Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Clearly that push for bipartisan support has gotten off to a great start with the member for Sturt's contribution! Both sides of this House have spoken at length about the opportunities presented to our nation in what is termed 'the Asian century'. Both sides of this House have spoken about the benefits that come with being a part of our region. Yet, when it comes to the key driver of prosperity for our country, when it comes to the thing that this government—indeed, any government—can do best to give our own people opportunity, skills and a future with some certainty, it is only ever Labor that stands for meaningful investment in education. Once again we are seeing that that is the case.

I have some hope about the prospects for bipartisan support for better funding of education and for an improvement in education. I have some hope. I say that because last night, in the Federation Chamber, four members of this House stood up and spoke very strongly about their concerns about education cuts put forward and implemented by the state Liberal government in Victoria. They expressed very clearly their concern. Curiously, there was only one lonesome member of the coalition benches, the member for Riverina, who was prepared to stand up and defend the Baillieu government's cuts to education. There was only one member of the coalition—indeed it was left to a member of the National Party—who would defend education cuts in Victoria.

That gives me some hope that members opposite are starting to reflect upon what it means to cut funding from schools and from TAFE, and what it means to cut things like education allowances that enable students to get the kind of education they deserve. That leads me to believe that at least some members of the back bench are prepared to entertain the prospect that we might have a bipartisan approach to improved school funding.

It is also important in this place, and in the context of this debate, to reflect on some other members of the opposition benches who have demonstrated what might be regarded as bipartisan support for the improvement of school funding. The member for Aston, for instance, has joined me on at least one occasion, at the opening of a Building the Education Revolution project in Fern Tree Gully. So I assume, from his attendance on that day, that he is at least prepared to support—if not in votes, at least in voice—increased education funding for schools in our area.

I note also that the member for Bowman has been out very clearly 'giving a Gonski'. He was very clearly happy to be photographed 'giving a Gonski'. I know that members in this place are somewhat alarmed by things like the Victorian Liberal government's decision to undercut TAFE spending, which means that so many people, particularly in regional Victoria, who rely on TAFEs for local economies as well as for the obvious vocational education and training of young people within the regions. I know that for so many of those members the defunding of TAFEs is a significant cause for concern.

For instance, the member for Gippsland took part in a debate in this place in relation to the future of TAFE funding in Victoria not terribly long ago and did express some reservations about those funding cuts. So I begin this debate by saying that I think there is hope, at least on the coalition back benches, for some measure of bipartisan support when it comes to ensuring that our students have the funding that they need in schools and to ensure that we improve our schools and give our children a better future.

It is an important national debate begun by this side of the House, because, as we all know, it has been 40 years since the last meaningful funding review of schools. What an opportunity we have to look at the sources of funding available to schools. What an opportunity we now have to consider how best our country might support students into the future and in this Asian century.

While we have heard members of the back bench indicating their support for things like TAFE and while we have seen, through last night's reticence to come forward and defend the Victorian Liberal government's cuts to education, some indication that members of the coalition are prepared to talk about school funding and are prepared to give support for improved school funding, there are still those, largely on the opposition front benches, who have entirely retrograde views about education funding in this country. We heard quite clearly the member for Sturt, who began this debate so supportive of any kind of discussion about education investment! We have seen him talking about the repeal of any Gonski reforms—the repeal of any funding changes that might result from the Gonski review.

We know that he has already pledged to cut around $3 billion from education and we know that the opposition went to the last election with a policy which resulted in around $3 billion being stripped from education. So that is just the starting point for members like the member for Sturt.

