 |
Mitch Fifield, Senator for Victoria
First Speech - 12/05/2004I am proud to represent the great state of Victoria in
this place. Victorians are thoughtful, optimistic and a little playful.
I love representing them, and I am proud to represent a party and a
government led by a Prime Minister that understand good economic management
is the only underpinning for good social policy. As I rise in the Senate,
I want to acknowledge the friendship and support of many people in the
Liberal Party, without whom I would not have the opportunity and honour
to represent my state and my party in the national parliament. I take
the time to do so because the people of Australia, particularly in this
chamber, put great trust in political parties which in turn put their
faith in individuals to honour that charge. I am grateful to Senator Kemp and my colleagues in another
place—Tony Smith and Peter Costello—for their advice, support
and unstinting friendship and for all that I have learned from them
about good government, good policy and good politics. I thank those
who have offered me opportunities to contribute to public life: my former
employers Alan Brown and those in another place, Bruce Baird and John
Anderson. In particular, I thank them for what they have taught me about
decency in politics and for the chance to see Australia from many angles
and in many guises. I acknowledge the support and friendship of Victorian
Liberal Party President Helen Kroger, and I thank State Director Julian
Sheezel for his friendship and wise counsel. For anyone who has stood in this chamber, there are people
without whom it would not have been. In that context I thank my good
friends Narelle Sheezel, Jason Aldworth and Michael Kroger. I also want
to acknowledge my former colleagues in the office of Peter Costello—a
group who were a second family for 7½ years or, as we tended
to measure it, eight budgets—particularly Liz McCabe, Dave Alexander,
Niki Savva, Michael O’Brien, Rob Jeremenko and Phil Gaetjens. This Senate and our nation were well served by my predecessor,
the Hon. Richard Alston: 20 years at the bar, Victorian party president,
a teacher of disadvantaged kids, aid advocate, Senate deputy leader,
cabinet minister and Australia’s longest serving communications
minister. Richard has been a great servant of his party, his state and
the nation. I want to record my gratitude for his support and guidance.
Richard will be regarded in his post-parliamentary life as one of Australia’s
great senators and one of the substantial figures of Australian politics.
In many respects I do not come to this place with a typically
Liberal family background. My aunt and uncle, I am afraid to admit,
were political staffers in the Whitlam and Hawke-Keating governments.
And my grandfather, Bert Fifield, served for more than 20 years as Federal
Secretary and New South Wales President of the Printing and Kindred
Industries Union. A left factional convenor from the other side of this
chamber even gave the eulogy at his funeral. The turning point in my
family’s political views came when Prime Minister Chifley endeavoured
to nationalise the private banks. My parents, both bank employees, saw
that Labor was inherently opposed to enterprise and choice. They taught
me early: do not look at what Labor says, look at what Labor does. Mr President, I stand in this place as a Liberal because
I am committed to opportunity and to choice. Each of us has our own
world view—a frame of reference that informs the decisions we
make—but, as legislators, we do not have the right to simply vote
to impose our views on the community. We all have free will. The expression
of that may not always please us, but it is the right of every Australian
to exercise it. That is why in this place I will be influenced, but
not driven by, my own personal convictions. My inclination will be towards
maximising economic and personal liberty for Australians. I have worked in politics for 15 years in and around the
New South Wales, Victorian and Commonwealth parliaments. It is a profession
of which I am proud. But the knowledge I have gained and the experiences
I have had outside my professional life have shaped me and my approach
to public life as much as those within—like those of my parents.
Neither went beyond the third year of high school, but dad was fortunate
to attend a selective high school, Fort Street High, in Sydney. Fort
Street was an avenue of opportunity for working-class kids. It produced
Neville Wran, Garfield Barwick, John Kerr and Edmund Barton. Through
education it gave opportunity to working-class kids to become premiers,
chief justices, governorsgeneral and prime ministers. Although dad left
school in year 9 to get a job at the end of the war, his schooling still
afforded him great opportunities. That is why I am a Liberal today—because
I know the importance of opportunity. Education will always be an area where the Liberal Party
and the Labor Party differ greatly. It is where the philosophical battle
will play out most clearly. As Liberals, we stand for maximising choice;
we stand for maximising opportunity. As a coalition government, we need
to continually look for ways to maximise opportunity and to fight for
it when it is being restricted. That is why I am passionate about the
role of selective high schools in Australia. Opportunities are being
lost in our state school systems through the failure of the states to
establish schools based on achievement and excellence. Parents, above
all, want choice. Every parent recognises the value of good teachers
and good schools. They want choice between a range of quality education
options. They want choice between a strong independent sector and a
strong government sector. But parents also want, and students deserve,
choice within these two sectors. There are a wide range of options within
the independent sector, but choices are far more limited within the
state sector. Since 1996 enrolments in independent schools have increased
by 13.3 per cent, while enrolments in state schools have increased by
only 1.6 per cent. These statistics merely reflect parental choice.
