Senator LEES (6:32 PM) —I would like to start by putting a couple of facts on the table in this debate on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004. Firstly, far too few men choose teaching as a career. A lot drop out during their studies and a lot do not continue after experiencing teaching. Secondly, the results of the basic skills tests show that, on average, boys are not doing as well as girls. They are not picking up the basic skills as quickly as girls do.

There is another set of facts that the government does not seem to want to acknowledge. In the Attorney-General's second reading speech, he said:

HREOC agrees with the minister and says that men are dropping out of teaching, not choosing teaching or not wanting to be teachers for a raft of reasons but not because of any discrimination. They are choosing—they are voting with their feet—not to teach; hence, affirmative action programs are inappropriate. This bill arises because male-only scholarships would breach the Sex Discrimination Act, and the exemptions that are in the act do not cover scholarships. Lastly, it is women, not men, who are marginalised once we get people into the work force.

Let us look at how this debate started. It started because the Catholic Education Office applied for an exemption so it could award 12 male-only scholarships. That was sorted out. There was no need for the government to pursue this issue. It was sorted out by the Catholic Education Office coming back and offering 12 female scholarships—in other words, 24 in all—and the CEO was then granted an exemption. If the government want to persist down this route—and I argue strongly that they should not—they should go down the route that has already been suggested by a number of other speakers and look at what is it about teaching that is turning people away. If the government really want to go down the route of HREOC and equal opportunity, they need to look at areas where there is a shortage of women in teaching. One of the obvious places is in senior maths and science. There is a shortage of female teachers of physics, chemistry, biology and maths in those senior years and also a substantial shortage of women in promotional positions—principals and deputy principals—across our schools, both private and public.

If the government must pursue this, to balance out the boys why not provide 500 scholarships for girls who want to teach senior maths and science? I would like to encourage this government to look at 1,000 scholarships, for men and women, because we are running out of teachers. Some very bright students in schools I used to work in wandered off late in year 10 or early in year 11 because they either did not have the encouragement and support from their families to go on or they could not afford to stay on. In many cases they did not even see university as an option. Teaching was not something they would look at without some encouragement.

Let us look at what is discouraging men from taking up teaching. I will start with some of the stresses that teachers experience and the message that sends to the students, particularly the senior students. The shortage of teachers is now becoming more and more evident. It is worse in some states than others. It is worse in some subject areas, such as maths and science, than it is in others. Generally in rural and remote areas it is much worse than in our main capital cities and in larger centres.

We do need thousands more places for teachers in our universities, and we need them very quickly. We are looking at the average age of teachers being at or close to 50—indeed, in one state it is over 50—right across Australia now. We have to move before we have a major problem. Let us look at some of the situations that teachers find themselves in in my home state. These are issues that have been reported to me just this year, in the last few months. We have in South Australia students of more than one year level sharing a laboratory because there simply is not enough space in the school. There are several schools where there are simply not enough classrooms. There are several schools that have run out of TRT days—temporary relieving teacher support—for the year. What they do from now I do not know. If they have sporting fixtures and arrangements, or perhaps camps—although there are many schools in South Australia that cannot afford to give students the opportunity of those sorts of experiences—where teachers are needed to accompany students, I do not know what they will do. Indeed, one school recently reported to me that now there is rationing on the photocopy paper.

Let us just look at the sorts of stresses that all of that puts on not just the students but also the teachers. Some of them simply do not cope. Apart from going out on stress leave and having time off, some simply decide it is all too hard and find another profession where they feel valued and where they are not under those stresses. But one of the key issues for the teachers I speak to is that many schools cannot afford the resources to work more effectively with students that are playing up—students who are making mischief in the classroom, students who are disruptive and students who in many cases have a mental illness. This does not just impact on the teacher, obviously; it is a major burden on the rest of the class. Most schools now, particularly state schools in South Australia, do not have the resources to cope adequately with these students. When I was teaching, when there was not the requirement to teach as many lessons as there is now for South Australian teachers, there was often an opt-out option, extra school counsellors and ways in which these students could be supported. But today the reduction in resources and the increasing workloads of teachers mean that the classroom teacher and the homeroom teacher have to cope with these students with very little or no support. Other options—outside-of-school options and related options—that would help these at-risk students, such as Operation Flinders, are also struggling for resources.

The point I wish to stress here is that, if the minister is serious about attracting more men and more boys into teaching, let us get more women in as well and more teachers in general by increasing the standard of equipment and facilities across all our schools. Let us get a better method of funding our schools that are really under stress and that do not have enough classrooms. Forget about the school ovals that have to be watered and the pools that some schools are able to provide; let us look at those schools that do not have classrooms and adequate resources just for basic teaching.

I would like to look at one other issue: what happens after school. I have to acknowledge—and we all acknowledge here—that boys lag behind at some stages in some of those tests in primary and secondary schools but they soon catch up after university, particularly in those areas where it counts, where money, status and career opportunities are afforded them. I am not trying to trivialise the real problems that some students experience, but why are we not just helping all students who are struggling at whatever stage and in whatever particular curriculum area—it may be maths, reading or writing? Some kids simply do not pick up some of these skills until they are eight or nine. I have tested kids and found that they are not on the scale at eight, by nine they are reading at the level of a five- or six-year-old, and by 10 they are up at the level of a 15-year-old. Some kids simply learn at different stages. Let us help every student that is not coping.

Afterwards, as we look at students who have been through school and have graduated from university, we see that men certainly dominate the work force, particularly in those professions where a lot of money and prestige are attached. We see in Australia that only 8.4 per cent of senior executive positions are held by women. Just two of Australia's top 200 companies have a woman as their CEO. More Australian women are working part time now than at any time in the past and more than in any other OECD country. In many of these cases this is not by choice. Rather, it is for a raft of reasons, including lack of quality long-term day care. Because they are working fewer hours, women have less money with which to support themselves and their families and less money to put aside for their retirement. Average weekly `all employees total earnings' in November 2003 were: females, $578.70; males, $894.60. Starting salaries after graduation—and these are 2003 figures—were $38,000 for men and $36,300 for women. Women have been graduating in equal numbers from law for the last 25 years, yet fewer than 10 per cent of partners in legal firms are women. So, for a raft of reasons, I simply cannot support this legislation.

I make a final plea to this government and also to state and territory governments to work together to make sure that those students who at the moment are simply not getting a fair go in our high schools and those students who are often leaving well before they should can get some real opportunities to continue on and reach their full potential. Those students desperately need more scholarships. I am not suggesting for a moment that another 500 scholarships are not needed for teachers; indeed, I would argue that the government should make 1,000 scholarships and make sure that they are not going to take existing HECS places—and, by the way, HECS did not go up in the recent legislation because of the shortage of teachers. HECS places should be increased by at least 1,000 in the coming year with 1,000 scholarships. My only hesitation in not supporting this bill is that I do not want to lose scholarships for teaching, because we are going to hit a crisis in a few years.

I say to the government: please go away and rethink this. Come back with 1,000 new scholarships for teaching, regardless of whether they are for men or women—or at least 500 each—and come back with a package that you have worked through with state and territory governments that will really put resources into the schools that desperately need them, not into those schools where you have looked at some shonky assessment of what their parents' wealth is rather than what the wealth of the school is and the capacity the school has to meet the needs of its students.