Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might be old-fashioned but it remains the case today that the single most important thing you can do for a young Australian is to give them a quality education. That maximises the potential in an individual and it also gives them the best chance to get ahead. That chance to get ahead particularly applies to the sons and daughters of working families. That chance for a quality education has to be a quality education at every level—early education, pre-primary, primary, secondary, vocational and technical education, and universities. The notion of opportunity that comes from a good education and a strong commitment to equity of access to education has been one of Labor’s longstanding, fundamental, passionate commitments.

Labor’s historical mission has often been centred on the need to raise the educational standards and qualifications of Australia’s people and its workforce. Very many of my generation, very many of the sons and daughters of that immediate post World War II generation, have been the beneficiaries of that attitude and that commitment—that attitude that a good education is the chance the maximise potential and get ahead and Labor’s commitment to that cause.

That immediate post World War II generation, that great generation of Australians, had a couple of things uppermost in their minds when they looked at their family life and their children: pay off the mortgage on the day that the last pay cheque came in to dad when he turned 65; and, secondly, round up every last red cent you can and try to make sure the kids get a better education than we did. If we went to grade 7, get the kids into secondary school. If we did junior, get the kids into leaving with matriculation. If we went to leaving with matriculation, get the kids into a technical college or a university. That great aspiration, giving your kids a better education than the one you had, was fundamental to that generation and fundamental to Labor’s approach. On this side we do not forget the great Chifley government’s creation of the Commonwealth scholarships scheme nor the benefit that very many of us personally had from Whitlam’s free tertiary education. That passion, that commitment, that attitude rings true today so far as Labor is concerned.

There is another great reason today why, in modern Australia, it is absolutely essential that we invest in education at every level. These days, it is not just about an individual maximising his or her potential or about the chance to get ahead; it is also about our nation’s prosperity. It is also about the long-term, productive capacity of our nation to secure itself in the world and to ensure that as a nation our prosperity continues. These days, education is not just a social issue; it is an economic issue. It is fundamental to the ongoing capacity of our nation to remain internationally competitive and prosperous.

Investing in education, skills and training of our people in the workforce is the single most important thing we can do to lift our productivity to the next level. In the past we have seen an industrial revolution, which transformed the nature of nation-states’ economies, including our own. We have seen an IT revolution, which has transformed the nature of national economies, including our own. And, now, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it, we need an education revolution to transform the productive capacity of the Australian economy.

The last federal Labor government in office transformed the nature of our economy. It internationalised it, ensured that it was open and competitive. It dragged down tariff walls, floated the dollar, ensured that we could be internationally competitive and introduced a commitment to competition. As a consequence of that, as the Prime Minister, in a weak moment in 1996, said, he inherited an economy better than good in most parts. As a consequence of that, we have seen 16 years of continuous economic growth, set up largely by the structural reforms of the previous Labor government. Our nation has had the benefit of that in terms of prosperity, and the government has had the benefit of that in terms of political outcomes.

When we have a strong economy, particularly the benefit of a minerals and petroleum resources boom to China, that is the time to make the next investment for our future. The great neglect, the great complacency, the great squandering of opportunity by this government over 10 long years has not been moving to the next level of productive capacity, as far as our economy is concerned. What we urgently need to do is invest in education at every level to maximise the quantity and quality of investment in education at every level, from pre-primary through to university and beyond to ensure that that productive capacity comes to the fore.

When you look at our productivity growth, compared to that of the United States, under the 10 long years of John Howard, you will see that, from 1998 to 2005, our productivity fell from 85 per cent to 79 per cent.

What do we know from significant OECD research? If the average level of the education of your working age population is increased by one year—in other words, if you get your working age population and you increase, on average, that education level from year 11 to year 12, or from year 12 to first year at university or a technical college, OECD research says that you can increase your economy by anywhere from three to six per cent and that you can have one per cent higher annual growth. That is the link between investing in education and productivity growth, and it is the link between the government’s complacency, neglect and squandering in this area and the falling of our productivity growth.

