EMBARGO 5.00PM SUNDAY 18 MARCH 1973:
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN EDUCATION
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
THE HON. E. G. WHITLAM, M. P.,
AT THE OPENING OF THE M. B. FLOOD SCIENCE BLOCK OF
ST. PATRICK'S COLLEGE,.. PROSPECT VALE, TASMANIA
SUNDAY 18 MARCH 1973
There has never been any qualification about
my Government s commitment to education. In my
policy speech last November I promised that education
would be the most rapidly growing sector of public
spending under a Labor Government. We see it as the
primary instrument for improving the quality of life
of our people and promoting equality of opportunity
for our children. Under previous Governments, education was
one of the most neglected fields. It was an area for
which Liberal Governments in the national Parliament
accepted little or no responsibility. Whatever
responsibility they accepted was grudging, tardy
and partial. Our responsibility will be wholehearted,
prompt and far-reaching. We are determined that
education will no longer be used as a weapon to
perpetuate privilege, inequality and division.
We are determined that every child who embarks on his
secondary education this year shall have the same opportunity
as any other child of completing that education and
advancing further. / 2
-2-
Our approach to education has never been
based on elitist, regional, sectarian or other
discriminatory grounds. Our concern is for all
children in all schools, whether Government, Catholic
or otherwise independent. The debate in education
is no longer whether schools should receive assistance
from the National Government. That principle is
now accepted. It was established in 1964 when the
Liberal Government introduced its program of
Commonwealth assistance for science blocks, under
which this building was financed. It was
fully accepted by our opponents in May last year
when they announced some long-term but inadequate proposals
for assistance to secondary schools. So the question of
whether the National Government has a responsibility is
no longer an issue. The debate now is about the scale
and method of the national Government's involvement
whether it should be piecemeal or thorough, selective
or universal, arbitrary or planned, haphazard or co-ordinated.
Our preference is clear: It is for universality, for
planning, for co-ordination, and for generosity.
Our aim is to ensure that all schools receive assistance
according to their needs.
There can be nothing but praise for the efforts
of the poorer non-government schools, particularly
those in the Catholic system, to provide their children
with educational services of the highest standard.
This is no easy task. Within the Catholic system, this
college, of course, is one of the fortunate schools.
The Christian Brothers have set a noted example of
dedication and self-sacrifice in the cause of education.
I pay my own tribute to the Rev. Brother Michael Flood,
who gave 65 years of service to his Church as a Christian
Brother, whose memory is esteemed in Catholic education
circles throughout this country, and whose name is
commemorated by the building we open today.
The educational system he served was
founded on the principle that parents have a right to choose
their children's education. But it is not enough to insist
that parents have a right to choose. So they should and do.
But the choice for all parents should be one between
systems and philosophies of education, not between
standards and opportunities. Too often under previous
Governments the only choice was that given to a wealthy or
privileged minority to choose a wealthier or more privileged
school. We can never be content with over-crowded,
under-staffed impoverished schools merely because a minority
have a right to opt out of them.
It is the Government's duty it is my Government's
determination to see that the right of choice carries with
it neither hardship for parents nor deprivation for children.
After all, the parents of Catholic children have suffered as
much as anyone from the old approach. The pupils of State
and Catholic schools I do not in this context include
St. Patrick's College have had less than half as good
a chance as the pupils of other independent schools to gain
Commonwealth secondary scholarships, and much less than half
as good a chance of completing their secondary education.
Throughout Australia only 4% of the pupils at
Government schools and 7% at Catholic schools qualify for
secondary scholarships. But 15% of the pupils at other
independent schools qualify for them. Only three out of
every 10 pupils at Government and Catholic schools reach
the final year of secondary education, whereas at other
non-government schools eight of every 10 reach the final
year. No democratic government can accept this disparity.
It is morally unjust, it is socially wasteful. To sell
our children short today is to sell Australia short tomorrow. / 4
-4-
My Government has already begun to tackle the
problems of inequality in education. We will adopt the same
method to assist schools as previous Governments adopted to
assist universities and colleges of advanced education.
In December I wrote to a number of leading educationalists,
including representatives of the Catholic system, inviting
them to join an interim committee for a Schools Commission,
under the chairmanship of Professor Karmel, which would
examine and determine the needs of students in all schools.
In due course a permanent Australian Schools Commission
will be set up. Its reports will be published; its advice
will form the basis for my Government's assistance to
education. We will act quickly upon the recommendations of
the interim committee. In answer to a question in
Parliament last Tuesday,* I had this to say about the
progress of the interim committee's work:
" I have kept regularly in touch with
my colleague the Minister for Education
in regard to the deliberations of the
interim committee. I have met the Chairman,
Professor Karmel, on several occasions since it
was appointed. It is expected that the interim
committee's report will be made available as
requested before the end of May. This will
mean that it will be available in sufficient
time to be considered at the Premiers Conference
which should be held in June or maybe, if the
House gets up early enough, even in May. In
those circumstances the State Governments and the
non-government school authorities will have ample
opportunity to prepare for the 1974 scholastic
year in the light of the additional funds which
it is expected the Australian Government will
make available for schools."
There is nothing unusual or even particularly
radical in a system based on priority of needs. It is
in fact rather simple and obvious. No company or enterprise
in the world would allocate its resources in any other way.