In July the member for Sturt stated on Lateline that he does not believe that a person's socioeconomic background affects their educational outcomes. He made that point quite plainly. So it is unlikely that members such as the member for Sturt are likely to consider entering into a bipartisan approach to education. In terms of the socioeconomic background of a person affecting their capacity— (Quorum formed)As I was saying, the member for Sturt has made it very clear that he does not believe that a person's socioeconomic background affects their educational outcomes—despite the fact that we know that, by year 9, the gap in reading, writing and science literacy between disadvantaged and advantaged students is equivalent to around two years of schooling. That is an extraordinary figure but it is one that the education spokesperson from the opposition frontbench is unwilling to even hear.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Leader of the Opposition is echoing those kinds of sentiments when he says that public schools should be the ones to face funding cuts—because public schools are somehow getting an advantage. From my point of view, it seems that the opposition will be going to the next election with the coalition's plan for real action on quality education but with 'except if you are at a public school' added in a set of square brackets. That is the point that has been made by the member for Sturt over months and months when he has talked about things like socioeconomic background not affecting educational outcomes. It is exactly the same thing that the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in his remarks about the funding of public schools.

In my view, while it is possible that members of the coalition backbench might be prepared to stand up for education, it is certainly clear to all of us on this side that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the opposition's spokesperson on education take at all seriously the need to look at funding mechanisms for our schools and the next 40 years of education funding. It should come as no surprise to any of us really because while this government has almost doubled education funding during its time in office, the opposition's track record has been to oppose every progressive measure to support schools, to support early learning, to support things like higher education. While this government has stood for $2.4 billion in computers in schools, the Liberals opposed it. While this government has stood for over $16 billion in capital investments in schools, the Liberals opposed it. While this government has stood for $2.5 billion in trade training centres, the Liberals opposed it.

For electorates like mine, those figures have very significant effects. In my electorate alone we have seen $110 million supporting 61 schools that would have got absolutely nothing in capital investment from those opposite—and they know it well. In my electorate the Computers in Schools program has delivered around 6,000 computers in my local area alone. In my electorate the trade training centre program has delivered around $13 million to three trade training centres that will service the needs of students in the immediate area. So these things have a practical and real effect.

In this year's budget alone we have allocated around $13.6 billion for school, early childhood and youth programs. We have invested in these programs because we believe education and training gives people the opportunity to go on to fulfilling work and fulfilling lives. Education creates opportunity and improves our society. For so many of those students in whose education we have invested since coming to office, it means the capacity to go on to tertiary education. It builds on our existing commitment to tertiary education. In terms of the practical effects of those kinds of progressive policies, in Victoria alone, as a result of this government's uncapping of tertiary places, which is the next step in education for students at primary and secondary schools in my electorate, we have seen an increase of 25 per cent in the number of students who will go on to tertiary study since our government came to office.

In my electorate alone, it is 36.1 per cent. It is an extraordinary number of people who are now going to university and to higher education institutions, people who would simply not have been able to do so had it not been for this Labor government.

The opportunities that are presented through our investment at primary school in early learning, in secondary school through our investments in TAFE via the states and through our investment in tertiary education will change the lives of so many Australians. It will mean that they have employment prospects that otherwise would not have been available to them and it will mean that our country stands to do far better in the international arena and in our region educationally and economically. It is for these reasons that it is important that we have a bipartisan conversation and bipartisan support to improve our schools and to give our children a better future.

It is extraordinary that the opposition has seen fit in this place to stand against any kind of discussion about school funding reform. Not only have they opposed practical measures that we put in place that delivered capital investment for schools, that delivered national partnership programs which improve literacy and numeracy and provide support for schools delivering those kinds of educational outcomes that are important for our children's future, but they stand opposed to even the discussion of education funding reform, pre-empting at every point any kind of discussion which would see a fairer approach to school funding.

This government has taken the opportunity to look at school funding, a very difficult issue, a very complex issue and one that has been dealt with sensibly and appropriately through the Gonski review. This government is working in a methodical way to deliver school funding reform yet the opposition is not prepared to entertain a sensible conversation on it. But it is hardly surprising considering what we have seen when state Liberal governments come to office. Victoria is a prime example of that. Its vision for students is one in which TAFE funding is cut, school funding is cut and education maintenance allowances are cut. (Time expired)

See this speech in context