The Commonwealth’s financial contribution to education facilitates
choice. If the Australian government did not support the independent
school sector, access would be confined to an elite, wealthy minority.
Many of Australia’s small, modest, independent schools would not
be able to survive. Choice would be denied and the cost to the public
purse would grow exponentially. There are parents who, regardless of the choices available
and standards within the state system, choose to send their children
to an independent school. They do so because of personal philosophy,
religion, family history, tradition. There are others who only send
their children to independent schools because they feel the public system
does not have the same commitment to excellence or sufficient choice
in the types of schools on offer. For many parents today, the government
sector is not offering the range of options for which they are looking
and which they are entitled to expect. Both independent and state schools must cater for students
of all aptitudes, from gifted pupils to those with learning difficulties.
Both ends of the spectrum represent specific needs and all students
deserve the right environment to achieve their potential. Most Australian
state governments do not willingly support a culture of achievement
in their secondary schools—schools that foster and embrace excellence
or which specialise in a particular discipline: music, sport, science,
agriculture or technology. Most states do not even offer academically
selective state high schools—those schools with an enrolment policy
based on academic achievement and entrance exams. Selective high schools are one way that states can provide
a high-quality public alternative to independent schools and offer opportunities
to students on the basis of merit, regardless of means. New South Wales
has historically enjoyed a far more diverse state secondary school system
than the other states. For instance, New South Wales has 17 fully selective
high schools, seven high schools with selective classes and four agricultural
high schools offering selective placements—in total, 28 high schools
with a selective element. Some of these are general selective high schools
like Sydney Boys High. Others, such as James Ruse Agricultural High,
are centres of excellence and are consistently among the top academic
schools in the state. James Ruse defies the stereotype of great academic
schools. It is coeducational, it is a state school, it is in an outer
suburb and it specialises in agriculture. It does not fit the stereotype
we have in our mind of the great academic school: we think private,
single sex, in an inner-city suburb and definitely not agricultural.
The only other state with fully selective high schools,
Victoria, has just two: Melbourne High for boys and Mac.Robertson for
girls. Both are exemplary schools whose students consistently perform
among the best in the year 12 exams. But there are only two of those
schools for Victoria. New South Wales also has centres of excellence
in particular disciplines such as Cherrybrook Technology High, Conservatorium
High and Newtown High School of the Performing Arts. The conservatorium
and Newtown are not selective in an academic sense but do require auditions
and interviews. There is a focus on excellence and achievement in a
particular discipline. The failure of the Australian state school system to
provide a comprehensive range of
merit based selective schools and centres of excellence is a national
outrage. This is not the fault of principals, though. It is not the
fault of teachers. State educators do incredibly well within the narrow
confines imposed by the states. It is up to the state governments to
have the vision to put the right framework in place to allow teachers
to do their best for their students. State governments around Australia
have been too terrified to claim and use the word ‘excellence’.
They have been scared of the teacher unions and of being tagged as ‘elitist’,
as if aspiration is something to be ashamed of rather than something
to be nurtured and encouraged. Selective schools have served for over a century and
a half as a ladder for talented kids regardless of means, regardless
of background. I use the word ‘ladder’ deliberately because
Labor have no political copyright on it. It is easy to use and appropriate
the language of merit and hope; it is much harder to have the courage
to adopt policies that give expression and meaning to the rhetoric.