The Catholic education system itself determines its priorities
according to what it conceives to be the needs of its
children. Our aim is to avoid the old-fashioned system of
ad hoc decisions for special grants which took no account
of the long-term needs and planning requirements of the
beneficiaries of those grants. Everywhere in the old system
of grants one finds a pattern of disparity. If we look at
the breakdown of grants for science facilities approved in
1971 for the four years to June 1975 we find that some
States emphasise the needs of Government schools over
non-government schools, others give preference to nongovernment
over government schools. South Australia is
giving four times as much money under the science grants to
government schools as to non-government schools $ 2,647,125
against $ 663,525. Queensland is giving more money to nongovernment
schools $ 3,323,020 than to government schools,
who are to receive only $ 3,072,780. The science block
program, the grants for libraries, and system of per
capita grants approved by previous governments were
far from adequate responses to the real needs of our children.
They were not the solutions of a Government accepting
its responsibilities: they were in fact devices for
avoiding them. My Government has undertaken to continue in the
current year all grants to schools made under existing
Commonwealth legislation. I want to tell you now of the
Government's attitude to arrangements already entered into
with non-government schools for science facilities and
library programs. / 6
The previous Government offered specific amounts
for individual science facilty projects for each year of the
present program to its conclusion on 30 June 1975.
These are firm commitments and will be honoured by my
Government. But the continuation of specific grants for
science laboratories in both government and non-government
schools after June 1975 will be a matter for the Schools
Commission or in the short term, the interim committee.
A similar approach will be followed for the
secondary schools libraries program. Specific offers
have been made by the previous Government for individual
projects up to 31 December 1974 when the present authority
will expire. My Government believes that these offers
represent commitments under the existing legislation and
they will be honoured. But after 1974 we will look to
the Schools Commission to make recommendations on whatever
library grants are appropriate.
We take the same view with general capital grants
for schools. On 12 December 1972 I assured the Premiers that
the $ 167 million appropriated under the State Grants Schools
Act 1972 for capital facilities in government schools would be
made available and that they could proceed with their programs.
I have given the Premiers a similar assurance that the $ 48
million appropriated for non-government schools will also
be available. But my Government agrees with Professor Karmel,
the Chairman of the interim committee, that from July 1974
the allocation of money remaining for the benefit of nongovernment
schools should be on the recommendation of the
Schools Commission or the Interim Committee.
We have also decided that Commonwealth per capita
grants to non-government schools for recurrent expenditure for
1973 will be paid at the rates already approved for 1973
that is, $ 62 per primary pupil and $ 104 per secondary pupil.
In December I wrote to Archbishop Carroll and to the National
Council of Independent Schools and told them of that decision.
After 1973 the interim committee will make recommendations for
recurrent grants for 1974/ 75 on the basis of needs and priorities.
In subsequent years such recommendations will be made by the
Statutory Schools Commission. / 7
-7-
With these arrangements, we intend within the
lifetime of this Parliament, or sooner, to ensure that the
national Government~ s commitment to education is discharged
wholly on the basis of needs. I do not apologise for the
fact that the Government's emphasis is on meeting needs
where they demonstrably exist and on giving priority to
areas where the need is greatest. We are concerned with
inequalities; we are not concerned with the historical
sources of these inequalities. It is the child who
matters. For this reason we have announced programs of
assistance for isolated children and students at tertiary
education institutions who are in genuine need. For
this reason we have shown our concern for the education
of Aboriginal children. For the same reason again, we have
taken steps to increase the number of dental therapists and
social workers in training.
Again with our belief in equality of opportunity,
we have tackled the question of pre-school education. Our
approach is a simple one. We believe that pre-school education
with its many advantages should be considered a normal
part of the educational ladder, not an abnormal provision
for a percentage of our pre-school population. We want for
every Australian child the opportunity of a year of pre-school
trainiig. Thus we aim to make available to Australians a
basic educational service which has hitherto and with great
success been available to all children only in the Australian
Capital Territory. In this way my Government is doing more to help
secondary education than any previous government has done,
or any agency has recommended. In 1970 a nationwide survey
of the educational needs of government schools was conducted
by the Australian Education Council, consisting of State
Ministers for Education. It was at that time the only
comprehensive attempt to assess educational needs. My
Government welcomed it for that reason. It drew public
attention to alarming deficiencies. But there were weaknesses
in that survey, and some of its techniques were subject to
criticism. / 8
-8-
It took no account of technical or pre-school education.
The investigation by the Interim Schools Committee, set
up by my Government, will be both more up-to-date and more
comprehensive. Since the 1970 survey was made, costs have
increased and the problems are more urgent. Many areas
of need were not considered at all by the 1970 survey.
By means of our proposed Technical Education Commission
and the Interim Pre-schools Committee already set up,
we will be examining fields which the needs survey did
not even touch. It did not consider the specific needs
of isolated, Aboriginal or handicapped children.
Our program does. It will go beyond anything attempted before.
In all its action, the new national Government has
shown its concern for all children irrespective of where they
live, whether they are in a state or an independent school, or
whether they are suffering from disadvantage. In this we
differ from our opponents. A good education, the best education,
is not something individuals must be forced to buy. It is
something the whole community must undertake to provide.
It is not the privilege of a few children but the right of all.
My Government will ensure that such a right is permanently
enshrined in Australian society.