Let us go through some of the damning indictments, damning analyses and damning statistics of this government over 10 long years in education at every level. Our overall investment in education in Australia is now 5.8 per cent of GDP. We are 18th in the OECD. Our public investment in tertiary education, in universities and in TAFE has declined by seven per cent over the government’s period in office, compared to an increase of 48 per cent by our OECD competitors.

Between 1995 and 2003 our expenditure per university student was reduced by six per cent. We were one of only five OECD countries—we were in a group with Portugal, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Poland—whose expenditure per student was reduced over that period. Our economy is either 50 per cent or 30 per cent greater than those smaller economies. Our expenditure per student fell over that period, along with that of those four other OECD countries.

We spend just 0.1 per cent of GDP on preschool education, compared with half a per cent, the OECD average of five times that. Recently, the World Economic Forum ranked our maths and science education levels as 29th in the world, behind France, India, the Czech Republic and Tunisia. When you look at the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 2002 International Maths and Science Study, which did a comparison of results for Australian students between 1994-95 and 2002, you will see that the performance of Australian children fell against our international competitors in the following ways: in year 4 maths, our ranking dropped from seventh to 14th; in year 4 science, our ranking dropped from third to eighth; in year 8 maths, our ranking dropped from ninth to 10th; and in year 8 science, our ranking dropped from fifth to ninth.

Looking at some of the reasons for that, around 25 per cent of senior chemistry teachers do not have a major degree in chemistry, over 40 per cent of senior school physics teachers lack a physics major, 25 per cent of science teachers do not have a science qualification, 25 per cent of maths teachers do not have a major in maths and one in 12 maths teachers studied no maths at university.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has nothing to do with us.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Compared to the year 2000, 40,000 fewer students were enrolled in tertiary accredited science subjects in 2005, and 17,000 students were enrolled in tertiary accredited maths subjects. What does the Howard government say when it is confronted with that? It says precisely what the two ministers at the table said just then: ‘It has nothing to do with us. We’re just the government of the nation. We’ve just been the government of the nation for 10 long years. It has nothing to do with us. There must be someone else that we can blame. There must be someone else who can take the responsibility.’

These are damning indictments. There is a lack of investment in education at every level: early childhood, primary and secondary schools, universities, and technical education. And their response? It is: ‘Nothing to do with us. We just happen to have been the government of the nation for the last 10 years.’ And what do we find now? We find that Labor stands up and says, ‘The most important thing we can do for the productive capacity of our economy and the most important thing we can do for the future prosperity of the Australian people is to invest in education.’ And what does the government do?

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons, as a member of the club, knows better.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government had a chance yesterday, when the minister turned up to the Press Club. Did we find a concrete policy proposal? Did we find a fully costed Commonwealth commitment to invest in education? No, we found three wafted-out thought bubbles. And one of those thought bubbles was that we should invest principals with more capacity to determine the staff in schools. I just said to myself, ‘I wonder where I have seen that before?’ On 13 November 2003, the minister’s predecessor said:

... principals need more autonomy for the planning and administration of their schools ... Critically important is control over staffing.

There is only one problem: what happened over the three years? There was a massive decline in maths and science teachers and students.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Julie Bishop interjecting

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have done nothing. When Labor says education investment is the hallmark of our future prosperity, you turn up to the Press Club and you waft out three ideas. What you will not do is what Labor has done: in very short order, developed positive, concrete policy proposals funded to show an investment in early childhood education. The universal right to early learning for all four-year-olds will be enshrined under a new Commonwealth early childhood education act. They will be entitled to receive 15 hours of learning per week, for a minimum of 40 weeks per year. There will be 1,500 new, fully funded university places for early childhood education, 50 per cent HECS remission for 10,000 early childhood graduates working in areas of need and no TAFE fees for childcare trainees.

Why do we say that? It is because we know: all the modern evidence and research tell us that, particularly for those kids who come from disadvantaged families, an early intervention is the most important thing that you can do for their chances to get a decent education.

