Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst listening to the member for Durack and reading this motion I could not help but note that, whilst some of the programs listed in the member for Durack's speech are all well and good, she neglected to say that, before the last election, this government infamously promised no cuts to education. Then, since the election, we have seen $30 billion cut from education funding in Australia into the future. That will impact greatly on rural and regional schools because that funding was to go to needs based funding for schools, and one of the loadings of that needs based funding was for regional and rural students. I am surprised by the hypocrisy of the member for Durack and other members on this motion if they do not mention their budget cut of $30 billion to education that will disproportionately impact on those schools in rural and regional Australia.

It would also be remiss of me not to mention their failed higher education reforms. We heard from the member for Durack about the importance of tertiary education as well as primary and secondary education—and she is right about that. But the tertiary education reforms that have been put up by this government and knocked off several times by the Senate would again impact disproportionately on regional and rural universities. That is why they had to come up with a regional universities assistance package. That was recognition that their policies would hurt regional students and regional universities. They actually admitted it by putting up these additional funds—nowhere near enough, by the way, and we certainly still oppose those higher education reforms. All they have done since they have got into government, with their cuts to needs based funding and their higher education reforms, is make students in regional and rural Australia worse off, rather than better off, over the long term.

We have heard about how they are holding forums around the country, which is all well and good, as I said, but we already know that country, rural and regional kids start behind. They start off behind when they start primary school, because of the lack of early childhood education in rural and regional Australia. We already know that their NAPLAN scores in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are behind metropolitan students. We already know that they are behind in their science and maths. We already know that the reading literacy is behind in country schools. We already know all this information. We also already know that students drop out at a higher rate.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:21 to 12:52

As I was saying before the division, regarding retention rates, we already know that students drop out of rural and regional schools. We know that rural and regional students have a lower year 12 attainment. I particularly want to refer to my home state of Tasmania, where the figures are quite alarming. We are the only state or territory to actually go backwards in year 12 retention rates. In 2004, we had a retention rate of around 76 per cent and our year 12 completions are now down to 68 per cent, and they have particularly dropped in those regional, rural and remote schools. So it is a really serious issue to consider when we talk about the disadvantage of students in rural and regional schools. For members on the other side to come in here and talk about all the good things they are doing really shows their hypocrisy, given, as I said earlier, their cuts of $30 billion to needs based funding for schools. This money would absolutely make a difference to those students in those rural and regional schools because of the loading, as I highlighted before.

As I also highlighted before, Labor has a positive plan for funding to needs based schools. We have outlined how we would fund the additional money for those schools and we have also talked about the benefits of what that would mean for students in the schools. It would mean extra one-on-one time to meet the needs of every student. It would mean literacy and numeracy support for every student. It would mean higher teacher entry standards. It would mean more specialist teachers, particularly in rural and regional schools, and better professional development and support. It would mean new subject choices, better extra curricular activities, more support for students with disabilities and more access to specialist allied health services like speech and occupational therapy. Our plan for schools would actually make a massive difference to students in rural and regional areas right across the country. As I said, I am particularly concerned about students in my home state of Tasmania, where we have had students falling behind and, when it comes to retention rates, going backwards. It absolutely needs to be addressed. As the member for Durack outlined, the government is doing very little. They are talking about some of the funding programs, but they have cut $30 billion out of schools funding into the future, and they should be ashamed at the hypocrisy of this motion.

See this speech in context