Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened with very great interest this afternoon to many of the contributions that have been made in this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Particularly, I would like to thank the member for Chifley for his contribution, because when he talked about disadvantage in his electorate and when the member for Lingiari talked about disadvantage in his electorate, that resonated with my experience, albeit limited experience, in this place.

The reason why I can say that with confidence is the fact that in a very lengthy election campaign and after doorknocking on thousands of dollars and having thousands of conversations with electors in my electorate, something came through very loud and clear. That was that there were three primary concerns in my electorate of Bass. These were jobs, health and education. The feedback that I got showed a sophistication of understanding by multiple people in the electorate. They understood how interconnected those issues were—particularly when you are talking about areas of disadvantage.

The member for Chifley talked about disadvantage and the importance of investment in education for the jobs of the future. This is particularly important to my electorate of Bass, because we are beset by disadvantage. The Tasmanian experience is, unfortunately, that we have a gross state product which is 27 per cent below the average gross state product for the other states. I find that shameful; that represents a significant underperformance.

People on the other side and people from other states can criticise Tasmania for its underperformance, but we have a responsibility in this place, acknowledging the importance of our federation, to make the appropriate investments to lift up people who are below the line, so to speak—particularly in areas of disadvantage. That is the Labor way.

I have listened with interest since budget night to those opposite, who now claim the mantle of fairness. They now claim a commitment to a needs based system driving Commonwealth funding in education. They talk about 'funding' in education—they do not talk about 'investment'. I have listened to some on the other side claiming that Labor is misrepresenting the investments made by the government in education. They claim that the budget delivers increased funding, just as in the 2016 election campaign they claimed increases in education funding, increases in health funding and a commitment to Medicare.

In my view, their appropriation of Gonski is a cynical attempt to convince the Australian voters that they—the Liberal Party—understand the concerns of our communities about education: in particular, the desire of all parents to see that their children benefit from a good education. I saw this time and time again on the streets of Bass. We know that people have a commitment to education. I campaigned in the electorate during the 2016 election, particularly in areas of significant disadvantage, on the transformative power of education. This message resonated with all people—those who had children, those who had children who had completed their education and, indeed, those who were without children. They understood in particular that the prospective future of a child living next door or living over the road was something that materially affected the wellbeing, the safety, the prosperity and the security of the local area or a neighbourhood.

This is not merely anecdotal evidence, though. The fact that education and investment in education produce significant economic as well as social benefit is well understood. Indeed, one of Tasmania's favourite sons, the economist Saul Eslake, has recently delivered an address, the John West Memorial Lecture at the University of Tasmania. In it he highlighted, as I indicated earlier, the fact that the Tasmanian economy underperforms the average of the other state economies on a per capita basis by about 27 per cent or more. As I said previously, this is shameful. It is a structural issue which cannot be addressed by piecemeal investment.

I was proud to take policies to my electorate which supported both investments in infrastructure and long-term structural investment in improving educational outcomes in Tasmania. Chief amongst these policies was Labor's investment of $150 million in the $350 million University of Tasmania transformation project. This was an infrastructure project for the shorter term but, ultimately, a project which would deliver and will deliver increased participation in tertiary and further education. Coupled with Labor's commitment to infrastructure spending in the form of remediation of sewage contamination of the Tamar River, Labor took a comprehensive education and infrastructure program to the electorate whilst not neglecting the electorate's concerns to ensure that our public health system was preserved and properly funded.

Saul Eslake's John West Memorial Lecture provides significant insight into some of the likely causes of Tasmania's underperformance in economic terms. Some of them are the cause of contention, nevertheless. Whilst there is an ageing population which does not assist in the maintenance of gross state product, our lack of educational attainment must play a significant role in the poor economic performance of the Tasmanian economy.

Of course it is not the case, and I am not suggesting, that Tasmanian students or indeed Tasmanian workers are less intelligent or less capable of being trained. There is, however, a significant deficit in the numbers of Tasmanians who complete education to year 12, and a corresponding decline in the rates of Tasmanians who attain some sort of tertiary qualification. This is, of course, not a criticism of our teachers; nor is it appropriate to criticise the state's previous adoption of secondary colleges, as, in my experience with both Launceston College and Newstead College, to name just two of them, these institutions provide an inspiring and challenging environment, both at an academic and a practical level.

How then does this Liberal government propose to address this issue with a reduction—yes, a reduction—in funding to Tasmanian schools? It is absolutely extraordinary that the government claims additional investment in schools not just in Tasmania but elsewhere. However, the only way that they can make this extraordinary claim is by claiming that funds cut from the 2014 federal budget have been partially restored as part of their Gonski 2.0 education funding program.

It is even more extraordinary to sit in this place and hear those opposite claim, just as they did in the 2016 election campaign and earlier, that the cuts delivered in the 2014 federal budget were not cuts at all, on the basis that Labor's plan for delivery of Gonski was not 'fully funded'. This exercise in mental gymnastics—and, indeed, deception—proceeds on the basis that, for the years following the forward estimates, education funding was not in some way guaranteed, despite the existence of funding agreements between the federal and state governments in each jurisdiction.

