Mr SAWFORD (1:29 PM) —I am pleased to support the member for Rankin's motion before the House in relation to education. When it comes to education, this is a very confused government. When you take into account rationale, they do not know the difference between excellence and elitism; they do not know the difference between equal opportunity and equality of outcome. Ample evidence about rationale confusion is provided by examination of the gender equity framework introduced in 1997, the national goals of schooling introduced in 1998 and the current funding of category 1 private schools.

When process is taken into account, as the member for Rankin has pointed out, there is no acknowledgment that funding ought to be needs based. That very fact is heightened by the reality that—and ignoring what the member for Macquarie said—in real terms, according to ABS figures, since this government came to office, Commonwealth funding for education has been cut by 20 per cent. The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs fulfils a stereotype first described by George Orwell in his famous essay, `Politics and the English language', with his many claims that less is more and more is less. The only real way to measure whether education funding in real terms has risen or fallen is to compare expenditure as a percentage of GDP. When that is done, it is very clear that education expenditure has fallen from 2.2 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent of GDP. That is a cut of 20 per cent.

But the situation in my home state of South Australia is worse. Since taking power in 1993, the Liberal Olsen government has reduced expenditure on education from 30 per cent of the state budget to 24 per cent. That is a cut of 20 per cent as well. Yet, knowing of these circumstances and the dramatic negative effect they have on poorer communities, this minister and this government have arrogantly increased funding for the most privileged students and families in Australia to the tune of $105 million. Then they have the hide to stand in this place and defend that evil behaviour as a win for equity and choice.

When what is learned in schools is taken into account, this federal government is next to useless. Highlighting the fact that literacy and numeracy is a problem in Australia— first identified by Labor, by the way—the government has the gall to claim credit for improved learning outcomes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Recent opportunities to observe good schools in Australia in the last 12 months have clearly shown where any credit for improved learning outcomes comes from—and it is not from the federal government. Schools have improved learning outcomes with quality structured and active learning education programs, created by good teachers and good principals. But these have come at a cost. Poorer schools have had to sacrifice much of their expressive arts programs and enrichment programs. More affluent schools have had to use fundraising money in order to employ additional staff. These schools, the good schools, wastepaper-bin the non-policies that come top down under the stewardship of this foolish government. Unfortunately, education is engulfed by silliness from time to time; however, it has become an epidemic with this government.

Take two policies introduced during the tenure of this government. In 1997 the gender equity framework was introduced in Australian schools. Amazingly, this framework was introduced without any reference whatsoever to any quantitative research. In 1998 this top-down foolishness continued with the Adelaide declaration of the national goals of schooling. When talking about convoluted nonsense, this is a classic example. It could not distinguish the difference between rationale, process and task. No wonder good schools, good principals and good teachers sacked the government's non-policies and got on with the job.

The last point I would like to raise is early intervention. There is no doubt whatsoever— and there is quantitative evidence to back this up—that, in determining the future success or failure of all students, the most significant factor will be the schooling a child receives between the ages of seven and 11. This is the worst funded group of children in Australia, as the member for Rankin pointed out. Also, schooling is more important than gender, race, socioeconomic background, nationality or religion in terms of success for students' outcomes. If the education program of a good school is examined, it will have the following characteristics: the learning program will be structured; it will allow for active learning; it will be based on both qualitative and quantitative research; it will take into account aggregation of information as well as disaggregation; it will acknowledge the arguments of both nature and nurture, of analysis and synthesis, of continuous assessment and examination systems, of cooperation and competition, and so on. It will not—as this government has done—exclude, deliberately or unintentionally, Australian children from excellence and equality of opportunity because of gender, race and socioeconomic background, as so often has happened under the stewardship of this government.