Interview - Agenda

ANDREW CLENNELL: So, joining me live at the desk with so much to discuss all over the world is Education Minister Jason Clare, you picked a good morning for it. Thanks very much for coming on.

JASON CLARE, MINISTER FOR EDUCATION: No worries. G’day, mate.

CLENNELL: Let's talk about this first, then. How many centres have got CCTV? Child care centres. How do we improve the situation for security other than through CCTV, given the trial found it wasn't the be-all and end all in terms of preventing cases of mass abuse that we've seen the subject of charges in Victoria.

CLARE : Yeah. About 30 per cent of centres have got CCTV at the moment. The trial that the Federal police were involved in said cameras matter, that they can have a very big impact, particularly in investigations. There was a story the other day on Four Corners that showed some pretty horrific abuse of children that led to someone going to jail. The cameras caught it. That's the reason that that person is now in jail and that the centre's closed. But it also makes the very obvious point that it's not useful in prevention, not as useful as having human beings with eyes on their kids and being trained properly. Which is why the cops have told us the most important thing we've done here is ban the use of personal mobile phones in centres. There might be kids in people's lounge rooms so I'm not going to explain why getting rid of phones is important, but I think we all understand why that is, as well as the legislation to cut funding for centres that aren't meeting the standard. That's all rolling out now, those numbers saying that the number of centres meeting the standard up from 88 to 93, that's progress. But I want it to be 100 per cent and I think all parents out there would expect that too.

CLENNELL: Was abuse uncovered during the trial itself, because of the cameras?

CLARE : No, the abuse was uncovered that led to the trial. So, when complaints were made and police got the cameras and they found the abuse, that led to that person going to jail for four years.

CLENNELL: Can you reassure parents their kids will be protected in child care?

CLARE : Well, I think we've seen some pretty horrific evidence that they're not, right. That is why I've taken the action that I have. That's why I've said that not enough has been done over the last decade or more by any government, Labor, Liberal, state or federal. And I can tell parents now that that's changing. And that's through the banning of phones, that's through the training of the staff, that's through a register. So, we know when some of these monsters move from centre to centre or from state to state. It's from legislation to cut the funding and to shut these places down. But this is part of it too. And so this money left over from the trial will mean that for a lot of small centres, not for profits, they'll be able to get the money they need to put cameras in.

CLENNELL: Is $11 million enough to roll this stuff out?

CLARE : It's not enough to roll it out to everybody, but the big boys can do it themselves. This will help the small guys to do it.

CLENNELL: This merger of education agencies you've done got a big run. A new national Teaching and Learning Commission, but how will it actually affect education standards, given it's just a bureaucratic shake-up?

CLARE : Well, what we announced this week is arguably the biggest change to school education at a national level in 20 years. So, big changes to the curriculum, and you outlined that in your introduction, around antisemitism, about civics, but also changes to the maths curriculum and the teaching of financial literacy to kids in primary school, not just high school, the digital detox that we might talk about in a minute, but also this super agency that merges four into one. Now, these four agencies do a bunch of things. They run the national curriculum, national testing, national teacher standards, but they're also responsible for the evidence, the research about what works. Now, I reckon most teachers, if they're watching now, would probably not be able to tell you the names of these four organisations or know what they do. I've been in this job long enough now to work out that if you put them all together, they'll probably do a better job. Your next guest, Dan Tehan, to his credit, recommended this and argued for it when he was Education Minister.

CLENNELL: There you go.

CLARE : We're getting this done.

CLENNELL: NSW has started a policy of less laptops in the classroom. You've gained agreement to have this reduced nationwide over the week. Now, this was a big thing, this Kevin Rudd digital revolution thing. Was he wrong? You're telling us 19 years later, we need to go back to pen and paper.

CLARE : I'm not making the argument here that we should burn iPads. You know, we need technology in the classroom. Kids need to learn digital skills. But it shouldn't be on every desk for every minute. We've got to wind it back a bit. I think Kevin Rudd has made that point as well. So, we agreed to -

CLENNELL. So, how much?

CLARE : Well, at the moment, you've got kids in classrooms, on average, two and a half hours a day. That's too much. It's way above the OECD average. So, we agreed to a bunch of things. Number one, the NAPLAN writing test is going back to pen and paper. You know, I think again, most people watching would know if you write something down with one of those, it sticks in the noggin better than if you're typing it on one of those. That's the first thing. The second thing is -

CLENNELL: If kids know how to write anymore.

CLARE : Well, you know -

CLENNELL: I'm not being facetious, you know.

