David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Perth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to underpin the prosperity of future generations by ignoring the need for a comprehensive long-term education strategy for the nation.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

What a surprise! Eleven long years of complacency, neglect and blame shifting, with four months to go before an election, and suddenly the government discovers an interest in education. What a surprise! No prizes for guessing why in the budget on Tuesday night the government trumpeted its so-called education credentials. For 11 long years it has failed to invest properly in education at every level and has allowed, at every level, our competitive position with other countries to slip. Now, with four months to go until an election, suddenly the government is taking an interest. For 11 long years it has done nothing and now, suddenly, it has taken an interest. The only reason for it doing that is that it is a political fix for an election—a John Howard political fix, a political hoax, a political smokescreen.

The attitude of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party is that, if they win the next election, that is it for education. What they have announced in the budget will be the end of it, because it serves their political end. It has nothing to do with a long-term enduring commitment to increasing investment in education at every level, raising standards of education at every level and increasing our competitiveness in education at every level—not just on the state by state level but at the national level compared with the educational levels of other nations, particularly our regional competitors.

The single most important thing we can do to continue to be internationally competitive, to continue to be a prosperous nation and to continue to have a good lifestyle for future generations is to invest in the education, skills and training of our people and our workforce. For 11 long years the government has been underinvesting. It started by slashing and burning and then has run an approach that essentially says, ‘If there’s a problem with standards, that has nothing to do with us; blame a state, teacher or a trade union. If there is a failure to invest in a university, it has nothing to do with us; blame a vice-chancellor or blame a university.’ The government’s whole approach has been to reduce Commonwealth investment in education at every level—and then, with four months to go, what a surprise! There is only one reason that it has acted different at this point in the cycle. That is because throughout this year the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, and Labor have made education such a central focus, such a central issue.

Historically, Australians have regarded education as an important social issue, where an individual, a young Australian, is given the given the chance to maximise his or her potential—the chance to finish school, the chance to go to TAFE and get some vocational education and training, the chance to go to a university. It gives young Australians, particularly those from disadvantaged or lower socioeconomic families, the chance to get ahead and to break out of a cycle. It remains the case—and I might be old-fashioned—that the single most important thing we can do for a young Australian is to give them the chance of a good education. That gives them the chance to get ahead in life—and that applies particularly to young Australians from disadvantaged or lower socioeconomic families.

However, in the face of international or global competition, education is now front and centre a mainstream economic issue and we need to view it in that light. One of our successful industries at the moment is the minerals and petroleum resources industry, and that is because that industry for a long time has known that it is competing internationally. We are now in an international competition when it comes to investment in education.

Our starting point is to increase the level of investment at every point in the cycle: early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, vocational education and training, universities and then on-the-job training or professional development. That is the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. That is the difference between the opposition and the government. We have a long-term enduring commitment to that approach to education; the government is about having a short-term political fix in the face of an election in four months time. There is the odd notion that the Prime Minister here is being just a little too desperate to try to claw back some credentials that are long since lost and have long since gone and have long since faded away.

Despite what the government has done in the budget, it remains the case that our investment in education—comparing it with those investments that are being made internationally—lags behind and does not match the investments of our competitors. Most compellingly, the government’s own budget papers show that, in the budget period from 2005-06 to 2010-11—the budget funding cycle—education spending goes from 7.4 per cent of total spending by the government in 2005-06 to 7.7 per cent in 2010-11. Even after what the government has done on budget night, over its period of the budget papers, over the period of the outlay years—the forward estimates—this government is responsible for a declining investment in education spending. That is why this is just a short-term political fix to try to slide the government through the election. If it wins the election, that will be the finish of any interest it has in education. If Labor wins the election, there is a long-term enduring commitment. Tonight, in his budget reply, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, will show that there is much more to be done in this area—not just in the weeks and months but in the years ahead.

There are a couple of central points that can be made. Firstly, our secondary school retention rates have stagnated for a number of years at about 75 per cent. We saw a substantial increase from the early eighties to the mid-nineties and then there was a stagnation at about 75 per cent. We need to be doing much more to increase that secondary school retention rate. Why is that? It is because all of the evidence, research and statistics show that, if a young Australian—or young student anywhere—completes secondary school, they have a much better chance of going on to vocational education and training, to university or to a semiskilled or skilled job in the workforce, which will give them a much better chance of being productive in the future.

