Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

He says they are getting millions. He says the Catholic educators are all wrong. He says that their peak bodies are wrong and that he is right. Well, I say to you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will listen to those in the frontline: the educators, the teachers and the school parishes. They are fearful of this policy. What arrogance, what absolute arrogance, coming in here and saying, 'I am above educators. I know best.' They should hang their heads in shame.

Mr Dick interjecting—

He is still interjecting and saying that they are wrong and that they should be denounced. Well, I stand toe to toe with him in this place. I will not take an arrogance lecture from the member for Hughes, lecturing everyone and coming into this place week in, week out. Get out into the community and start listening to those who are fighting what you are trying to do.

When Labor was in power in 2010, Labor initiated the review of funding arrangements for schooling to develop a funding system that was transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students. More than 7,000 written submission were provided to the review, and the panel met with hundreds of professionals, stakeholders and school communities across Australia. At the completion of the review, in the letter to the education minister in 2013, the chair wrote:

The panel is strongly of the view that the proposed funding arrangements outlined in the report are required to drive improved outcomes for all Australian students, and to ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.

What we are talking about is a funding model, recommended by that panel, which ensured that no Australian child would miss out on a quality education due to the school they attended or the suburb they lived in. That is why, following the report, Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following objectives into Australian law:

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

It is a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes to give them the extra help they needed. Make no mistake, when the government rips out $22 billion in funding from our schools that is what they are walking away from—that commitment. Not only will schools lose resources, lose teachers and lose funding; this bill also proposes to remove the entitlement that all students have a right to an excellent education. This is a shameful act from a government that is hell-bent on ripping out billions of dollars from school funding and walking away from the commitment of ensuring every child has access to a quality education. On this side of the chamber, we know that this government does not believe in education as a great enabler. They do not want to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education that this nation can provide.

The government are also walking away from the high benchmarks we set ourselves as a country, and from what we can achieve when we properly fund our education system: for Australia to be placed in the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; for the Australian school system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate II attainment rates to 90 per cent; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate III attainment rates to 90 per cent; and to at least half the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020.

That is what this government is walking away from: a quality education for all Australian students. This Prime Minister does not value education. This government does not value the power of education. And the changes introduced to this parliament clearly represent—from the government's own documents, their own briefing papers—a $22 billion cut to education. The member for Hughes asks: 'What's this based on? Where do you get this figure from?' Well, he needs to talk to the education minister. He needs to talk to the actual people who provided that information, from his own government, highlighting in black and white that there will be a $22 billion reduction in funding.

That is on one hand. We know that the government's other priority, while cutting $22 billion, is to give $65.4 billion to multinationals and big business—a $22 billion cut from schools and $65.4 billion in a tax cut for big business. I will say it again: that is a cut for every school over the next 10 years of around $2.4 million, over the next decade, the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. The review of school funding recommended that all governments work together to ensure that every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life. So, the member for Hughes is the font of all knowledge! The Catholic educators are all wrong, the New South Wales Liberal government is wrong, the New South Wales Liberal education minister is wrong, and the state and territory ministers are all wrong, but the member for Hughes is correct; he is the only one—the font of all knowledge—who knows everything about education! What an absolute joke.

We know that only by working with the states and territories will we be able to guarantee proper funding for each and every school. It beggars belief that members opposite would want to get up and defend this. I note that the member for Gilmore is in the chamber. She is presiding over $19 million worth of cuts in her electorate. She is proud of that. She is happy with that. The member for Hughes is lecturing everyone that the Catholic educators are all wrong. We know that those opposite—the arrogance they show—

Government members interjecting—

We know that maybe cutting penalty rates is a gift. But there is a double gift, of reducing funding for every school in her electorate. Now, I am not sure that if I was the local representative I would be too brave turning up to a P&C meeting in my electorate saying, 'Good evening everyone; I'm here to announce millions of dollars worth of funding cuts.' I do not think that would be an appropriate thing, but I am not going to give any free advice to those opposite.

When I met with Springfield Central State School P&C last Monday night they asked me why this government is cutting funding. That is what they asked; the school principal asked that. The member for Gilmore says that they are wrong. So, the principal at Springfield Central is wrong? The P&C is wrong? But the member for Gilmore is right? The teachers who work there, the allied support workers, the teachers' aides are all wrong? They have read the budget papers. They have seen the briefing note. They know they are getting $22 billion less in funding. But somehow the member for Gilmore is correct! How arrogant can you get? How out of touch can you get?

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Gilmore: you have a lot on your plate; I would not worry about what is happening at Springfield Central, but I will tell them, from you, that they are all wrong.

See this speech in context