The crisis in our maths and science—in the core disciplines that give us a productive capacity in physics, engineering, other science and research—was underlined by a seminar we saw yesterday at the ANU, with mathematicians, scientists and academics again drawing attention to this. And when Labor comes out with a positive policy proposal to encourage young Australians to study and teach maths and science with a HECS reduction upfront and a HECS remission later on if you work in a relevant occupation, particularly teaching, the minister says: ‘That won’t have any impact. That won’t have any effect.’

If that will not have any effect or impact and if that will not encourage young Australians to teach and study maths and science, I wonder why her predecessor said in August 2004, when he said that HECS increases would not apply to teaching and nursing:

... part of the Higher Education reform package is a measure which quarantines teaching from any HECS increases, but [allows] HECS to be lowered. The deliberate aim of this measure is to make teaching more attractive relative to other courses.

We send a signal to Australians: teaching, learning and studying maths and science is important to the productive capacity of our nation; it should be done, and we encourage you to do it.

Labor is absolutely committed to it at every level: investment in education for the future of our productive capacity and for the future of our prosperity. After 10 years of neglect, arrogance, complacency and squandering of opportunities, there is only one way that our future prosperity will be ensured: the election of a Labor government to invest in education, to uplift the lives of Australian families, to lift our productive capacity and to lift the spirit of our nation. (Time expired)

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government believes that there must be choice, there must be values, there must be standards and there must be greater national consistency in education in this country. Education is the fundamental, essential and enduring building block upon which to build a prosperous economy and social cohesiveness. We must strive for higher standards in our schools. We must ensure that school students are given the best possible opportunities in life. We need to ensure that every child has access to a high-quality education from high-quality teachers in a high-quality environment. This requires a greater focus on higher standards in curriculum, greater national consistency, rewards and incentives for teachers and more autonomy for school principals. The Australian government will continue to show leadership in this regard. Australian parents do not want a revolution. They do not want all these rhetorical words that mean nothing. They want their children to have access to a quality education.

Let me first talk about the funding facts, and focus on why increased funding has not necessarily meant that standards are increasing. This is where the difference between the coalition and Labor is so stark. Labor just throw money at problems; we find solutions. We know that increased taxpayer investment has led to higher standards and greater quality in our schools, in our universities and in vocational and technical education. We have provided record funding to state government schools every year since 1996. It has increased every year, and that is a fact. Australian government funding to state government schools has increased by almost 120 per cent since 1996. In the same period, state government school enrolments have increased at just over one per cent. We are investing a record $33 billion in school education over four years, between 2005 and 2008.

It is a fact that Labor cannot ignore: state governments, of whatever persuasion, own, run and provide most of the funding for state government schools, and the Commonwealth provides supplementary funding. The opposition continue to ignore the fact that federal funding for state government schools is calculated as a percentage of the state’s investment, and it has been for decades. So if the state governments increase their investment, the federal investment increases automatically. I am going to come back to that.

The Australian government is also providing record increases in funding in the area of higher education. In fact, this year there is over a 26 per cent real increase on 1995. We have increased taxpayer subsidised places to record levels and we have more Australian undergraduates at university than at any time in our history. Almost a million students are now at university.

You want to quote OECD figures. Why don’t you quote the figure that 35 per cent of Australian 19-year-olds are engaged in tertiary education? That is seven per cent higher than the OECD average. Why don’t you quote the statistic that 31 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 64 have tertiary qualifications? Compare that with the OECD average of 25 per cent—seven or eight per cent more. Labor have been peddling a myth; they have been selectively quoting OECD data that tertiary education funding fell by seven per cent between 1995 and 2003. That is not true, and Labor know it.

The member for Perth has form in quoting selectively, and he is doing it again. The OECD figures that Labor are quoting exclude three-quarters of our funding for vocational education and training, and ignore taxpayer subsidies for students. And, even if we use their own figures, Australia’s tertiary expenditure increased by 25 per cent in real terms between 1995 and 2003. But these are out-of-date figures; they only go to 2003. Labor is excluding the Backing Australia’s Future reforms in 2004, which will see the sector $11 billion better off over the decade. They are ignoring the $560 million in last year’s budget and the $837 million in the Skills for the Future package.