CLARE : You're not being facetious. I've heard stories of kids preparing for the HSC by doing pen exercises. So, their arms are up to writing for three hours. Second part, screen time limits. And NSW has done that, Victoria's done that, WA's trialling it. Everyone else is going to look at it as well. Again, I've heard stories of teachers teaching at the back of the classroom rather than at the front, so they can look at what kids have got on their screens.

CLENNELL: Yeah, sure.

CLARE : The third thing is AI and restricting the use of AI, particularly at primary school. Go back in time to last century when we were at school. You don't give kids a calculator in kindergarten. You’ve got to learn the timetables, you've got to learn how to count before you're given a tool to do it at speed. It's the same thing here with AI. The Chinese just did a big study of the use of AI in high school. 26,000 high school kids were given AI and told, fill your boots, use it for homework. And then we're going to test you. Their homework results went up by 18 per cent and then they did a closed book exam and their results went down by 20 per cent. So, what does that tell you? Tells you that’s pretty good for productivity, not good for learning. And so they're the sorts of things that we agreed this week that we need to do.

CLENNELL: Just feels like it's too big, though, AI with things like universities, like how can you ever. You've got to just have exam only assessments almost, don't you?

CLARE : Or part of it, or, you know, more of it. More of it in the classroom rather than outside. Which is why NSW have said they're going to restrict the number of assessments using AI outside the classroom. And all the states and territories agreed that that's the direction that we have to head.

CLENNELL: You've been talking a lot in Question Time about the Digital Duty of Care. Is there any way, as the opposition says, this could be used to remove political content?

CLARE : Well, we don't think so. My argument to the Opposition would be that if you've got some problems with the bill, give us some amendments. Don't be like Gandalf from Lord of the Rings and just stand there and say, "you shall not pass". Come to us with some ideas. No, look, I'm genuine about that. I think if you see what I've been saying in Parliament and what Anika and what the PM has been saying is, you know, we're not pointing the finger and saying, "you're the problem". We're saying, "work with us". You know, I told the story in the Parliament the other day about an AI chatbot that told a teenage boy to kill himself and he did. You know, I talk about lots of stuff in this job. I've got little kids, 5 and 10, but I'm an old dad. Most of my mates have got kids who are teenagers. It's this stuff that my mates text me about. You know, they're worried about their teenage daughters and their teenage boys and they said, "Go for it, mate, you got to do something, because we don't know what to do here". And so that's what this is fundamentally all about. What I worry, you know, I actually think that this is an example of how politics has changed in this country in the last couple of years. If we were debating this two years ago, the Libs would be all in. You know, they had a Digital Duty of Care policy. Peter Dutton would be saying, we're not going hard enough. But because of the sort of the atomisation of politics and the rise of One Nation, the Libs feel like they're subject to some sort of hostile takeover by Pauline Hanson. They feel forced to say no to this, which is, you know, which is a real pity for the mums and dads out there who want us to work together.

CLENNELL: Can you name the forms of harm captured in the legislation?

CLARE : Well, the forms of harm, you know, particularly for kids. We're talking about pornography, we're talking about the glorification of violence, we're talking about the sorts of things that encourage kids to not eat or to belittle girls. They're the sorts of things that, you know, I kind of think when I look at that, why are we having a fight about it?

CLENNELL: But kids aren't supposed to be on these sites anyway, according to your laws.

CLARE : No, no, no. But 17-year-olds are. Right. And part of what this is, you know, I talked about AI chatbots. Part of what's in this bill is saying to people who run things like ChatGPT is you can't have a chatbot which creates a relationship with a 17-year-old that encourages them to want to kill themselves. Why are we even arguing about it?

CLENNELL: I just wonder if there is a way, like you just said, to restrict the definitions a bit, to get it through with Coalition support as opposed to Greens support, which I think you'll probably get.

CLARE : But, you know, we're not saying that we've got a closed mind to it. You know, we've said, "come to us with ideas". And I think most people would want the two major parties of government to work together on this.

CLENNELL: What do you think this Israel election result, Eisenkot now in the box seat?

CLARE : That's a matter for the Israeli president and the Israeli people.

CLENNELL: You don't want to comment further on that?

CLARE : Well, we'll work with all governments around the world, but it's not appropriate for me as an Australian politician to sort of make a comment on who forms government in another country.

CLENNELL: Do you think it would change the Middle East dynamic?

CLARE : Honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. You know, we've got the US election and the results of the US election could, you know, the big, obvious thing that came out of that is that most Americans want the war to end. Because if nothing else, you can see the impact on petrol and diesel in the United States. Rusted on Republicans, voted Democrat for the first time in a long time, if ever. The real question is, what does it mean for the war in Iran? Does it accelerate the end of it? From an Australian point of view, we hope so. We didn't start the war, but we're copping it, just like Americans are. But we can't stop it. But the sooner the war ends and the Strait reopens, and the price of petrol goes back to what it was before the war, the better.

