EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

NSW teachers need a lesson

LET'S get this straight. NSW state school teachers, who last week launched a charter about "Putting Students First", were on strike yesterday and will continue to strike "for as long as it takes" because they don't want greater autonomy for finance and staffing devolved to local principals, who best understand their schools' needs.

As parents of 750,000 children struggled yesterday to cope with the inconvenience, they could only wonder about the politburo mentality of the NSW Teachers Federation for fighting to keep its members under the heel of a one-size-fits-all centralised bureaucracy rather than embracing the chance to exercise their professional judgment for the benefit of local schools.

The teachers' campaign is out of step with the tide of their profession, in which autonomy is also being shifted to independent state schools in Queensland following similar moves in Western Australia and Victoria. Devolution of decision-making has served the independent and Catholic school sectors well and should help build stronger state school communities, especially as principals select teachers best suited to their schools' needs. Earlier this year, the Grattan report analysing the success of school systems in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Shanghai highlighted the importance of increasing principals' responsibility, noting: "Increased autonomy for both school principals and teachers was important for implementing reform of teaching practices . . . For sustained behavioural and cultural change, people benefit from some control."

It was no coincidence, given the centralised structure of the NSW education bureaucracy, that the state's public schools reaped such poor value for money compared with all sectors in all states from the federal BER extravaganza, recording the highest cost per square metre for the smallest facilities and prompting more complaints than all other states and authorities combined. The problem, in NSW and other states, including Victoria, was over-centralisation of decision-making and the imposition of cookie-cutter designs with scant regard to the needs of individual schools.

The O'Farrell government is right in devolving responsibility to principals. However protracted and shrill the union campaign, Education Minister Adrian Piccoli must remain determined to see the process through.

Debate raises hopes then leaves the nation all at sea

AT 2.45pm yesterday, when the House of Representatives usually is a robust theatre of political debate, it was hushed into a tense, introspective and, perhaps, contrite silence.

The Liberal spokesman for border protection, Michael Keenan, was reflecting on a journey to Christmas Island to examine the scene and circumstances of the 2010 tragedy that saw about 50 asylum-seekers killed as their boat was dashed against the jagged rocks of Australian territory. Parliament was acutely aware of the deaths of up to 90 people in another disaster last week, and the rescue operation under way yesterday as a boat foundered north of Christmas Island. Mr Keenan spoke of the goodwill and best intentions on both sides of the House -- as indeed did many members from all sides. As he spoke about the trauma of lives lost, he choked up a number of times, pausing to hold back tears. And there was not a sound. The entire chamber was moved, even shamed, into silence with him, as MPs focused on the horrific unintended consequences of inaction.

At times, yesterday's debate highlighted the best of our parliament. After a week when some have hurled shameful allegations about the motivations of others, a series of MPs spoke eloquently about the desire of all parliamentarians to uphold Australia's borders as well as our standing -- to provide sufficient deterrence to people-smugglers while offering sufficient compassion to genuine refugees. No one who has criticised the usual partisan point-scoring of question time could fairly criticise the tone or substance of the debate that took its place. The contributions were heartfelt and cogent, and seemed to genuinely recognise that this dilemma presents no easy solutions.

Ostensibly, the debate focused on independent MP Rob Oakeshott's private member's bill to provide an attempted compromise by allowing for offshore processing in Malaysia and Nauru. But, in fact, the debate canvassed the tortured history and difficult choices of border protection policy, bringing a decade of political posturing back to some clear choices presented in the here and now.

Yet the question all sides must ask themselves -- especially Labor, which dismantled the successful measures it inherited -- is why it has taken this long to bring the issue to a pivotal debate. The Prime Minister said she wanted to ensure "no one won, no one lost", and rather, simply, that "we got something done". Surely we have endured too many warnings, too many boat arrivals and too many tragedies to have reached this point only now. Most Australians had every right to expect the 2010 tragedy would be the last straw, but we now know at least four subsequent maritime disasters have taken more than 200 lives. Still, however belatedly, yesterday's renewed focus on this issue was welcome. But all of this will amount to nothing if our parliamentarians refuse to coalesce around actions a majority can support. By refusing an opposition amendment to restrict offshore processing to countries signed up to the UN Convention on Refugees, the government rejected bipartisan support for Nauru, as well as an increase in the humanitarian intake to 20,000 refugees. Instead, the bill is set to founder in the Senate, leading to more inaction. Around the nation, there will be much stunned silence.

Leave Slipper case to the courts

TURNCOAT MP Peter Slipper, who has stood aside as Speaker, was always destined for oblivion at the next election without the alleged intervention of irate Liberal National Party figures in Queensland. The sexual harassment case brought against Mr Slipper by adviser James Ashby looks murkier than ever with Labor claims that Coalition figures, including Howard government minister Mal Brough, colluded to "bury" Mr Slipper as payback for defecting and to unsettle the ALP minority government, claims Mr Brough denies.

Mr Brough, who was a talented indigenous affairs minister, has long been regarded as the ideal LNP candidate to replace Mr Slipper in Fisher. But it remains to be seen how much of the dirt being thrown sticks to Mr Brough and whether it jeopardises his chances of preselection in the safe Sunshine Coast seat, resulting in a foolish own-goal for the Coalition.

Allegations about Mr Ashby's contacts with prominent LNP figures before he lodged his sexual harassment suit against Mr Slipper are a bad look and show poor judgment on the part of those involved. In themselves, however, Federal Court documents released on Tuesday do not prove that the case brought against Mr Slipper was part of a conspiracy to sink his career. Nor does News Limited journalist Steve Lewis's text message allegedly stating "We will get him" or LNP president Bruce McIver's admission that Mr Brough approached him searching for a job for a Slipper staff member who in April proposed launching a harassment case against the Speaker.

Whatever the political implications, such points do not detract from or add to the legal issue at stake, which is Mr Ashby's claim that Mr Slipper recruited him for the purpose of forming a sexual relationship and made explicit and inappropriate sexual approaches in person and via telephone texts.

Both sides of politics must step back and allow justice to take its course. At this stage, Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese would be hard-pressed to prove his claim that Coalition MPs were "up to their necks" in a conspiracy. Australia's chief law officer, Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, should also know better than to offer public political commentary on the case. Even when the political implications from court cases might be significant, the separation of powers must be respected.