We can find nothing in the budget for early childhood education. The positive early childhood education proposal from Labor is just one illustration of the sort of positive initiatives that can be taken up. Just this year, in addition to the proposal of half a billion dollars for early childhood education, we have seen a $110 million proposal to: encourage young Australians to both study and teach maths; ensure that we get greater consistency in our national curriculum by having a national curriculum board; raise the standards of our curriculum; and get national consistency in the core discipline areas of maths, English, science and history. We have a proposal to substantially improve and increase our literacy and numeracy performance with Labor’s literacy and numeracy plan. These are just half a dozen measures which Labor has announced this year to improve standards and to give young Australians better opportunities.

The debate this week, post budget, has centred upon universities. Let us just understand what the government has done when it comes to universities. When the government came to office in 1996, 60 per cent of the revenue which supported universities came from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth in 1996 discharged its obligations to support its universities by effectively funding universities with 60 per cent of the funding pie. That funding is now 40 per cent of the pie. We have seen a drop under the Howard government in the funding of our universities from 60 per cent to 40 per cent. The Commonwealth contribution is down. How has that been replaced? That has been replaced in a couple of key areas: firstly, by massively increasing the HECS of individual students—massively increasing their individual HECS debts and also massively increasing the national HECS debt. Secondly, there has been an increase in reliance by universities on fees from full fee paying overseas students and full fee paying domestic students. The proportion of revenue that universities derive from fees and charges increased from 13 per cent in 1996 to 24 per cent in 2004. The Commonwealth contribution under the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and his government, is down. The HECS contribution for students and the debt burden of the nation are up. Fees from domestic full fee paying students are up. Fees from overseas students are up. After 11 years of neglect and of finding excuses for not making that investment and discharging that obligation, and with four months to go until the election, up comes the government with a desperate attempt to pretend it has been interested.

Let us have a look at one of the proposals to put it in context. In September last year, the minister’s own department did work on infrastructure in our universities and recorded a $1.2 billion maintenance deficiency. The government says that the $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund solves all the problems of the world. We support the notion of a fund, but that fund will provide about $300 million worth of income. We have 38 universities, so, if you divide the $300 million by 38, that is less than $10 million per university. And we know that a decent modern infrastructure project for a university will cost anywhere between $50 million and $100 million. The ANU in the city of Canberra, just down the road from here, has a new medical research facility which cost $125 million. That is why the so-called endowment does not make up for the $1.2 billion neglect in infrastructure and maintenance which the government has allowed to occur.

The national accumulated HECS debt increased from $4.5 billion in 1996 to more than $9 billion in 2003 and to $13 billion in 2006, while personal HECS debt on average for individual students went up from $2,000 in 1996 to $8,500 in 2003 and $10,000 in 2006. I have made the distinction between 1996, 2003 and 2006 because it was in 2003 that the government last allowed universities to substantially increase the HECS contribution. Yesterday in question time I asked the minister what she had to say about the fact that, under the budget, students studying accounting, economics and commerce would have their HECS contributions increased by $1,215 a year. When you work on the basis that we have about 55,000 students in those disciplines and cascade that through the system, that is just under $200 million in increased accumulated HECS debt burden. The minister—and she repeated this on the 7.30 Report last night—said, ‘That has nothing to do with us. It is the universities who charge.’ The last time the government increased the HECS caps for universities, all but one university took advantage and we saw a substantial increase in HECS. So we know now that there will be a substantial increase in the debt burden for those students.

There is so much more to be done when it comes to education. The Leader of the Opposition tonight will show that and it will be illustrated again in the weeks and months ahead. There is a stark contrast here. The government’s view of and approach to education at every level is complacency, neglect, underinvestment, blaming others, and cost and blame shifting. But four months from an election, in a desperate attempt to slide over the fact that this is occurring against our national interest, we see the decisions made in the budget. I do not think that in the end the community will be fooled. The community want what Labor offers, which is a long-term, enduring commitment to improving our education standards and increasing our investment in education at every level. (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 budget highlights the government’s commitment to education. It builds on what we already have achieved and it is investing significant funds into education, but all that we announced in this year’s budget is only possible due to the Howard government’s management of our economy.

