Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I want to lend my voice to the issue here. It is quite clear that the government has no understanding of what the cuts to education if this bill were enacted will mean. It is really quite brazen of the government to consider that cutting $22,000 million from the education budget does not somehow come with adverse consequences. And it is also brazen of the government to pretend that they have somehow embraced needs-based schools funding and yet have been able to cut $22 billion from the budget over the next 10 years. As the member for Rankin and other speakers on this side have said, at the same time they have found $65,000 million to provide support in the form of tax cuts or tax giveaways to big business.

This bill is therefore not really something that is consistent with Labor's position. It never has been. There are grave concerns that the funding cuts will be devastating for schools throughout the country. It is quite remarkable. It may well be the case that some schools are not as affected as others, and indeed there are some electorates that are not as affected as others. I am really baffled that the National Party, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, can contemplate the cuts arising out of this legislation, given the devastation that will occur over the next decade for schools in those electorates that rely most on funding from the Commonwealth and rely most to ensure we lift the resource standard as required and as was outlined by Labor when last in government. It seems that the Nationals turn their back on their own constituency when they decide to support such savage cuts to schools in those electorates, particularly government schools.

The member for Scullin would have similar challenges to the ones I have. The cuts that will occur in my electorate in north-west Melbourne will also be devastating. It is really quite remarkable. This will be felt by every student in those government schools and indeed those Catholic schools in my electorate. I do not have category 1 schools in my electorate. I do not have high-fee-paying non-government schools in my electorate. But I do have government and non-government schools, and none of them are rich. Indeed, those parents who contribute to their children's learning beyond the taxes they pay for their education are not wealthy parents. Yet the cuts that would occur in the electorate of Gorton will be adverse to those kids.

Data from the Victorian education department shows that, over the next couple of years, schools in Gorton will be more than $15 million worse off. Indeed, several schools in Gorton will lose up to $1 million in funding over 2018 and 2019, with Copperfield College, as an example, set to be at least $1.8 million worse off. Copperfield College is not a rich school. It is a great school community, but it requires resources to make sure that the kids get an opportunity in life. As the member for Rankin and I am sure others have said in this debate, it is not just for those individual students but for this country.

We are in a knowledge based globalised economy where skills and knowledge will be the most important indicators as to whether or not a country prevails in terms of competition. It is fair to say that, whilst it has always been true that a country's most important resource is its people, I believe it is more the case now than it was some decades ago because of the nature of the global economy. Therefore, the idea that you disinvest, that you take money away from skills and education, where it is most keenly required, is bad policy. It is bad economic policy and bad social policy. We already know that Treasury's forecasts on the dividend for the $65 billion tax giveaway to big business is infinitesimal in the benefit that will arise: 0.1 per cent after 10 years of that cut taking place.

What we do know, without being able to quantify it precisely, is that the benefit to this nation from having a first-class education system, not in some schools but in all schools, will reap rewards for this nation—for the individual students involved who will be the beneficiaries of the investment and, more importantly, for this country in competing in a very competitive world. We have grave concerns about that. That is why I say that there are real equity issues here and real economic problems associated with the notion that you can just a rip away such a commitment that was made by a former federal government and, indeed, state governments, both coalition and Labor governments, to a project that was to say, 'We're going to lift the standards so that all students have access to quality education.'

I have mentioned the government schools. I am very concerned about those schools in my electorate, many of whom I have already made contact with. I would also like to touch on the Catholic Education Office, who have actually referred to me the cuts they believe will occur. They say that there will be some millions of dollars taken out in my electorate, which may well lead to fee increases. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training, and indeed the former education minister, the member for Sturt, have all said that the Catholics are lying about this. In fact, the member for Sturt says that the Catholic schools are simply pretending that they have been dudded. He went on to say that the Catholic education system is really running a very dishonest campaign. He went on to effectively attack their motives and their character for suggesting that was the case. Well, principals and teachers in Catholic schools in my electorate have told me that they are going to be under financial pressure. I know who I believe, when I have to listen to the front bench of the government or teachers who teach students in my electorate, as to which one is accurate in relation to the effects of the cuts that have been proposed by this government.

The same applies, of course, to the comments made by the Minister for Education and Training. They are very disappointing. I quote: '… to see some sectors are choosing to scare principals, teachers and parents with what appear to be absolute blatant falsehoods.' He goes on to say: 'I urge leaders in the Catholic school system to stop seeking special treatment and to embrace needs based funding for Australian schools.' Quite clearly, the views of the Catholic schools and the Turnbull government are at odds. I know which of them I am more likely to believe, and I know which of them the parents in my electorate are more likely to believe, because they will be the ones subject to the increase in fees because of the massive cuts that have been proposed under the legislation before us.

We have some fantastic schools in my electorate, but they are not category 1 schools. I have nothing against category 1 schools, but we do not have too many. We have no category 1 schools and we do not have people, in most instances, that would be able to afford the sort of fees that are associated with such schools. We do have very good schools and teachers, but they are under strain. They are under strain because of the lack of resources. We spent a lot of time working with the schools in investing in infrastructure during the global financial crisis. Many of those schools had portables instead of proper infrastructure, portables that were put in in the late 1970s and were not replaced by proper, permanent infrastructure. They now have interactive libraries where they had nothing before. They now have places where they can come together as a school in a way that they could not do before. That is an investment in infrastructure that says to the teachers, 'You matter as professionals.' More importantly, it says to the parents, 'Your children matter to government.'

With that investment at that time we sought to do two things: protect the interests of small businesses and jobs that might be lost during the global financial crisis, and put that money into education. That was the right decision both in a practical and symbolic sense. This is the opposite situation. We have a government who say they care about education, who say they understand the correlation between investing in education and economic growth, but do the opposite when it comes to taking money from an arrangement that was put in place between state governments and the former federal government. That is why Labor has said we will not support this proposition.

We think education is too important to each child but equally to this country. Therefore, we will be proposing that we ensure, if elected, that funding will be there for those public and government schools that do such a fine job but just need a bit more and, indeed, for those other schools that have been attacked by this government for being dishonest. I think that is just a really shabby way to treat the school community. I do believe the government should reconsider its position. It is letting down students, it is letting down parents, it is letting down teachers. Ultimately, as a result of these cuts, it will let down the country.

See this speech in context