Our universities, consequently, are in a strong financial position. In 2004-05 we saw our universities’ total revenue increasing by over eight per cent to almost $14 billion and their operating result increasing by 36 per cent to almost $838 million. Total federal government funding increased by over nine per cent and net assets increased by over seven per cent to over $25 billion. I am talking about our universities. Our universities’ cash and investments grew by almost 18 per cent to $7 billion. That is what our universities have, today, in cash and investments. Yet state Labor governments have ripped out more than $150 million in payroll tax—more than they provide in support to the universities. Has the member for Perth ever called on his mates in state Labor governments to abolish the payroll tax that they impose on universities and stop ripping off the universities to the tune of $150 million? They are taking out more from universities than they put in. I want to see the member for Perth stand up and take on state Labor governments and tell them to stop ripping off our universities.

In the vocational and technical education area Australian government funding has increased by 88 per cent in real terms since 1996, and this year we are providing over $2.6 billion. There are more than 400,000 apprentices in training today. That is an almost 160 per cent increase since we came to government. Now, 400,000 Australians are getting the opportunity to get a trade so that they can get work and have a career. We have heard the Minister for Vocational and Further Education today say that we are setting up 25 Australian technical colleges with strong industry linkages. These colleges are going to have greater autonomy to drive up standards. We have practical solutions and we are working with business and industry, and parents, students and teachers to drive up standards.

If the member for Perth wants to have a debate about funding, let us look at the funding that state Labor governments are providing for their schools. I ask the member for Perth to take these figures into account during his fireside chats when he sits around with his mates from state Labor governments. I think he will be interested to know that in 2006-07 the New South Wales state government increased funding for their schools by 3.9 per cent. The Australian government’s increase in funding for New South Wales schools was 10.7 per cent.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the dollar figures?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney!

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the states had increased the funding at the rate of the Australian government there would be an extra $492 million in New South Wales government schools. Let us take the state of Victoria. If Victoria had increased funding at the same rate as the Australian government there would be an extra $403 million in Victorian government schools. Let us take Queensland. There was an increase in the 2006-07 Queensland government’s budget of six per cent for Queensland government schools.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From what to what?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney has not got the floor.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government increased the budget 10.9 per cent. That means $218 million more would have been invested in Queensland schools if the Queensland government increased funding at the same rate as the Australian government. It goes on—South Australia is a disgrace. The South Australian government increased funding for its schools—the schools it owns and operates—by 2.1 per cent. The Australian government’s increase in funding for South Australian government schools was 11.3 per cent. If the South Australian government had increased funding at the rate of the Australian government there would be an extra $167 million in South Australian government schools.

That is the picture across the country. Overall, the state and territory government increased school funding by 4.9 per cent; the Australian government, in 2006, increased our schools funding by over 11 per cent. If the states had increased at the same rate as the Commonwealth there would be $1.4 billion more in state government schools. I have not heard a peep out of Labor over the state Labor governments’ failure to match the federal government increases in funding state government schools. I think that is a disgrace.

We hear squeaks from the member for Perth over reforms and revolutions and then he is pulled back into line by the unions and the state Labor governments. Here is a chance for him to show his true colours. If he wants to talk about reforms and increased funding, let him take up with state Labor governments why they are failing to invest the $1.4 billion that would go into their schools if they were to match the funding increases that the Commonwealth provides for government schools.

We have to drive higher standards through our education sector. We do not want to just throw money at issues. That is Labor’s only answer to anything. If they have an issue they throw money at it; they do not look at the root cause, expose the inefficiencies, look at the incompetencies, improve the fundamentals or raise standards by raising the bar. They just throw money. That is typical of Labor—spend, spend, spend! And the shadow minister has strong experience in this regard. He was part of the Labor government that racked up almost $100 billion in Australian government debt by the time the Australian people threw them out of office. That is a debt that has taken 10 years of hard work by the Howard government to pay off. That was Labor’s solution to every problem they had while they were in office.

