, time and again? Dr Kemp, the current minister for education. The government continues to pursue its policy of favouring non-government schools over the needs of government schools. The government insists on implementing its privatisation agenda in terms of education. It has huge increases in funding for the private school sector, aimed directly at undermining the public education sector.

To illustrate, in an answer to a question on notice in the Senate estimates hearings in January this year, the following information was provided. In 1995-96, the government schools' share of Commonwealth funding for schools was 42.2 per cent, which was reduced to 41.5 per cent in 1996-97, reduced again to 39.5 per cent in 1997-98, and reduced again to 38.5 per cent in 1998-99. It is estimated that the government school proportion will continue to decline to around 34.6 per cent in 2003-04. The corresponding figures, not surprisingly, for the non-government schools show an increase from 57.8 per cent in 1995-96 to 61.5 per cent in 1998-99, with an estimated 65.4 per cent in 2003-04. Those figures speak for themselves.

What has happened is that this new SES system has reignited the state aid debate and it has polarised the community. It is not only creating divisions between the different school sectors but also causing tensions within the non-government sector and between schools. They are the facts. The polarisation of the Australian community continues to be endorsed by this minister for education. This is most painfully evidenced in recent developments, as I said, in public education funding at both school and post school levels. There is a danger that this polarisation will worsen as new jobs and new opportunities are drawn to the already wealthy and well-educated areas of Australia.

The minister talks about choice—for the majority of Australians there is no choice about where their children are schooled. The minister would, however, minimise any choice by developing a funding model which encourages children away from public schools and into private schools. The minister claims that his states grants bill pushes fees down, thus affording more choice for Australian parents, yet the recent massive hikes in school fees in private schools indicate the complete opposite. The choice of parents to send their children to private schools is also becoming more restricted under this minister.

The majority of Australians send their children to public schools because, by and large, they are satisfied with the level of education their children receive and because that is what they are able to afford. There is a responsibility on government to ensure the provision of quality and affordable compulsory education for all its citizens. It is not the responsibility of the government to talk about equity in education and then provide massive funding to the private sector. Equity is not achieved through taking from one sector and giving to another.

Judith Brett, who now teaches politics at La Trobe University and who was tutored by Dr Kemp at Melbourne University, gives us an insight into this minister in her article in the Age on November 21, 2000. In that article she was searching to explain the thinking behind the minister's extraordinary scheme for funding of schools. She said:

I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this minister is contributing to a walloping for his party at the next election, because public education will be well and truly on the agenda. It is interesting that she basically summarised in her article the effect of his policy:

We should also consider the minister's inability to finalise a funding agreement with the states and territories in relation to vocational education and training. In this process, we can observe that there is little commitment from this government to ensuring an equitable share of funds available to vocational education and training.

The proposal by the minister for the new Australian National Training Authority agreement has been dismissed by the majority of states and territories as illogical and unfair. The five ministers issued a joint press release recently, dated 16 March, headed `TAFE faces crisis—Kemp offers a pittance from 2002'. That is basically the history of this minister. He says one thing, talks it up—a smoke and mirrors performance—but when you go into the detail he offers peanuts. It is all ideologically driven. And he is not the only minister; there is also the new workplace relations minister, the ex workplace relations minister who went to defence and who is the H.R. Nicholls Society's treasurer. It is all coming home to roost.

We have had the results in Western Australia, Queensland and the recent Ryan by-election. These are not opinion polls. These are people voting with their feet. This is a government that came in and raised hopes and expectations. The Prime Minister talked about being comfortable and relaxed—well, there are not too many people, when it comes to the education system, who are comfortable and relaxed at the moment. They are doing it hard, and they are doing it hard because they have a zealot in the job as minister for education. He is running an ideological agenda, a class driven ideological agenda. But the Australian electorate is not the American electorate, and you will pay at the next election. I do not believe we have to do much between now and the next election, other than put up a photograph of this minister in every school, every university and every TAFE college in the country with the line, `Do you want this to continue to govern the education system in the country?' The swing will be massive.

Recently, I was privileged to deliver an occasional address at the University of Sydney social work graduation ceremony. Academic after academic was coming up to me in despair. These are decent people who value a public education system, who are working at our universities, and they see it getting tougher and worse, and this government is to blame. It is class driven. At the end of the day, as I say, you can rave on about unions and their propaganda. The unions and the school communities are running grassroots campaigns and they are getting the ammunition from you. It is a direct response to your policies. But what do you do? You pinch the taxpayers' money, a modern-day Goebbels, to run your political agenda. Every time you do it, all you are doing is guaranteeing the destruction of your party at the next election.

That is why they are sullen faced on the other side, and why public education will be at the forefront in the next election. I can tell you what: it is thumbs down for you, Minister. You just spent an 11th anniversary in this parliament on 24 March, but I can tell you that you will not have a 12th anniversary while you are in the ministry, because you will be copping it well and truly in the neck come Christmas. (Time expired)