CLENNELL: What do you make of the Trump UFC chief suggested appointment?

CLARE : Again, you know, it's not for me to say who the President of the United States appoints as his chief of staff or his press secretary. But I make the general point that the relationship between Australia and the US is strong and deep and deeper than who's in the White House or who's in the Lodge. This goes back over 100 years, but I think the Prime Minister has demonstrated his ability to form a very strong relationship with President Trump. I think you'll be meeting with him three times over the course of the trip that he's about to undertake.

CLENNELL: You think there'll be three bilats?

CLARE : I think there may very well be, yeah. But you know, isn't it funny that, what was it, 12 months or 18 months ago, the big criticism was that the Prime Minister apparently couldn't meet with the President. You know, that relationship is strong, and they'll meet a number of times over the course of this trip.

CLENNELL: Victoria Barracks. Can you explain that back down to us?

CLARE : Well, I wouldn't describe it like that. You know, Defence is still leaving the site, the heritage -

CLENNELL: And there was some controversy about that, still, I guess.

CLARE : Well, the - but that'll save taxpayers money. It saves money because it's not as expensive to have a heritage site as a Defence site. And the heritage building is protected. The change here is that it remains in public hands and the war memorial will play a role in its operation. What it does is it helps to save money for taxpayers. It protects that heritage site forever and it means that more Aussies can go and enjoy the building and check it out.

CLENNELL: How hard does the government have to go in this mid year economic statement in terms of cutting to get inflation under control?

CLARE : We understand that Australians are doing it tough here and that we've got challenges with inflation that are made worse by what's going on overseas, by the war. But we take responsibility for the work that we need to do to help tackle inflation here. And you'll see that. And the work that we're doing on that front in the budget update when it comes down next month.

CLENNELL: And some cost of living relief I've reported.

CLARE : I'm not going to comment on that. I'm not part of the Expenditure Review Committee. Even if I was, I wouldn't be able to give you that detail.

CLENNELL: We used to have a budget in 2022-23 that was $627 billion. Chris Uhlmann wrote in The Australian yesterday. He pointed this out. And in 25-26 the budget's worth $786 billion.

CLARE : The budget for?

CLENNELL: The federal budget. So, how can the Treasurer argue he's made savings? It was 627, and it's now 786.

CLARE : Well, budgets grow as populations grow and as need grows. But the point that Jim makes, which is indisputable if you look through the budgets, is that in every budget and in every budget update, we run a ruler over every part of the budget and look for where we can make responsible savings. We're not going to be cutting Medicare because that's not what - 

CLENNELL: But you haven't cut enough, you haven't cut enough, have you? You bet, you know, there's an argument the Treasurer and the government have been lazy and allowed that COVID-level spending to just sit there because people don't want things taken away from them.

CLARE : Well, you're not going to get a criticism from me of the Treasurer or the government. You know, Labor Cabinet Ministers need to have other Labor Cabinet Ministers’ back, just like Sky News hosts should have other Sky News hosts’ back.

CLENNELL: It's News24 now, by the way.

CLARE : Oh, is that right? OK. News24 hosts should have News24 hosts’ back. And if you look at the work that Jim has done, supported by Katy, they've found savings in every budget and I think that that sits in stark contrast to some of the last budgets that were handed down by Josh Frydenberg and Scott Morrisson.

CLENNELL: Will you be cutting anything in your area because the Ministers are being asked for individual savings?

CLARE : We are always running the ruler over every part of the budget and that includes the budget that I've got responsibility for too.

CLENNELL: Anything you've got in mind at the moment that might go?

CLARE : Well there is a process called ERC and then it's handed down as a budget update. And if I want to continue to have this job, then that's the process that we'll go through.

CLENNELL: Just finally, does Mike Kaiser deserve to be on $925,000 a year as the head of the Department of Climate Change and Energy when the PM gets $622,000 and the top NSW bureaucrat gets $688,000 when they actually run trains, a public service of $300,000 in hospitals and schools?

CLARE : The answer to that question is that the remuneration tribunal sets it as it should. There'd be a bigger problem if politicians were responsible for setting salaries. You know, I suspect most people watching would prefer it if politicians were paid nothing. The key thing here is - 

CLENNELL: Do you feel like you're getting ripped off, though, when Mike Kaiser's on 925 grand a year?

CLARE : What I think is that there should be an independent process that determines it, not politicians.

CLENNELL: Jason Clare, thanks so much for your time.