Senator ALLISON (11:33 AM) —by leave—I move Democrats amendments (1), (2), (R3) and (4) on sheet 2440 revised together:

Before getting on to those amendments, I do need to respond to Senator Abetz's remarks about the debate in 1996. I did not at any stage ever talk about nasty Jewish day schools. That is a ridiculous assertion. It is also true to say, Senator Abetz, that it was the Jewish day schools that complained bitterly about the SES funding model that this government developed because it does not benefit them. It is little wonder they need the establishment grants; they are doing very poorly out of the funding mechanism that your government introduced. I did talk about small and fundamentalist schools in that debate—

Senator Abetz —And extreme schools?

Senator ALLISON —and the minister does not deny there are small schools and fundamentalist schools. In fact, the Maharishi comes to mind, but I cannot remember the names of some of the other new schools. I am sure the minister is not denying there are both small and fundamentalist—

Senator Abetz —And extreme?

Senator ALLISON —schools in the non-government sector. There is nothing wrong, Senator Abetz, in pointing that out, just as there is nothing wrong in listing the number of schools that supported the legislation. That does not amount to vilification in my view and I am sure that view would be shared by others in this place.

But I will go to the amendments in hand. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that all students, whether they are educated in the private or the public sector, are covered by a detailed plan to deal with child abuse that conforms to a minimum acceptable standard. The amendments will require the states and the relevant authorities in government and non-government school sectors, as a condition of funding, to submit a detailed plan that sets out: the procedures for, and responsibilities of, schools in dealing with the physical, sexual or emotional abuse of students either within or outside the school; the means by which schools will seek to create an anti-abuse environment; the means by which schools will communicate with students about their rights in relation to abuse; and how the state or relevant authority will implement the plan in schools under its jurisdiction. Our amendments will require that the plan be approved by the minister and be consistent with standards set out in the regulations to the act. Under the amendments, state legislation must require the mandatory reporting of abuse by teachers. Such reporting is not, as I understand it, presently required by legislation in Western Australia, but it is required elsewhere.

In addition, the amendments require the states to provide the Commonwealth minister with a report on the administration of legislation relating to the protection of children in government and non-government schools. States and relevant authorities will be required to report on implementing the plan for the purposes of the national report on schooling. These conditions would apply to payments to a state and to a relevant authority from the beginning of program year 2003. The minister has argued, as Senator Abetz has today, that MCEETYA is a better forum for such a national approach. I point out that MCEETYA does not have any direct power over non-government schools; it is a consultative forum of education ministers. MCEETYA cannot require non-government schools to develop a plan related to how schools deal with the abuse of students. What MCEETYA can do is to try to gain agreement of the states to address the issues through registration requirements. However, that will take some time, if it is ever agreed, and the Democrats say that it is important that the Commonwealth act on this issue quickly, particularly in the current circumstances.

Some concerns have been raised in relation to the conflict with state regimes; however, our amendments allow states and relevant authorities to develop plans that are in accordance with state legislative regimes. Except for the requirement that the current laws of a state have mandatory reporting of abuse by teachers—which all states except WA have, as I mentioned—there is no other requirement on the states to change their child protection regimes. Some may say, in response to this, that this issue should be the domain of the states, as Senator Abetz has said. I want to outline the fact that the states do have various guidelines for dealing with abuse in schools, as do some non-government school systems. However, we found that these vary in quality and content and in how prescriptive they are. Moreover, many of the guidelines seem to be more reactive than proactive in that they cover what teachers and other staff must do if they suspect abuse but do not cover as much what schools should do to create a safe environment for children. It is also true that some schools do not have any plans in place at all, but we cannot know what the extent of that is.

I asked the library to do a survey of school policies and guidelines, in both government and non-government school sectors, regarding the management of allegations of child sexual abuse within schools. It is not possible to know how many schools are taking this issue seriously, and, from our review of those plans, there is a great variety in quality, content and in how prescriptive they are. I think it is also fair to say that guidelines are implemented with various degrees of effectiveness and seriousness, and a lot of schools are so strapped for cash that they cannot afford to put the necessary training and procedures in place.

I have said that there are problems out there, but there are also some extremely good practices in dealing with bullying. Excellent work is being done in some states and in some schools to address abuse, and I will talk about that in more detail shortly. Abuse in schools has not been eliminated and, for this reason, it ought to be a matter of national importance instead of being handled, as it is at present, in what is best described as a piecemeal fashion.

Dr Peter Carnley, Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia said just last month:

We agree with that. The reasoning is sound and, for that reason, we are saying that the federal government can and should take the initiative on this issue. There needs to be more than just encouragement and more action than just leaving it to the states and to individual private schools.

