Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I really appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this incredibly important debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Before he leaves the chamber, I want to pay tribute to the member for Lingiari, who has been representing the Northern Territory for almost 30 years now. He is a fine public servant who has been fighting for the right to a fair education on behalf of some of the most disadvantaged children in the country. He is doing a fantastic job, and I want to thank him for his words today. I want to join with him and the other Labor members in this House in saying that we oppose the $22 billion of cuts to education that are contained in the legislation before us.

We all have very different stories of how we got involved in politics. Mine cuts right to the heart of the discussion we are having today, so I want to tell you a bit about it. I was one of those very precocious and outspoken teenagers who developed an interest in politics when I was very young—13 or 14. The first thing that I noticed, the first thing that gave me that absolute passion that has driven me all the way here today to this chamber, is the belief that people's opportunities in life should not be driven by what their parents do for a living or the postcode they live in. That is my core belief. It is the core belief that has driven all of my involvement in politics up until now. As the member for Hotham, I can say with absolute certainty that the single thing that drives the activities that I participate in in this chamber is to make sure that every child who grows up in my electorate, including the kids who are growing up in the most disadvantaged parts of my electorate in parts of Springvale South and Noble Park, should have just as good a chance at going to university and living a life of value in the way that they determine as the children who grow up in Point Piper in the Prime Minister's electorate of Wentworth. I raise this because it is very important for people to understand that when Labor people come up in this House and talk about education funding this is not an academic exercise; this drives right the guts of what motivated so many of us in politics. That is why, in the bill that is before the House, you have of a long list of Labor MP after Labor MP after Labor MP getting up in this House and standing up for the young people they represent in their electorates. We see, unfortunately, on the other side of the House that there is a relatively paltry list of people who are going to stand in this House and defend $22 billion of cuts to schools around this country.

It is not just the $22 billion in cuts that irks us on this side of the House; it is the fact that this has created a model which is fundamentally unfair between the different sectors. It is not a needs based funding model in the way that the Labor model was established. It is a model that is sector specific and it cuts funding to the students in this country who, very much, need it the most. Of course, the context of this conversation must come from Labor's record in government. Labor implemented the full Gonski recommendations, and that was an extraordinary increase in funding to schools right around the country. It was an increase in funding that was very much needed, not just because we have extraordinary equity issues in our schools. Most Australians would be shocked to learn that the gap between the highest income students and the lowest income students in this country is much greater than for the average of the OECD. We consider ourselves a lucky country, but that is not the case for many Australian children. We introduced a needs based funding model, but it was also a funding model that saw Australian schools get the resources that they deserved. It is those two things—those crucial elements of Labor policy—that are being ripped to shreds in the bill is before us now.

I think the Labor MPs who put that funding model in place had a little suspicion that there might be some debates about it coming down the line, and so we enshrined in legislation the basis of the Australian Education Act. What was put into Australian law is the objective:

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.

I do not think there have been many clearer statements of what we believe about education funding than this one, and this is what is on the table before us.

I mentioned that the changes in this bill represent $22 billion in cuts to education. That is the equivalent of cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade—the equivalent of firing 22,000 of the hardworking teachers who serve our community by educating our children. When the review of school funding reported, they recommended that what matters is the total resources that a school has for each and every child who walks through the school gate, not anything to do with the money that is coming from the Commonwealth and the money that is coming from the states. Lots of us in this House are parents of schoolchildren. We probably take a keen interest in whether the state or the Commonwealth fund our school, but for ordinary Australian parents what matters to them is the resources that are available to educate their children. That is why, when Labor executed on its school funding changes, it actually did that difficult work of working with the states and territories to ensure that by 2019 every underfunded school would reach a fair funding level. That was by 2022 for Victoria. Labor said to the states, 'We will work with you to ensure that each and every child gets the funding needed.' We offered the states two thirds of the additional funding, on the basis that one third of additional funding would come from the states. It is only through doing the difficult work that we can guarantee proper funding for each and every school. We have had Malcolm Turnbull, who, until very recently—

See this speech in context