Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

'The member for Warringah'—you are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The member for Warringah, when he was Prime Minister, presided over the deepest, meanest and most unfair cuts. The member for Warringah was prepared to rip $30 billion from school funding. The fact is that those opposite have not been able to get that through the parliament and have not been able to get states and territories or the Catholic and independent schools to agree to $30 billion of cuts. That they now say, 'We are only cutting $22 billion,' and we are supposed to be grateful for that is so insulting to Australian parents.

Who is it that says it is a $22 billion cut? The Prime Minister acted surprised when I said earlier today it was in their briefing note. Well, here is the briefing note that they handed around in the press conference last week: 'Key funding figures and qualifiers … 30 April agreed costs,' blah, blah, blah. 'Total funding growth … Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' It is, seriously, the third line in the briefing document that they handed out to journalists on the day of the announcement. So any pretence that this is an increase has been shot down in pieces.

Talking about fairness, I think it is extraordinary that those opposite like to say a funding agreement or a funding proposal that rips the guts out of public schools and shocks the Catholic system into the biggest political action we have seen in decades is somehow fair. If it is so fair, why do states and territories, public educators, principals, teachers, P&Cs and Catholic schools all hate it? Why is this proposal completely friendless if it is so fair?

Under Labor's policy, more than 80 per cent of extra funding would have gone to public schools, because they are the schools that educate the greatest number of disadvantaged children. AEU modelling shows that, under the Liberals' policy, less than 50 per cent of funding will go to public schools, compared with the 80 per cent that would have gone there under our proposal. Under our proposal, the majority of schools would have reached the fair funding level, 95 per cent of SRS, or Schooling Resource Standard, by 2019—Victorian schools by 2022. Under those opposite, the vast majority of schools will never get there. A child starting in primary school this year in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory or South Australia will never attend a school that reaches their fair funding level. In fact, only one in seven government schools will reach their full fair funding level by 2027.

It is shocking when you look at the figures for public schools, but equally appalling are the figures for poorer Catholic schools. St Thomas More's Primary School, which we visited yesterday, charge $3,000 a year in fees. They will lose $214,400 a year. That is not my figure; that is the figure they got in the letter from the government with Simon Birmingham's signature on it. That is what they will lose. The Sydney Church of England Grammar School, or Shore, with fees for primary school children of around $25,000, will actually get—get this—an $11½ million increase over the same period. That is fair?

That is what those opposite call fairer and simpler. Really? Simpler? This is 24 different arrangements. It means, for example, that students in the Northern Territory public system will actually get the lowest rate of increase of any public system across Australia. So the kids who are years behind their peers on the national tests and are in tiny, remote schools that are hard to staff are actually going to get the smallest rate of increases for government schools. It means that every state system is getting a different indexation rate, and it also means that funding beyond 2021 is actually unknown. The government are actually asking states and territories and Catholic and independent schools to sign up for an agreement where, for their funding after 2021, the government are saying: 'Uh, I don't know. We'll let you know when it happens.'

The government are saying that funding after 2021 will be indexed on a variable rate based on wage price index—75 per cent of the new figure will be based on the wage price index, with the consumer price index making up the other 25 per cent. What the education minister is saying in his modelling is that wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent that year. What was it last quarter? It was actually negative last quarter. I do not know where Treasury is coming up with these figures, but 3.3 per cent wages growth does not reflect any reality that we have seen in this country any time recently. If the assumption is that it is going to be 3.3 per cent, write that into the agreement. I dare you to. If you think wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent, write it into the agreement.

The member for Warringah has made very clear what he thinks. Perhaps we should put him on this new panel that is helping David Gonski with his review of what should happen in schools. The member for Warringah said:

I think any move by the Commonwealth to relatively disadvantage independent and Catholic schools and relatively advantage public schools—

It does not do that.

I think is just wrong in principle.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that the funding needs 'further tweaking'. I am looking forward to seeing what 'further tweaking' means. Senator Abetz said:

… genuine parental choice in education is at the heart of Liberal Party values and beliefs and I will be analysing the proposal from that perspective.

I can tell you something: you can only have genuine parent choice when you properly fund public schools as well as Catholic and independent schools. This is cutting funding from public schools and Catholic schools and, at the same time, managing to advantage some of the wealthy schools that the government say they are going to go after.

Last night, I heard the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, Zed Seselja, say:

My message to the Minister, and I have put this to him personally, is to have another look here in the ACT … I've put my case very forcefully to the Minister and he's listened.

He might have listened, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is going to act in any way. I want to remind those opposite that one of the best and most important investments we can make as legislators, as we do as parents, is an investment in our children's education—all our children's education. It does not matter which system, it does not matter which state, these $22 billion of cuts do the opposite. (Time expired)

See this speech in context