Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

The minister asks: Don't you trust the states?' What I actually believe is that the Commonwealth government should have accountability mechanisms to make sure that we are increasing school funding, not just for the sake of the dollar figure, but to make sure that that funding is going specifically towards programs to improve outcomes for students. I do not think that is a particularly radical approach. I think it makes sense that the Australian public would think that the government has some accountability mechanisms in place and is making sure that dollars are being directed towards the areas which are going to have a real impact and lift student results.

The Gonski agreements have made it crystal clear that enforcements should be made. This government have walked away from ensuring that that additional funding is directed towards the five key areas of reforms. They have washed their hands of the responsibility, and it is unimaginable that such an irresponsible approach could be taken to billions of dollars in Commonwealth schools funding. Of course, we already know that there are states that are making the most of this in that they are receiving money from the Commonwealth for their schools but they are cutting more money from their state budgets for schools and seeing school results actually go backwards.

Contrast this with Labor's vision with the work that was done, not just by the previous government, but by the entire sector who all took part in the biggest review that we have had of Australia's school system in over 40 years. We went through this process and we had students, teachers, parents, academics and principals come together and say: 'What do we need to do to lift our school outcomes?' We need to recognise that we do have a serious problem in Australia's schools. We do need to recognise that we have serious inequality when it comes to the results of our students. We need to recognise that the gap between well-off and disadvantaged students is wider than the OECD average, and it is growing. We also need to recognise that in this country, right now under our watch, regional students lag behind their city peers by almost a year and remote students are almost two years behind. We were willing to tackle this head on. We went through the process and came up with the solutions. The important thing is that this nation now knows the solutions that this minister refuses to implement. He should be absolutely ashamed of that.

Sadly, we are not just lamenting a year of failure when it comes to our schools. We are also looking forward to what is next on the agenda. I think it is important to note that we have seen a number of examples recently where the Prime Minister has made statements. For example, earlier this week he said:

It would be better if the states could deal with their responsibilities from own-source revenues rather than having to argue with the Commonwealth to fund their schools.

What we see in the year ahead is that this government have set themselves up to try to wash their hands of all responsibilities for public schools. We need to make very clear that this is not about reform. This is about more cuts on their behalf. We also make very clear—and I have no doubt whatsoever—that whilst those opposite might want to completely walk away from schools funding and from our public schools, it is the absolute role of the federal government to try to ensure this nation's international competitiveness. It is the role of the federal government to ensure that our nation has the skills that we need for the future, and it is the role of the federal government to make sure that we are as productive an economy as we can possibly be. You cannot do that if you walk away from our education system and from investing in having the best possible schools across the nation.

We know that the minister also bragged about his school chaplains announcement. How hypocritical is it for a government to talk about the need for schools to have more autonomy yet, at the same time, for the federal minister to say: 'You no longer have the choice about whether you have a welfare officer, a counsellor, or a religious chaplain. We as the federal government, I as the federal education minister, are dictating that you no longer have a choice'? The over-600 non-religious welfare officers have to go. No longer will the government fund them because, rather than giving schools autonomy, rather than leaving it to principals and school communities to work out who can best serve their community, this minister has made the decision for them. If they are not strictly linked to a religious organisation, they can no longer attract funding. How is that in line with increased autonomy for our schools?

The minister talked about higher education and tried to claim credit for the recovery in international education. Anyone who actually understand international education will know that reputation and quality is everything, and it was the hard work of the previous government— (Time expired)

See this speech in context