What was the legacy of Labor’s economic vandalism? Under Labor, interest rates peaked at 17 per cent and averaged 12 per cent for homeowners. Unemployment reached 11 per cent. That was almost a million Australians unemployed. When unemployment was almost a million people, we also had the highest number of eligible applicants for university missing out on a place. Under Labor, you could not get a job and you could not get a place at university. If you had a home, you had to pay 17 per cent in interest rates. Under Labor, real wages fell by 1.7 per cent. Now the member for Perth wants to return to his glory days as an economic adviser to Paul Keating and destroy the nation’s finances. This was a shameful period in the record of the Labor government over those 13 years. It hit average Australians hard. It damaged small business. It destroyed the confidence of the nation—and that is what Labor want to go back to.

Our focus is on quality. Australia invests billions of dollars in education, yet higher standards will only be achieved through reforms that address the key issues. In schools, those issues are quality of curriculum, quality of teachers and national consistency. That is why we are continuing to press for issues such as greater autonomy for school principals. The member for Perth does not realise that a bill was passed in this House in 2005 in which we gave state governments the responsibility to consult with principals over the hiring of staff. We had to force them to do it. The member for Perth does not realise that this is in legislation. We are saying in this legislation: not only consult school principals over the hiring of staff but also give them autonomy, the power, to hire and fire.

The member for Perth knows that this is what school principals want, what parents want, what teachers want and what students need. But he cannot deliver on it because federal Labor is captive to the unions and the unions are going to withhold campaign funding if he steps out of line. It is like bungee jumping for the member for Perth. Down he goes—we have reforms and revolutions—and then he is back up again as soon as the unions pull on the bungee rope. He will not be able to deliver.

We have to focus on the quality of teachers. They are a precious national resource. After parents, teachers are the single most important factor in a child’s educational outcomes. Teachers should be recognised and rewarded on merit like other professionals. I am working with state governments to ensure that we can reward teachers through a performance element in their salary packages that focuses particularly on teachers in disadvantaged areas who are making a significant difference to their students’ achievements. Teachers also need greater support in professional development.

As I said in question time today, there also has to be greater accountability to parents at the individual school level. The states have a wealth of data about individual schools, yet they are keeping it secret. They are not telling parents, they are not telling teachers and they are not telling schools. The reason they do it is that it would expose the truth that not all teachers are equal and not all schools are equal. There are vast variations in how state schools are being funded. This is not good enough. The community has a right to know how individual schools are performing and whether their school is receiving a fair share of funding. We are going to ensure that the reporting requirements that are already in legislation are expanded so that the parents, the public and the community get a real idea, a real picture, of what is going on in our schools.

I am regularly approached by employers who complain about young people lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills. We are going to focus on that. We are going to ensure that young Australians reach the highest standards that they can in literacy and numeracy. Currently, they are being assessed only at a minimum standard, below which a child would fail. They are tested only at a minimum standard. We are going to undertake national assessments across the board to ensure that young people reach higher standards.

We believe in choice for young people. We believe that they should have choice in the school they attend, but that choice is being denied to them by Labor. Australian families will not and cannot trust Labor to deliver on education, as they are beholden to the unions. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Day by day, the evidence of the Howard government’s neglect of Australia’s education and training system piles up. Yesterday, as the Minister for Education, Science and Training tossed out some more thought-bubbles at the National Press Club, down the road at the Australian National University mathematicians and scientists were meeting to consider the report entitled Mathematics and statistics: critical skills for Australia’s future. This report, released in December, analyses the crisis in maths and science teaching in our schools and universities and concludes that the number of mathematics and statistics students and lecturers at Australia’s universities is critically low. Further evidence of the crisis in maths and science appeared in the report by the Australian Academy of Science, also in December last year, which found that maths departments in Australia’s top eight universities had lost almost a third of their permanent academics. Perhaps that explains in part the reason for this government’s apparent difficulty with numbers.

