Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The greatest and most important investment we can make in the social and economic fabric of our nation is to invest in education. By using the words 'invest in education', I mean investing in the next generation of Australians. They are the people who are currently students at primary schools and secondary schools, who are at an age when learning is so important to them. That is because at this point, when they start school, the development starts from year 1. They need those resources to be able to get an education and to be able to get the resources required to learn. That is not just to learn but to achieve and to go on and do great things that then change the shape of our nation.

That is why Labor undertook the most extensive review into school funding, under the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the former Labor government, to ensure that funding was based on students' needs. It was based not on postcodes or on what school they attended but on what they needed to achieve their full potential. We on this side know that those early years in primary school and on through to high school are so important to someone's development and so important in what the next steps in life are for you as an individual. We know that if you miss out on those early years—if there is perhaps an issue or problem with reading or math—and fall behind, it is very difficult to make up that ground throughout your school life. I am not saying it does not happen, but it is very difficult.

That is why we undertook to do this review to see where resources were needed and where certain schools perhaps may have been falling behind to ensure that those children in those schools have every opportunity given to them to ensure that they have got the education that they deserve. As I said, it is so important that students achieve their full potential. This is a responsibility that we must take seriously in this place. It is too important to play party politics with, because playing party politics with something so delicate as a child's education is detrimental to that child, to that school and to the community that is assisting in bringing up that particular child.

That is why in 2013 both parties agreed on this subject. The then opposition Liberal coalition agreed that if they came into power, which they did, then their policy would be no different to the proposals that the then Labor government had put up. They agreed that there would be no partisan politics in this and that we both understood how important this policy was for the future of the next generation of Australians. I think we also understood at that point—especially the then opposition, who is now in government—that it was too important for trickery or clever wording.

As I said, this was about our children's future. We are dealing with children's lives. Those extra few dollars that were committed by the Gonski policy back then would have made a real difference. It could have been the difference between perhaps falling behind and not falling behind. It could have been the difference between staying at school, going on and getting apprenticeship, going to university or TAFE and finding fulfilling employment or dropping out at the age of 15 or 16. This is how important this particular policy is. As I said, we are dealing with people's futures. That is why this government's new school funding policy is such an enormous disappointment. It is an enormous disappointment which adds on to the long list of disappointments which this government has inflicted on the Australian public. But this is one of the worst because we are looking, as I said, at children's lives and children's education and the future of this nation.

I said this the other day: during the last election we heard the Prime Minister talking about high IT, cutting-edge technology and how we need to achieve in these areas. But, on the other hand, unless you are funding at the foundation of all this, which is education, we will not achieve those cutting edge jobs and the high-tech industries that we need to compete on world markets. So it is one thing to talk about these things, but the reality is: education needs to be funded and it needs to be funded at a very early age, in schools. It is pointless talking about jobs and growth if we do not fund the knowledge that is required to create jobs and growth. So this, on a long list of disappointments, is one of the worst, I think.

We have also seen the government try to pretend otherwise—that this is not actually a cut. But the facts expose it for what it is, and that is: when you do the sums, when you add it up, and when you look at the budget papers and compare it to the 2013 policy of the then Julia Gillard government, there is a $22 billion cut to schools. There is no other way of putting it. And this was stated by the government itself, in a prebudget briefing paper on schools funding distributed to the press gallery and to journalists earlier this month. It was there in black and white. If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will quote from an article on the ABC website on 26 May, where we read that in this briefing paper the Turnbull government themselves:

… conceded that "compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of … $22.3 billion over 10 years (2018 to 2027)."

Well, to me, it is pretty clear: you do not get a $22.3 billion saving without cutting it from somewhere, and it has been cut from this education policy that has been proposed by this government. That is very clear. As I said the other day as well, when I spoke about schools and education, you can dress it up and package it in any way you like; the reality is: there is a $22.3 billion cut.

What makes it even more disappointing is that, at the same time as we are cutting $22.3 billion from education—which will then go on to affect the next generation of Australians and their learning capacity and will affect schools and the resources they have to teach children—we are giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. If the government wants to cut $22.3 billion out of schools to fund the $65 billion tax cut to Australia's biggest businesses, that is fine—but be up-front with it and tell us that you require money to pay for the tax cut and therefore you are going to cut from education. Do not dress it up and put bow ties on it and make it look like it is not a cut, when it is clear, from the government's own budget papers, that it is.

