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

Mr Speaker, thank you for your advice on that other issue just a moment ago. We do appreciate that.

It is incredible, isn't it, that we have had another question time today with a government that refuses to say that it has a $2 billion black hole at the heart of this budget, and a Prime Minister who, despite repeated questions from the opposition, cannot say the figure $22 billion, cannot name the cut that he is making to schools funding. Do you know what? If the Prime Minister cannot say it out loud, you only need to read the briefing document from his office, circulated to journalists and others when this announcement was made. This is the briefing document that gives the lie to the government's argument about school funding. This is the document that will tell you that their new school deal is not fair, is not needs based and is not sector blind. You do not have to go to our figures or our campaigning or even to the state ministers' or anybody else's; it is the government's own document that damns them as cutting $22.3 billion from schools. It has it right here in black and white: $22.3 billion over 10 years. It says, 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' So it is not fair. It is not fair, because this government has also provided a table about school funding year by year, and what that table tells us is that there is an average of $2 billion cut from school funding every year from 2017 to 2027. It is not fair, because it also includes an adjustment fund. Why do you need adjustment fund if there are no cuts? If you are spending $19 billion extra, why do you need an adjustment fund? Well, there is a $40 million adjustment fund, but it makes it very clear that these adjustment funds are temporary.

Guess what else? It says right here that they are paid outside the model. Does that mean that there will be special deals? They are paid outside the model. I will tell you what else this document tells you. The government's own document tells you that this is not sector-blind funding. In fact, this is sector-specific funding, because, while the government will pay up to 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools—it says right here, '80 per cent of the funding standard for the non-government sector'—guess what? For public schools, it says, '20 per cent of the funding standard for the government sector.'

Who says that this government should pay 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools and 20 per cent for public schools? No-one says that. It is certainly not, as my colleague points out, in the Gonski review—nowhere near it. In fact, what Labor did is what the review recommended, which is say that we will fund every school in every state and territory in every sector up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, plus loadings. That is what sector blind means. It means that needy schools—whether they are independent, Catholic or public—get up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. And, as we put in extra funding, we expected the states to do the same. We would put in two thirds while the states put in a third. What does this mob say about efforts from the states and territories? Nothing. They say that they will take responsibility for 20 per cent of funding for government schools, and what the states do to get their schools closer to the Schooling Resource Standard is a problem for them.

The government's new school deal is also, of course, not needs based. The proof of that is also in this document. When you look at the table that tells you about indexation in different states, guess who does the worst? The Northern Territory, which has the poorest kids and the worst NAPLAN results—kids who are really struggling in small and remote schools—get the lowest indexation. They get 1.6 per cent per annum on average, which does not even keep pace with inflation in schools. They get the worst deal. Guess who gets the second worst deal? Tasmania get the second worst deal, with the second poorest kids.

If this was such a great deal, if this was actually $19 billion of extra funding, you would have the state education ministers rushing out, excited to get that extra money for their schools. Do they support this? No, they do not. Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, the Northern Territory and WA have all said it is terrible.

In fact, the only government that has welcomed it is Tasmania, and who would know why? I mean, honestly, who would know, when they are losing $85 million from their schools over the next two years, why they would welcome this. Who knows! Could it be because they are a coalition government that does not care about schoolchildren? You would have to assume: yes. One of the strongest state governments on this has been the New South Wales coalition government, saying that this robs their kids of $850 million over the next two years alone—that they were expecting hundreds of millions of dollars in extra support for their schools.

So why are the state governments not rushing out for this extra $19 billion of funding? Because it is a cut. Why are the Catholic systemic schools not rushing out, excited to get the extra funding promised to them by the coalition government? Because it is a cut.

The only place where it pretends that this is an increase is in the dodgy calculator of those opposite—the dodgy calculator that Mark Scott, the head of the New South Wales education department, has said you cannot trust, and that the Catholic system has said you cannot trust. The only place where it says this is an increase for your school is in their dodgy calculator that takes as a baseline the funding level that includes Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, ripping $30 billion out of schools. Well, if you rip $30 billion out, and then you decide not to rip $30 billion but just $22 billion out, your baseline looks a bit better, doesn't it, if you are using a $30 billion cut for a baseline?

I know I have shared this story before, but my brother, when my parents would say, 'Turn that bloody music down!' would go and turn it up, and then he would turn it down and he would go, 'See? I've turned it down.' If you change the baseline and you think you are going to fool people—well, he did not fool us, I can tell you! But that is what those opposite are trying to do: to change the baseline and use that to fool people.

I will tell you what shocks me most about this: those opposite refusing to defend the kids in their electorates. They are refusing point blank to defend the children in their electorates. The electorate of Parkes loses $43 million over the next two years alone, based on New South Wales government figures. The electorate of Riverina loses $23 million. The electorate of New England loses $26 million. These are big figures—they are bigger, actually, than kids in my electorate of Sydney lose, because they have got more need in those big regional areas. They have got more kids facing educational disadvantage. The electorate of Page loses $23,896,671 over those two years, including $1.6 million from the Rivers Secondary College and 1.3 million from Casino Public School—I could go through, school by school. The electorate of Banks loses nearly $12 million over the next two years, including $1.2 million from Beverly Hills Girls High and $506,000 from Peakhurst Public School.

As to Victoria: the member for Chisholm should not have put her head up today; the children in the member for Chisholm's electorate face cuts of $9.7 million over the next two years, including $1.3 million from Mount Waverley Secondary College. Oh, and the Aurora School, supporting deaf and deaf-blind children and their families, are facing a cut of $600,000. Do those opposite not know or do they not care? Do they not know or do they not care about these funding cuts? They should be ashamed to come in here with those sorts of cuts. (Time expired)

See this speech in context