When you look at the Howard government’s performance, you would have to say that it does not have a good grasp of figures and what they mean. For example, here is a figure: 18. That is Australia’s ranking in the OECD’s measure of investment in education, published in the OECD Education Outlook 2006. Australia’s overall investment in education as a share of GDP is 5.8 per cent, which puts us behind 17 other OECD economies—in other words, behind 17 of the world’s leading economies, including many of our major competitors. Here is another scary figure from the OECD research: Australia is the one and only country since 1995 to cut its public investment in tertiary education. In that time, John Howard has presided over a seven per cent reduction in investment in tertiary education, starting with a cut of $1.8 billion in the government’s first budget in 1996. That cut of seven per cent compares with an average increase of 48 per cent in spending by other OECD countries. Minus seven compared with 48 adds up to monumental neglect by this government.

At the other end of the spectrum is a huge number: 270,000. That is the estimate of the Australian Industry Group, among others, of the additional skilled workers this country will need over the next 10 years. In the meantime, as we know, 300,000 people have been turned away from TAFE colleges around the country since 1998, thanks to an early Howard government decision to reduce funding to this vital area. VET funding is lower in real terms now than it was in Labor’s last year in office in 1996.

I have one more figure: 11 years. That is how long the Howard government has been in office. That is how long this government has been running our education system. Eleven years is a long time by anyone’s calculation, but apparently it is not for John Howard and his education minister, because even though they have had 11 years of running the education system, according to them, any failings or deficiencies are someone else’s fault. That is a hard argument to sustain after 11 years of running the show, and we think that 11 years is more than long enough for the Prime Minister to be judged on his record in education.

On this side of the House, Labor are more than ready to be judged on what we have to offer in this area of policy that is so vital to our nation’s prosperity, its cohesion and the opportunities that it offers to each and every Australian. The coming battle over our competing ideas for education is about much more than the question of funding, as important as that is. It is also about the fundamental difference between the conservatives’ view of education as an individual commodity and Labor’s view of education as an essential pillar supporting the economy and building our society.

The Howard government’s failure to invest in education betrays its lack of commitment to education as a key component of equity and cohesion in our society. It also demonstrates its failure to understand the role of education in driving the improvements in productivity that we need to maintain our global competitiveness and uphold our standard of living. The legacy of the Howard government in this area is absolutely damning. And all the more so when one considers that it inherited the dividends of the Hawke and Keating reforms.

The Howard government has been able to coast along on the back of the hard work of those Labor governments in restructuring the Australian economy and, of course, the resources boom that has filled its coffers at regular intervals. This has been exactly the time when we should have been setting ourselves up for the future, locking in our prosperity and preparing for any challenges that might be around the corner. Resources booms do not last forever. Instead of riding the boom and squandering the dividends, as this government has done for the last 11 years, we should have been making the investments that need to be made to improve our skill base and our productivity.

How do we do that? We do it by investing in people—in their education, in their training and in their skills. But, under John Howard, at the same time as investment in education and training has fallen, productivity in Australia has been going backwards. Labour productivity growth fell from an average annual 3.2 per cent to 2.2 per cent in the latest five-year period, compared with the previous five-year period. That is what you get when you take your eye off the ball. That is what you get when you fail to invest in education and training, and that is what you get when you fail to invest in people—in the human capital that is universally recognised as the key to economic prosperity and social cohesion.

The Howard government has no excuse for its failure to invest in education. There is no excuse for its failures, but I can suggest a few of the reasons: incompetence, short-sightedness and, of course, blind adherence to ideology and political self-interest. For a Labor member—and I know that I speak for all of my colleagues here today—that is arguably the greatest crime of this Howard government: the fact that it never sees education as anything more than just another political plaything.

At least for the Labor Party, education is seen as a crucial portfolio, one that brings with it an enormous responsibility to develop policies to ensure that our education system gives everyone the opportunity to reach their full potential. Education creates opportunities for individuals and secures our future as a nation. So the education portfolio can be seen and should be seen as an opportunity to change lives and to build the nation. But, sadly, like every other portfolio in this government, education is seen as nothing more than another opportunity for grandstanding and cheap political point-scoring.