It makes you wonder: what type of government cuts money away from education, which is one of the most important things that we as governments can do? One of the most important things you can do is to nourish those children and give them the resources they require. We know that education is one of the levers we have when we want to change a person's life. It is absolutely agreed by everyone that, if you want to change someone's life, you do it through education. But what we are doing here is taking away from those people who perhaps are not in a position to go to very wealthy schools but are in schools that have very few resources or who just do not have a background that gives them the support they need at home, like many other homes. This money would have assisted, in those areas, to give those kids a great start and to give them equal opportunity, regardless of where they live or what their postcode is.

And this is not just for public schools. The proposal on school education that the former Labor government had put up was on a needs basis. You would look at schools, you would look at the students, you would work out where the needs were, and then you would find the resource and fund that resource to help those students.

This has to be the epitome of disappointment in a government that does not understand the meaning of fairness. It does not understand the meaning of fairness when at this point we are cutting $22.3 billion and giving a $65 billion tax cut. Parents, teachers and schools deserve the truth about what this government is offering. I tell this government: it is no good to try to sell it as something that it is not or to pat yourselves on the back for making a massive cut, then giving a tiny bit back and saying, 'Look how good we are—we have given X dollars for education.' That is like being an arsonist, setting something on fire, and then expecting to be congratulated because you have dialled triple 0 and got the fire brigade there. It is no different.

These children deserve better. Our education system deserves better. Our teachers and our school communities deserve better. That is why Labor will restore the $22 billion that the Liberals have cut from schools. We will do this because we believe in education and that there is nothing better for our society, our communities and our economy than well educated, well trained students that create well paid, good jobs. I go back to the point where the Prime Minister, before this last election, was talking about those cutting-edge jobs. You cannot create them unless you educate people and give them the tools to be able to create those cutting-edge jobs of the future.

The government locks in the underresourcing of public schools over a 10-year period, and it would end the national agreement made during the previous Labor government, designed to ensure that all schools, public and private, are properly resourced based on their students' needs. Does the Prime Minister think that people out there cannot see through this? I have been getting calls in my electorate office from principals, teachers and parents who can see through this and are not happy. If this plan were so good, why are the state and territory leaders up in arms, including some of his own Liberal Party premiers around the nation? As I said, not even Liberal state governments agree with the coalition's proposal.

This government's plan will hurt students. For example, it will hurt students like in my electorate of Hindmarsh, at Cowandilla Primary, which will have over $372,000 cut out of its funding. Cowandilla Primary is not a rich school. It is my former primary school, which I attended. They do tremendous work. They have always had a focus on new arrival kids. They have programs to try and help them, to assist them with English so they can get straight into learning, into the education system. It is one of the great schools that do great work with so little funding.

Another one is Glenelg Primary School. They will have $676,000 cut out of their funding. At Glenelg Primary School the principal tells me about the great stuff that they have been doing with the Gonski funding—the education funding—that they have been getting, where they have been assisting students who have difficulty in reading to get them up to scratch so that they can be at a level that will assist them to go on to learn and to do things. These are just two schools that are doing great work. Another one is Seaton High School, which is in a public housing area. It is not a rich school. Parents there are doing it tough. They are having $882,000 cut out of their funding. Another one is Henley High School, which is specialising in Steds, for example. They are getting $1.325 million cut from their funding.

This is not fair. These are not schools in richer areas. They are just ordinary, middle-class schools that are doing their best to educate kids. The South Australian state government has reputedly said that it is committed to the full six years of the Gonski agreement. The state government, together with schools and parents in South Australia are all demanding that the federal government abandon this cut to school funding. According to what the South Australian government has been told, it seems only $70 million will be restored over those two years of 2018 and 2019, leaving around $265 million in cuts from the signed original plan. That is another example of how this government is playing games.

The Prime Minister keeps on saying that the funding wars must end, but we did end it. In 2013, we did end it. Both parties had a bipartisan agreement. We should go back to that bipartisan agreement— (Time expired)

See this speech in context