This is the government that has provided real opportunities for young Australians. The unemployment rate is at 4.4 per cent. That is the lowest rate since 1974. In my own state of Western Australia it is at 2.7 per cent. Young people have an opportunity to get a job under the Howard government. Real wages have increased by close to 20 per cent. Importantly, we have now paid back Labor’s $96 billion debt. That means the Australian government no longer has to find close to $9 billion each year to fund the interest payments on that $96 billion debt. This sort of funding can go to schools, universities, roads and health.

Labor’s contention today is that we have failed to deliver for future generations. When Labor were at the helm, more than one million Australians were unemployed. When Labor were at the helm, the highest number of eligible applicants for university—100,000 eligible students—missed out on a place. You could not get a job and you could not get into university. Labor took hope away from millions of Australians. And all through this, the member for Perth was the economics adviser to then Prime Minister Paul Keating. He oversaw failed policy after failed policy. The member for Perth was part of the team that gave the Australian people the ‘recession we had to have’. What opportunities were Labor providing then? What was their long-term plan for the future? All we got from Labor was budget deficits and government debt. Labor would not know a budget surplus if it jumped up and bit them. It is breathtaking hypocrisy for Labor to talk about future prosperity and long-term planning for this nation. Labor’s only long-term plan was to mortgage the future of the country and leave a debt for others to pay off.

Labor’s record on education is weak and flimsy. Sure, they stole the phrase from Mark Latham, but they promised an education revolution. It has turned out to be just hot air. The Australian people will never forget that the member for Perth and the Leader of the Opposition are the authors of ‘noodle nation’. Who could forget this discredited and confusing policy? Noodle nation was all the work of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Perth. Labor are the party that announced the schools hit list policy. In its first iteration, this policy would have cut $520 million in funding from 178 schools in Australia representing 160,000 students. This is what Labor in government does to education. The Deputy Speaker might be interested to know that Labor’s hit list policy lives on. The Leader of the Opposition has tried to walk away from the list, but his current position still sees the opposition winding back expenditure on Catholic and independent schools.

We ought to know what the Leader of the Opposition is like on education policy and we can have a glimpse of this. Professor Ken Wiltshire, who was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in the Queensland Public Service to advise on education issues, described the implementation of the proposed reforms by the Leader of the Opposition as ‘shoddy’. He confirmed that the Leader of the Opposition caved in to the teachers unions and failed to implement key reforms to improve school standards. I think it is important for Australian families to know Labor’s record. Do not listen to what they say; watch what they actually do. Labor’s record shows that they will not stand up to the unions and they will not make the hard decisions to improve standards in schools to ensure young Australians receive the best possible education.

We have seen from the Leader of the Opposition a couple of half-baked, uncosted education policies. One of their harebrained ideas was to align all school holidays across the country. This was immediately discredited by business and the tourism industry: it would cost jobs and it would create chaos on the roads and in the air when all the families went on holiday at the same time. Then they dropped it. Labor are policy frauds. And it continues today. Labor are all over the shop on full fee paying places. One minute they are going to abolish full fee paying places, then they are going to allow them, then they are going to leave the door open, then they are going to decide in the lead-up to the election. The university sector and students deserve to know Labor’s policy on this now.

Tough decisions are required in government. Labor continue to walk on both sides of the street on so many issues. We have seen them say one thing to business on industrial relations and then do the exact opposite when they are told to by the unions. In education they will promise schools, parents and families one thing but do exactly the opposite when they are told to by the education unions.

Only the Howard government has been able to lock in the gains that we have made over the last 11 years and realise the potential of this country. The budget is an example of this. The Treasurer deserves to be proud of what he announced on Tuesday night: an extra $3.5 billion in funding for schools and universities, real reforms and an endowment fund for universities for the future. It has been extremely well received by parents, teachers, business and, most importantly, the education sector. Let me give you some examples of the responses. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

This is the education budget the business community was looking for. The government gets an A for its education and training reforms.