My colleagues and I all know the usual targets from this government. I am sure we could all recite them, because we hear them in question time every day. First, there are the states. They are usually to blame for just about anything the government finds inconvenient. Then there are the education unions and, the cheapest shot of them all, teachers—those professional and dedicated people who do no more to aggravate the government than just get out there in schools every day and teach our kids.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training might capture the odd headline with her thought-bubbles and attacks on the states, but 11 long years of this blame shifting and grandstanding in the education sector has left Australia dangerously ill equipped to seize the opportunities and to meet the challenges of the future. As the Leader of the Opposition identified in the directions paper released a few weeks ago, those challenges demand a substantial and sustained increase in the quantity of our investment and the quality of our education. That is why a Labor government will deliver a revolution in education in this country.

This revolution calls for increased investment throughout the education sector—from early childhood, through our schools and through to vocational education, universities and research institutions. We are prepared to make that investment, and we have already shown our preparedness to do that with our plan to give every four-year-old the opportunity to get the best possible start to their education through access to play based learning delivered by qualified early childhood teachers in those crucial years before they begin formal schooling. That is just the first step in achieving the education revolution that this country needs and that a Labor government will deliver.

It will be an education revolution to achieve our goal of making Australia the most educated country, the most skilled economy and the best-trained workforce in the world. That is what we want for this country, and the Howard government is to be condemned for settling for anything less. It is to be condemned for 11 years of inaction and 11 years of playing politics with education. A Labor government will take the politics out of education and put the equity and the quality back in— (Time expired)

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before turning to the issue of education, I would like to address the other aspect of today’s MPI, and that is the issue of Australia’s economic and social prosperity—or threats to our prosperity. I have to say that Labor’s timing is impeccable. On the day that it is announced that we have the lowest unemployment in 31 years, we have a motion from the opposition about Australia’s prosperity. One of the key determinants of a country’s prosperity is the economy’s capacity to generate jobs and to provide employment opportunities for its workforce, particularly for its young people. Today we have an unemployment figure of 4.5 per cent. What was it when Labor left office? It was 8.2 per cent. And what was it throughout Labor’s 13 hard years? It was an average of more than eight per cent. Compared with an average of eight per cent for 13 years under Labor, we now have unemployment at 4.5 per cent—the lowest level in 31 years.

As a reflection of this prosperity in my own electorate, unemployment in the Blue Mountains has fallen from 6.4 per cent to 3.7 per cent over the past 12 years. Indeed, in the new addition to my electorate under the recent redistribution, the Bathurst area, unemployment has fallen from 6.1 per cent to 3.9 per cent. As a mark of this country’s prosperity and the success of this government’s policies, we have seen over two million jobs created in the past 11 years, and nearly 60 per cent of those are full-time jobs. We are generating jobs and we are generating opportunities for young people to benefit and to participate in this country’s prosperity. The best chance of a share of this nation’s prosperity is the opportunity to have a job and to earn an income.

Under this government, there are two million more people working than there were when Labor was thrown out of office, and these people are earning higher incomes. Over the past 11 years, we have seen an increase of 17.9 per cent in real wages compared with Labor’s miserable effort. Over the 13 years of the previous Labor government, wages barely managed to increase at all, with a rise in real wages of less than one per cent. Under the 13 years of Labor government—the so-called protectors of the low-income earners—minimum real wages actually fell. We now have not only more people working than we had under Labor; we also have higher wages—an average of 18 per cent higher—than we had under Labor.

As well as the evidence of prosperity in the jobs market, I would make two other points. Not only do we have more people working and earning higher incomes, but people who are in business and people who are trying to buy their own homes are benefiting from the prosperity and from far lower interest rates. People are having to spend far less of their profits, far less of their companies’ revenues and far less of their incomes than in battling the 17 per cent interest rates that we had under Labor—or, indeed, the 12.75 per cent that we averaged throughout Labor’s 13 years.

