Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Can I at the outset echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition on the shocking comments from the Deputy Prime Minister.

On the Australian Education Amendment Bill: it is a great shame that we do not have a bipartisan commitment to the funding of our schools in Australia at the moment. The reason is that this conservative government has chosen to go down a different path on the funding of our schools and education. It is also a great shame that those who suffer because of this lack of bipartisanship when it comes to funding our schools are our children. There is no doubt that our children are worse off in terms of accomplishments and achievements, particularly around literacy, numeracy and mathematics at our schools, because of the approach of this government and the fact that we do not have a bipartisan commitment to education in this country.

The previous, Labor, government sought to end the bickering, the division, the constant changes to the way schools were funded when we were in government. We sought to do that by asking one of Australia's leading businessmen to chair an inquiry into education funding in this county, to travel around to talk to students, to parents, to teachers, to principals, to community groups, to academics and to those who work in this field about the best way to fund our schools so that we could lift literacy and numeracy rates, improve mathematics and science accomplishment and, importantly, not forget about those kids who we all see when we visit schools, who find it difficult and have fallen behind and, as a result, fall out of love with education, feel marginalised by the education system and drop out of education completely—unfortunately, for some, at a school-age level, but, importantly, for most at a continuing education level beyond school.

The Gonski panel came up with a series of recommendations. They were not political. They did not favour one side of politics or the other. They were based purely on the needs of kids. And that is the phrase that is often used to describe what that committee did: needs based funding, looking at what the kids need to ensure that they can prosper at school and that all of them, regardless of their background, regardless of their parents' income, regardless of where they live and regardless of their cultural background get the same opportunity to thrive at school and to fall in love with education, to fall in love with the prospect of learning about how the world works, about researching issues and topics, about furthering their horizons from a personal perspective around education.

Those recommendations had widespread support in the sector. They had the support of the teachers unions. They had the support of school principals. They had the support of parents groups. And, most importantly, they had the support of parents in different communities. And of course Labor sought to implement those reforms. We sought to implement a needs based funding model for schools that was sector blind, that put aside past political differences in the way we funded schools, that took out some of the traditional approaches that had been there that had not been working and to fund based purely on need, with a base level of funding and then additional amounts of funding per school based on the number of kids who had disabilities, who were from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, who were born overseas, who went to small schools that were struggling, or who were in low-socioeconomic areas.

This was the funding model that Labor introduced, and we fully funded it for the recommended period of six years. We all remember, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, that the then Abbott opposition, through their education spokesperson, the member for Sturt, clearly putting on the record that if you voted for a coalition government there would be no difference from the Labor Party when it came to funding our schools, that we were on a 'unity ticket', in his words—there would be no difference. And then, of course, when Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, and his team were elected they reneged on that commitment; they misled the Australian public and they went back on that commitment that they made on schools funding, because in their 2014 budget that is exactly what they did: they cut funding for schools. They cut the last two years of that Gonski program, of that needs based funding model, and in doing so undermined what we thought was a final bipartisan approach and commitment to funding our schools. And the result is what we are debating here today. The result is further cuts to school funding in this country that will undermine the educational needs and aspirations of our kids.

When you compare Labor's approach—the needs-based funding model based on the Gonski principles—and this government's approach and the funding that we are debating here today through this bill, the difference is $22 billion over four years. That will make a very big difference to the educational outcomes of our kids in schools across the country.

I have been speaking to school principals and teachers on the ground in the community that I represent about what these cuts will mean. The clear perspective of the principals and teachers—and something that quite often comes back to me—is: 'We can't plan for the future. We can't plan how we are going to deliver growth in the system. We can't plan how we are going to cater for the needs of kids with disabilities who are falling behind and plan for the delivery of resources to get those kids up to speed.' That is principally in the form of teacher aides in classrooms and specialist teachers, particularly around literacy and numeracy and remedial work. The beauty of the Gonski funding was that the additional funding that went to schools for this meant that principals could plan and could employ people to work specifically in those areas. And they were getting results; they were lifting the achievement results of the kids. This cut and these new reforms make that planning almost impossible—and it means that schools will not do it and the kids will once again miss out.

