Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the second time in two days. There is no courtesy coming from the desk. Put in that context, when one talks about education there is an ongoing misrepresentation about who pays the bill for education. If anybody studies any of the state governments’ budgets—be they Liberal or Labor, and they are all Labor at the moment—one will find by proper analysis that 50 per cent, give or take one or two per cent, of all expenditures of state governments are provided by the Australian taxpayer through the generosity of this parliament—half. We have a constant and ongoing argument that the Australian government—and not necessarily only this particular government—does not put in a fair share to state government schools. The evidence is that this parliament provides half.

I am fed up with advertisements showing little kids in a white car that is driving away from a school because it is a state school—outrageous stuff. I think that type of advertising is at the bottom of the pit. It is wrong, because this parliament has no money; we just administer the Australian people’s money. The inference is that they have to put their hands deeper into their pockets to prop up a failed system which, by their own evidence, many on low incomes choose to take their children away from—that is, state government education. We still call them state schools, yet we are told in this place that to refer to them as such is the blame game.

I am most in favour of doing the right thing by state schools and by the parents who choose to send their children to a state school. There is a simple solution that should be endorsed by all members of this House. It is a well-argued case involving vouchers. Fund the parents, not the school. There is the basis that in round figures it seems to cost something a little less than $10,000 per annum to educate a student in a state school; there is your base figure. Wouldn’t it be better to sort out this argument, get rid of those outrageous advertisements, withdraw all funding of state and private schools by direct grant—and that means 50 per cent of the operating costs of state education departments—send that money out by way of a voucher to parents who have children of school age and let them then take it to the school of their choice?

The member for Jagajaga tells us we have to have more oversight and more indexes so that the teacher and the student’s parents know better how the student is going, but one would think the teacher would have a good idea from day one. Why did teachers oppose public examinations? They knew that those examinations were a test of their teaching abilities. If at any socioeconomic level you have a class full of kids who all fail, there is some question about your teaching abilities. But who is going to be able to tell?

Of course, if every parent got a voucher, they would make up their minds. Be they Indigenous or otherwise, they would have a pretty good idea of where the best benefits came from and each and every parent would get equal resources. Of course, if they took their voucher to a state education institution, it would be up to the state government to fund the other half of the operation from its other revenues; and, of course, if they took it to a private school, it would be up to the parent to pay for the rest. But when one looks at some of the fees that are paid in Catholic and other religious schools, the $5,000 would get them nearly all the way. What is more, it would open up opportunities for targeting: you could increase that $5,000 to $6,000 in some socioeconomic or geographic circumstances and in others you could reduce it and make it $4,000. (Time expired)

See this speech in context