The fifth meeting of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, or MCEETYA, way back in July 1996 agreed to the development of a national strategy in schooling to prevent paedophilia and other forms of child abuse. Almost a year later, in 1997, the sixth meeting of MCEETYA announced that a national strategy had been adopted, but there is still no publicly available information on the detail of this strategy, nor are there any reports to subsequent meetings of MCEETYA on the operation of the strategy.

It appears that this process, five years down the track, has become bogged down by delays relating to privacy legislation and by the ability of individual jurisdictions to release details of teachers who have had convictions for child abuse. It seems to me that this focus on black-listing teachers is hampering the process and, I would argue, should only ever be part of a much more holistic approach to the problem. Abuse by teachers, in terms of the number of cases, is probably only a small fraction of the total. Schools must deal with that effectively and decisively, but they are also asked to tackle the issue of abuse of students by other students. I point out that that is a very serious problem indeed in our schools. Very often teachers will be the first to know about abuse outside the school, and this too must be properly dealt with by teachers and schools.

At the beginning of the school year last year, a help line was set up in New South Wales and it was flooded with calls in the first few days. The New South Wales Department of Community Services received 73,000 reports of child abuse in the year 2000, and 16 per cent of those came from schools. The number of children reported abused or neglected in Australia was a staggering 107,000 in 2000-01. South Australia did a study that found the overall cost of abuse and neglect in South Australia alone was $345 million.

In 1999-2000, schools in Queensland reported 2,093 cases of suspected abuse, which was a significant increase on the previous year. This increased reporting is largely due to the training of teachers. According to the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, teachers are now much clearer, as a result of that training, about what action should be taken. Last year, the Kids First Foundation called for more funding and for a national focus on child abuse prevention and treatment. They criticised the various standards of service delivery and the absence of national funding for child abuse programs. They noted there was the confusion amongst professionals who came into contact with children about when they should report suspected child abuse and to whom.

Professor Kim Oates, who has received national and international awards for his child protection work, said last year that Australia needed to take the problem more seriously. He said a lack of coordination and incompatible state and federal bureaucracies has led to the extent of child abuse being underestimated. He also said that research shows that the higher the self-esteem of the child, the more likely they were to resist abuse and that this was an area schools should be working on: helping to make children strong and confident.

As a former teacher, I see bullying as one of the most serious but preventable forms of child abuse in our schools. It can start very early in a child's school experience and have a devastating and lifelong impact on individuals. I regularly visit the Quarry Hill Primary School in Bendigo, which is a very small primary school that some years ago set up a pilot program called `Solving the Jigsaw'. That program has had spectacular results in changing the atmosphere into one that is a much healthier environment for students. Bullying has virtually been eliminated. Even the bullying tendencies of teachers have changed dramatically in the period in which this program has been in place. That program has now been extended to 30 schools in the area. So convinced are the principals and the secondary schools that receive these students that schools have found the money necessary to implement the program. I would argue that this kind of program should be implemented across the country.

Last year we were appalled at the sexual assault or `bastardisation', as it was called, that took place at Trinity Grammar boarding school. Alarming as that was, the denial by the school administration that there was a culture of bullying at the school, despite very strong evidence in the courts that this was the case, and the failure to take action to address it were quite serious and, in fact, made the situation worse. Bullying can take many forms. Peer pressure can lock children in to stereotypical behaviour. There are plenty of examples of children who have been subjected to bullying going on to have depression. Studies have been done which demonstrate that this is an urgent and serious problem which we should be addressing.

It is time for a national approach. I am pleased that the minister has written to the state ministers responsible for education. I too have done that and I expect them to see value in this approach. We cannot allow the time wasted in the last five years to go on for another five years and perhaps another 10 years after that. It is necessary for the federal government to take the initiative on this.

We have done an enormous amount of work in consulting with groups about our amendments. We have support from ACSSO, the state school organisation parents group; from the education union; from the principals associations; and from individuals who have contacted us at various times on these issues, particularly on bullying. I am convinced that a national approach is the way to go. It is necessary to change cultures not just in bureaucracies, state governments and systems but also to bring this back down to the school level. School communities have to talk about this issue to find proactive ways of dealing with it. That ought to mean that the federal government should be interested in funding the programs that are necessary, and I would like to see that. At this stage, if we can take this national approach—it would not be in place until next year—schools would have to do this in order to receive funding from the federal government. That is an appropriate carrot and stick approach to this issue. I would argue that, rather than being sidetracked by peripheral issues, it is time we took a proactive approach. It is time to see what we can do about the abuse of children, not just abuse by teachers—that is probably a very small percentage of the total—but abuse by other students and abuse outside the home.