Parents are aware of what this government is doing. Over the last couple of weeks I have received quite a few emails that I have read with interest from parents about their views on what this government is proposing. A couple of weeks ago I met with a single mum from my community whose daughter goes to a local Catholic school. She came to visit me and insisted on having a meeting to talk about what the budget cuts mean for her daughter and her school. After seeing the budget and the massive cuts and having spoken to the administrators of her school, she was beside herself with worry about her daughter's school fees being increased. The school principal had written them a letter and said, 'If these cuts are instituted we will have to put up the school fees.' This is a local Catholic school. In her initial email to me, the mother wrote:

The impact on all Catholic systemic schools following the recent announced proposed changes to Federal Government funding may prevent me from being able to ensure that my daughter is raised with the spiritual guidance and community that ensures her identity as a catholic is nurtured.

She went on to say:

The evidence base shows us that ensuring the identity of our children and young people is nurtured is important to building their resilience and ensuring their wellness in life. I find it very frustrating that funding cuts may result in me being unable to provide my daughter with the spiritual environment best suited to her needs.

I am a sole parent, and I manage a chronic health condition … I am reliance on contract work. I am financially challenged, with education, rent and medical expenses being my primary outlays. I could not afford to pay significantly increased fees.

That is symbolic of the response that I am getting from parents in the community that I represent. Here you have a single mum struggling to cope to make ends meet but found the wherewithal to send her daughter to a good local Catholic to meet with her religious commitments. That is jeopardised because of the government's funding cuts.

As I said earlier, schools are in disarray as a result of the government's proposed $22 billion cut. That is about $2.4 million cut from every school, if you average that out over the country. And $850 million will be cut over the next two years alone from New South Wales public schools. The New South Wales government are up in arms about what this government is proposing with these reforms, because they know that the state of New South Wales is being short changed by the Commonwealth government. Here you have a Liberal state government—which obviously would have been reluctant to criticise their Commonwealth colleagues—that have not held back. They have said that what the Commonwealth government is doing with school funding is undermining the school system in New South Wales.

When we talk about funding for schools, it is also important to discuss what makes a real difference in our classrooms and how we spend that money in the most effect way to educate our children. That is why the states signed up to the original Gonski package—because they saw the benefits that not only the kids got, but the states got as well, in terms of the way that education had been funded in the past.

In relation to what the government is proposing, we are going to see a reduction in the quality of education that children receive. Of course this will make a big difference to kids' aspirations in life and, importantly, whether or not they go on to further education. We need to be encouraging more kids to either take on trades through TAFE and other tertiary education or go to university, because ultimately they end up more productive not only in their own lives, with a better quality of life, but also in terms of the nation.

I have had a look at what these reforms will do the schools in the local community that I represent. The figures show us that under this government schools will be worse off across the board. To name just a few: despite having a rapidly growing local population of young families, Mascot Public School loses $370,000 over the years 2018 and 2019. Maroubra Junction Public School, which has been one of the fastest growing schools over the last few years, because they have been getting great NAPLAN results and great achievements, particularly around remedial reading and literacy programs, is worse off to the tune of $470,000. Randwick Girls High School, one of the great public high schools in the electorate that I represent, is worse off to the tune of $700,000 just in those two years. All up, schools across Kingsford Smith in the years 2018 and 2019 will be $7½ million worse off under this government as a result of this unfair attack on local schools.

With Labor's plan there is a different approach. The biggest planned increases go to schools that need them most, whether they are public, Catholic or independent. In practice that means around 80 per cent extra funding goes to public schools. That is because public schools teach around 80 per cent of Australia's poorest kids, 80 per cent of Australia's Indigenous children, and 70 per cent of kids with a disadvantage and a disability. In contrast, under Malcolm Turnbull's policy, only one in seven public schools will get their fair share of funding. So the contrast could not be more stark. This government is cutting $22 billion from the schools education budget through this bill that we debate today and leaving kids worse off, leaving individual schools worse off and ensuring that kids do not meet their aspirations and their plans for the future. Labor's approach is to adopt the Gonski model of funding so it is needs based and sector blind and importantly, focuses on the needs of kids, with a base level of funding and loadings for disadvantage that see schools properly funded, with funding growing in each of those schools and with teachers getting the resources that they need to make a difference on the ground for kids. The contrast could not be starker.

I said at the beginning that we wanted this approach to be bipartisan. We wanted to take the politics finally out of the way that we funded schools in this country, so that we focused on the needs of the kids. We thought we had that under the previous Labor government, when we instituted the Gonski reforms and when this government, in opposition, pledged that they would support those reforms. They have reneged through this bill, and that is why this bill must be rejected.

See this speech in context