Selective schools are an avenue of opportunity, but they are under threat
from Labor. The New South Wales government has received a report calling
for the dismantling of many of its selective schools. This must not
happen. There is no lack of money in state government coffers to establish
and maintain selective high schools and centres of excellence. But there
is a lack of will on the part of state government leaders. This lack
of will is denying students opportunity, it is denying parents choice
and it is denying our community the strong and vital public education
sector it deserves. It is strong competition between schools, between
school sectors and within school sectors that will strengthen both state
and independent education. We know from the Intergenerational Report of 2002 that
demographic trends mean Australia will be reliant upon relatively fewer
in the work force to finance the needs of an ageing population. We will
be expecting more from future generations. In this context, second best
for our students will not be an option. Why should state students put
up with a monochromatic secondary school system, particularly in the
state of Victoria? Why not have selective high schools, agricultural
high schools, technology high schools, performing arts high schools,
comprehensive high schools, co-educational high schools and single-sex
high schools? What is wrong with each school having its own character,
its own identity and its own areas of specialty? Let’s embrace choice, let’s embrace variety,
let’s embrace difference and excellence. Let’s even bring
back the old ‘tech schools’ in Victoria. Let’s recognise
that students have the right to have their potential and their opportunities
maximised. Allowing people to reach their potential unrestricted is
not the essence of elitism; it is the essence of true egalitarianism.
Unfortunately, Labor is hostile to the very avenues of educational opportunity
from which particularly lowincome families have benefited and stand
to benefit in the future. We need to give our children the opportunity
to be their best. And if the states will not then perhaps the Australian
government will need to take an even greater interest in school education.
I will be asking the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training
what avenues might be open to the Australian government to persuade
the states to introduce selective schools and centres of excellence. Mr President, those who have been given opportunity through
education have a great responsibility to build and contribute to the
communities in which they live. One of the most common cries today is
that we have lost our sense of community. The paradox is we have never
been more connected as a community by transport and technology but,
at the same time, never more distant from each other. Contact and connectedness
do not equate to proximity. It is proximity that gives meaning to human
contact and to community. Ultimately what determines the true quality
of our lives is the quality of the relationships we have. Community
is what happens when we engage. This engenders relationships we otherwise
would not have undertaken in circumstances we would not have otherwise
found. I propose a measure that could provide both incentive
and reward for young people to become more involved in the community.
Let us offer university students the opportunity to reduce their HECS
debt by a few thousand dollars each year in return for undertaking weekly
volunteer or community work. This measure would encourage community
work and increase the likelihood these people would continue their involvement
in later life. This would involve a discount on HECS fees for a certain
number of hours spent each week with a recognised charity or community
group. Part of the HECS debt could be forgiven in exchange for, say,
five hours per week or 200 hours a year of community service with a
recognised charity or community group. If each hour was valued at, say,
$10 this would amount to a $2,000 saving each year on their HECS liability. I fully support the HECS system. I supported the Labor
government’s introduction of HECS while at university, despite
the opposition of its own party members on campus. It is right that
those who derive the most direct benefit from further education make
an appropriate financial contribution. But we can use the mechanism
provided by HECS to foster greater community interaction and involvement.
The scheme could be available to undergraduates undertaking their first
degree and a similar scheme could be put in place to reduce the upfront
cost for TAFE students undertaking vocational courses. Students could tutor disadvantaged children, assist the
churches in their charitable work with the young, or work with organisations
that care for the aged. Young people would become more intimately acquainted
with their neighbourhoods and the problems which confront them. There
would be a slight lifting of the financial burden on students and a
greater lifting of some of society’s burdens. This measure would
encourage greater community understanding—that misfortune befalls
many people often through no fault of their own and that its remedies
lie with people not just government. Hopefully, it would foster lifelong
community involvement. This is an idea I first raised with my preselectors in
October last year and have discussed extensively as I have moved throughout
Victoria. I have raised the idea with the Prime Minister and have commended
it for his consideration. To be a compassionate society means being
able to put yourself in the shoes of another and understand what makes
them different and why they find themselves in their particular circumstance.
This scheme would, in a small way, help engender greater community and
rebuild social capital. It is only when we keep coming back to our core
Liberal values of choice, independence and responsibility that we find
the policies that facilitate opportunity. I want to acknowledge the love and support of my extended
family: the Fifields, the Fords and the O’Learys—especially
my brothers, Scott and Matt; sister-in-law, Denise; John and Di Ford;
and John and Annette O’Leary. I thank my great friend Liz O’Leary
for her enduring support. My only regret today is that my late parents,
Alan and Jan Fifield, are not able to share this day. I thank my three-year-old
daughter, Ruby, who is in the gallery, for her love and curiosity which
keeps everything in perspective. May I be worthy of the trust placed in me by the people
of Victoria. I pledge to always work to ensure a better Victoria and
a better Australia for my daughter’s generation. I thank the Senate
for the courtesy extended to me. 
|  |
