Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These appropriation bills basically set out the spending priorities of the Turnbull-Joyce government—what they consider to be most important. In my response, I would like to focus particularly on education funding. I had a couple of different careers before ending up in parliament, but my 11 years as a teacher are what have informed me in choosing the topic for this response to the Turnbull-Joyce government priorities as set out in the appropriations bills.

As a teacher, I taught in public schools and in private schools. I taught in regional areas, including up near Cairns, and in the inner city, in Brisbane. From my time as a teacher and then as a parent and as a member of parliament, I have always had a passion for education and the importance of education for every child—the gifted, those in the middle and those that need extra assistance. The Labor Party is my natural party because I believe passionately in the right of every Australian child to have access to a quality education, irrespective of their background, their economic circumstances or their geographic location. In 2016 education should be the cornerstone of our social and democratic traditions. It is central to our economic success and future prosperity. Productivity gains will come through investing in education.

The Gonski reforms, known by so many in the education sector, were based on a simple core principle—that every child should get a great education, providing opportunity for all. I thank, on the record, former prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard for the great legacy that came from their investment in the Gonski reforms. Remember, the Gonski reforms came from that focus on productivity. That is why we had a banker doing the analysis—not a teacher, not a social worker but a banker. The question was: how can Australia do better in the future?

Under Gonski, a nationwide funding standard was determined based on the cost of delivering a high-quality education for all children. Additional resources were to be distributed on the basis of need, and future funding for schools was to be evidence based. We lost a bit of bark as a government when we brought in that evidence based funding. I know NAPLAN is not perfect, but it is part of gathering that evidence. Irrespective of the sign above the school gate, in my electorate and the 149 other electorates, children would receive funding based on need. Irrespective of the sign over the school gate, all would be treated the same when it came to evidence based future funding. The aim was to reverse sliding student performances and to close the gap between the educational haves and the educational have-nots.

It is unacceptable that assessment results indicate currently a two-year difference in mathematical performance dependent on how well-off a student's parents are. Socioeconomic status should not be an albatross around the necks of our brightest children. Improving productivity, which is the only indicator of an economic engine running well, demands that we bring on our brightest students. We should not condemn them because of their being Indigenous, or rural and remote, or from a culturally and linguistically diverse background or because of their economic status. This is just one of the reasons that the Turnbull-Joyce government's decision to withdraw from the Gonski reforms is so disappointing. It is more than disappointing. It is actually gutless and deceitful to see such a backflip after the commitment that was given on the corflutes in my electorate of Moreton—and in the member for Kingston's electorate, I am sure. There were commitments at the election, saying 'We will fund Gonski in years 5 and 6.'

See this speech in context