Before I turn to the issue of education, I make the point that the evidence is this: in 1995, Australia was placed No. 13 in the OECD in terms of living standards. We are now No. 8. We have moved up from No. 13 to No. 8 in the world’s league of living standards and prosperity because of the management of this government. The opposition’s motion talks about the threats to our economic prosperity. I can enunciate some threats to our prosperity. How about the threat of a return to Labor’s economic mismanagement? How about the threat of budget deficits, of higher government debt, of higher interest rates and of higher unemployment? How about what those things would do to our prosperity? How about the threat of the return to union domination and sectoral interests, which would sap and undermine motivation and incentive in this country? How about the threat of the return to Labor’s outdated system of workplace relations, which would reduce flexibility, productivity, job generation and wages growth?

I am happy to compare this government’s record on prosperity and economic growth with the dismal performance of the other side any time, but I will now turn to the issue of education. Rather than the misleading assertions and empty rhetoric—and, sadly, at times, the sheer deceptive statements of the other side—this government’s record is clear. We have been committed to increased funding and higher standards, and we have been delivering on both: more funding and higher standards in education.

We heard from the opposition that 5.8 per cent of this country’s GDP is spent on education. Yes, it is 5.8 per cent, but what the two speakers on the other side failed to mention is that, in the last year of the Labor government, it was only 5.5 per cent. So the fact is that this government is committing a higher percentage of GDP—and a higher percentage of a much higher GDP, because of the strong growth that we have had for the past 11 years—than we had under Labor. We have increased funding for education from 5.5 per cent of GDP to 5.8 per cent of GDP.

Let us look at the three sectors. First of all, let us look at the schools sector—that fundamental sector where our young people get their start in life in terms of education. In this quadrennium, a record $33 billion in Australian government funding will go to our schools—a massive rise of 158 per cent, from $3.6 billion in 1996 to $9.3 billion this year. As the minister pointed out, the Australian government is increasing funding for state public schools at a much faster rate than the state governments, which have prime responsibility for state schools. Yes, there is a shortage of funding for state public schools and, yes, there is a lot that needs to be done in state public schools, but the governments that have the prime responsibility for those schools are failing to adequately fund those schools—despite the increased direct funding of the Australian government, despite the increased revenue to the state governments because of the GST bonanza, and despite the benefits of the booming economy we have had for the past 11 years. State Labor governments are failing to adequately fund their state schools. The federal government, as usual, is called upon to make up the difference, to carry the load, and that is exactly what we are doing.

But there has not only been increased funding; there have been serious efforts by this government to raise standards, despite the determined opposition of teachers’ unions and state Labor governments and the acquiescence of the federal opposition. If federal Labor really cared, they would be putting pressure on the state Labor governments to do something about this. In 1996, the evidence showed that 27 per cent of our year 3 students and 29 per cent of our year 5 students failed to meet adequate standards on literacy and numeracy. This government has been determined to try to raise standards throughout our schools by introducing plain English report cards for parents so that there is greater transparency and so parents can see, devoid of all the educational jargon, exactly how their children are performing in schools; by our efforts to introduce national standards of testing for literacy, which we started in 1999 in years 3, 5 and 7 and this year intend to introduce in year 9; by our efforts to increase the availability of information to parents and the public so that they know what is going on; and by our efforts to raise teacher standards.

The vast majority of the teachers throughout our country are committed, dedicated professionals, but they are not being adequately supported or encouraged by state governments. They are not being paid enough. If we had higher salaries for teachers, we would attract more people into teaching. And we ought to be rewarding those outstanding teachers who are making extra efforts. Instead of being hamstrung or handcuffed by the one-size-fits-all approach of the teachers’ unions, who refuse to acknowledge and reward excellence, those outstanding teachers, who are going the extra mile to do the extra work, ought to be rewarded. In terms of boys’ education, there are also the initiatives of this government to address the disadvantage of boys.

There is so much I could speak on—I have pages full of notes—and that I would like to be able to speak on. This government is delivering in school education, in university education and in technical and vocational education. We are delivering in terms of increased funding and we are delivering in terms of higher standards. But we are being obstructed at every turn by the state Labor governments, by the acquiescence of the federal opposition and the determination of the state teachers’ unions to pull the strings of the state education authorities. We are delivering in education, we are delivering on economic growth and we are delivering on prosperity for the Australian community. The only threat to all that is a return to the mismanagement of the Labor opposition.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.