Every school principal, every teacher and every parent of a child denied funding in the 2014 budget and subsequent budgets needs to understand that the Liberals perpetuated a fraud on the Australian public by claiming that there was not a dollar's difference between the Liberals and Labor on education funding, whilst claiming that years 5 and 6 of the Gonski funding plan proposed by Labor was unfunded.

The fact of the matter is that Gonski 2.0 delivers increased funding from the low base adopted in the 2014 federal budget. This enables the present government to claim increases in funding. But, put another way, what was a $30 billion cut in education is now a $22 billion cut. The Liberals demand credit for having introduced a less worse education package and now claim that what they have produced is needs based in accordance with the Gonski model. The original Gonski model was needs based and sector blind. This means that the funding was available based on disadvantage—of particular importance to my home state—in order that individual schools could reach the Schooling Resource Standard by 2018-19 and, in the case of Victoria, 2022.

Gonski 2.0 does nothing of the sort. Some schools will never reach the Schooling Resource Standard goal set by the original Gonski plan. What the Liberals propose is a bastardisation of the original proposal that funding be sector blind. What has been adopted is the opposite of a sector-blind approach—transitioning to a flat Commonwealth contribution of 20 per cent of SRS for all government schools and 80 per cent for all non-government schools over the 10 years until 2027.

Despite what I have said about significant disadvantage within the Tasmanian system, the indexation proposed under this legislation, in the name of Gonski 2.0, is the second level of indexation after the schools in the Northern Territory. I do wish to associate myself with all of the comments made by the member for Lingiari with respect to the level of disadvantage in the Northern Territory. What he said was true; but it is doubly true with respect to Tasmania. Why should we have the second lowest level of indexation? What sort of system produces the lowest and the second lowest rate of indexation for the two most disadvantaged education systems in the nation?

There are absurd—even shocking—consequences of this bastardisation of Gonski. Schools within Tasmania will lose $84 million or thereabouts in the next two years. But one private school within Tasmania, The Friends' School, a very fine school I might say, will receive more than $15 million in extra funding over the next 10 years. However, let's compare that to the impact of this legislation on Tasmania's public schools. If the Turnbull government has its way, public schools in Tasmania will be $68 billion worse off. Of the total funds cut from the Tasmania education system, 80 per cent will be lost by our public schools.

Labor's chief concerns with respect to this legislation show our commitment to needs-based, sector-blind education. The opposition is concerned that this legislation, and the policy decisions that have been made within this legislation, is detrimental irrespective of any argument about whether the package as a whole delivers more funding or less. Chief among our concerns is that state governments are no longer required to increase their funding to schools—something enshrined in the agreements that were reached within each of the jurisdictions, which operate on the basis that the states and the Commonwealth would cooperate but some would have to make greater investments to reach a common standard.

As a consequence of the abandonment of that fundamental principle, 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair funding level by 2027. I will say that again: 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair funding level by 2027. Less than 50 per cent of the extra funds in this package go to public schools compared to 80 per cent under the original Gonski package—that is, the Labor package. There are vastly different growth rates for different schools in different education systems. For example, Northern Territory public schools will have their funding increased by a mere 1.3 per cent a year over 10 years. The member for Lingiari has mentioned that. This means a cut. Given that this will not keep pace with inflation it is inevitable as a consequence that the government would be required to cut teachers or reduce support, hurting the most disadvantaged people in the country.

I have previously indicated my concerns about Tasmania. Tasmania is beset by disadvantage and, as a consequence, the original package provided significant benefits to Tasmania, particularly having regard to the number of public schools that are required to accommodate up to 70 per cent of children with disabilities and provide education to 80 per cent of children from low-income families. Of broad import to public education nationally is the fact that public schools educate 70 per cent of children from a language background other than English and 80 per cent of children from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background.

The funding model proposed by Labor also had full public funding with all loadings for other form of disadvantage. This meant that Catholic schools and independent schools that provided for children with extra needs would also receive extra funding. I am concerned that the present government's funding model penalises Catholic schools both nationally and within Tasmania. These schools will suffer a real loss of funding, which may result in significant fee increases or, alternatively, cuts to staff. There is no detail as to how students with disability will be supported within the revised model despite the present government—or its predecessor—promising they would fix this in the 2013 federal election. The bill removes any commitment to delivering quality teaching and learning, any obligation to deliver school autonomy and the potential for principals and school communities to have an increased say in education at a local school. In short, the present government has thrown out the reform agreement and the individual agreements the Labor government negotiated with the states and territories. Labor will restore the Liberals $22 billion worth of cuts and properly fund our schools. We believe every child in every classroom deserves every opportunity. Similarly, the investment that Labor proposes is precisely that which is required to combat disadvantage in my home state of Tasmania.

See this speech in context