Julie Bishop Grants the ABC an Interview. (April 10, 2006)

    Yesterday Barry Cassidy fronting the ABC's Insiders program ran a 12 minute interview with Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop. The text of the interview is at

 http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2006/s1611989.htm

while the video in broadband is available for Windows Media at

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200604/r80600_232594.asx

The phrasing and delivery of the questions and the formulation of the replies strongly suggested that the questions were given to Ms Bishop well in advance, and while there is no indication as to what extent they were written by departmental staff, it was Ms Bishop who spoke them and it is reasonable to conclude that they had been considered carefully by her.

With regard to federal funding of  private primary and secondary schools this exchange took place.

JULIE BISHOP: We believe that parents should have choice in the schooling that they believe is appropriate for their children. Every parent has a right to choose a school that provides the best educational outcome for their child. And that means choice not only between a government and non-government sector, but also within those sectors.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: But why...  this shift towards private schools away from the government schools?

 

JULIE BISHOP: Well, parents are obviously exercising their right to choose and they look for an educational outcome that suits their child. So if it's values-based education, it might be faith-based, they have the opportunity to choose between a range of schools and currently it appears that they're choosing schools and the educational opportunities that schools in the non-government sector are offering.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: But in some of the poorer schools in some of the poorer areas the schools are starting to have internal problems - vandalism and there are problems at home. And as that happens, those with the ability move out of those schools and you get into this vicious cycle. The schools just get worse.

 

JULIE BISHOP: Well, the State government schools are managed, owned, operated by State governments. The Federal Government can show leadership in a number of ways and we certainly have with our national values-based education that's tied to State government funding and schools are looking at the curriculum they provide, the discipline that's provided in schools, the values that are taught at schools in order to ensure parents that they can provide an appropriate educational outcome. But that's why having a private sector is so important. It does provide competition to the government sector. I don't believe that a one-size-fits-all education system is the answer. You need competition within the government and the non-government sector so that schools continue to lift standards, aim for excellence.

Moving on to the universities Cassidy wanted a response to the leader of the opposition, Kim Beazley's intention to scrape full fee paying university places. Ms Bishop's response was to point out quite correctly that Labor has put forward no policy as to how it would recompense the universities for the drop in revenue they would suffer.

And the matter of compulsory student unionism? Ms Bishop spoke the lines of her predecessor, Brendan Nelson.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The decision of the Government to ban voluntary (sic) student unionism, it preceded your appointment, of course, and it's not yet in force. But have you had a closer look at that decision and the impact it's having in the universities?

 

JULIE BISHOP: I have. I think it was a sound decision. It means that students have a choice. I mean, you hear Labor carping on about university fees, yet in some universities the compulsory union fee was $500. That's lot of money to a student to pay for services that were irrelevant to them or services that they didn't want. So the situation that we have now is students can choose to pay for services that they value. And the clubs and societies at universities, like clubs and societies throughout Australia, have to provide services that people value.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: But Jenny Macklin, the education spokesman for Labor, says that jobs are already already being lost at universities as they restructure to try to take account of these changes?

 

JULIE BISHOP: We have taken into account the fact that many of the clubs and societies and guilds were operating inefficiently and ineffectively and we've provided funding under the workplace productivity program to enable universities and their societies and student guilds and the like to restructure, to become more efficient, to become more effective and to provide value for money. It's good thing.

That was a glib reply capped by "in some universities the compulsory union fee was $500."

First, Richard Larkins, Monash University's vice-chancellor voiced his plain spoken annoyance as he pointed out that the $80 million in transitional funding over three years from the Government to compensate for the loss of revenue from extra-tuition fees, was a "tiny fraction" of the amount needed for essential services which currently total about $160 million per annum.

And below is a copy of the table the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee issued last year outlining where those fees went.

So far as we know neither DEST nor any other governmental department has publicly recorded what the cost to university students will be if they pay for the services as individuals. For example the matter of economies of scale has not been mentioned. And as to the matter of political activism, the AVCC notes that 17.21% of the money contributed by the student body went to "Advocacy, representation and political activity." What part of that was for outright political activity is not stated, but if it was 10 % that leaves 90% of the money for services other than political activity.

Finally, Cassidy got on to what he considered to be SCIENCE.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Now finally, if I could ask you to put on your science cap for a moment. Andy Thomas, the astronaut, wants Woomera to become a space sport for space tourism. Is this pie in the sky?

 

JULIE BISHOP: I believe he's serious about it. I happened to meet him during the Commonwealth Games. We sat next to each other at a lunch hosted by the Melbourne Lord Mayor and he spoke about his passion for a space program, about what we could do in Australia compared to other nations. And his view was that we could use existing resources at Woomera for a satellite program that could be exported to other countries. And I was interested in his views. I respect him as an astronaut and as a scientific thinker and I invited him to send me his thinking. We've corresponded. He's back in Houston and I'm looking forward to receiving a more detailed paper from him.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: What is the prospect that 10 years or so down the track there might be enough tourists around who'll want to go into outer space and then it would justify that sort of expenditure?

 

JULIE BISHOP: I don't think that's what he was talking about. He was talking about launching satellites from the existing infrastructure at Woomera for use by other countries. So he was looking at it on a commercial basis. He wasn't talking about sending people to the moon or Mars or anything like that.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: So he hasn't raised space tourism with you at this stage.

 

JULIE BISHOP: No, not at this stage. The breakfast didn't last that long!

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: He's the sort of guy who might.

 

JULIE BISHOP: Yeah, he could well. I'll look forward to his letter.

 

BARRIE CASSIDY: Thank you for your time this morning.

 

JULIE BISHOP: My pleasure.

 

No, we're not making this up -- go read the transcript in full, or better yet see and hear the video.

Perhaps Ms Bishop is or will be working quietly to significantly raise the quality of Australia's universities with regard to learning and research and how that will in turn raise the quality of secondary and primary school teachers in teaching STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). Well we can always hope.

At least she didn't look quite as smug and self satisfied as her predecessor.