The President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee said:

It is fantastic. It is just a really great outcome for the sector and far beyond our expectations. The three areas I’ve been arguing for have all been met. Increased dollars per student, student support was met, and in the case of capital works and buildings fund, that $5 billion more than meets our expectations and so it is a spectacular outcome for the university sector.

That is not me saying that; that is not the Treasurer. It is the head of the Vice-Chancellors Committee. According to the Australian:

The universities’ Group of Eight chairman Glyn Davis last night hailed the higher education spending as a major breakthrough. “This package will be hugely welcomed by the university sector,” said Professor Davis, who is vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne.

The vice-chancellor of Sydney university, Gavin Brown, said:

We really do welcome the endowment fund initiative.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, John Hay, said:

I was delighted to see the endowment fund was set up, and the initial $5 billion is very welcome.

Vice-Chancellor Alan Robson from the University of Western Australia said:

I am pleased to see assistance for students, particularly for young people doing postgraduate degrees, and grant assistance for mature students, and more Commonwealth learning scholarships.

The Vice-Chancellor of RMIT University, Margaret Gardner, said:

As a package, what it says is it is important that we invest in education. This is our future, and that is a positive.

The University of Tasmania, according to the Launceston Examiner, ‘has reacted with glee to the federal government’s budget. Vice-Chancellor Darryl Le Grew said the university was thrilled with increased recurrent funding of up to 10 per cent and the establishment of a $5 billion infrastructure endowment fund.’ According to the Age:

The response from Swinburne University vice-chancellor Ian Young was typical. He said the changes assured a “visionary investment” in the future of Australian higher education: “It is a massive step forward in accommodating the needs of universities and students now and in the future.”

But what was Labor’s response? In the face of overwhelming enthusiasm for the Australian government’s budget, Labor’s reaction was typically surly and typically churlish. The member for Perth said it ‘wasn’t enough’ and Labor ‘would do more’. Oh, no, Labor would never do more, because the endowment fund comes from a budget surplus. The Labor Party operate budget deficits. The Labor Party would not know a budget surplus. The last time the Labor Party were in government, they ran up a massive $96 billion debt. We had to find $9 billion, as I said, to pay off the interest. They left us with a $10 billion budget deficit. You cannot create an endowment fund of $5 billion out of a budget deficit.

The only threat to the endowment fund is a Labor government. They have already shown that they will raid the Future Fund. They would raid this endowment fund and they would not be able to produce a budget surplus so that we could put more money into the endowment fund. The Australian government, the Howard government, has already committed to putting future budget surplus amounts into the endowment fund.

Since coming to office 11 years ago the Howard government have provided strong leadership on education. We have provided record funding to schools: a 118 per cent increase in funding for state government schools alone—and these are state government schools that are meant to be funded, managed and run by state governments. We have provided record funding to universities. It is an increase of 26 per cent in real terms since 1996. These budget measures mean there will be a further 10 per cent increase for the higher education sector over the next three or four years.

This government is building on the reforms of Minister Kemp when he focused on the need to improve literacy and numeracy standards in our schools. It is building on the reforms of Minister Brendan Nelson in the higher education sector. The 2004 Backing Australia’s Future package has made the sector better off by more than $11 billion over a decade and now this budget invests a further $3.5 billion in schools and universities and a $5 billion endowment fund.

We are committed to choice in education. The Howard government believe that education is the fundamental, essential and enduring building block upon which we can build a prosperous economy and a very strong, secure nation. That is why education, science and training were the centrepiece of this year’s budget. It is the largest budget for the Education, Science and Training portfolio in our nation’s history. It reflects the Howard government’s commitment to the future prosperity and the security of this country. But this is only possible due to the economic management of the Howard government.

As I said, a centrepiece of the federal budget was the higher education endowment fund. That is going to provide an ongoing perpetual growth fund for our universities. We have been able to put in $5 billion from the budget surplus of this year and we are going to make further contributions. The fund will be invested. The projected dividend to be distributed is based on a very conservative estimate of a six per cent return, but even that would provide over $900 million for universities over three years from 2008. Some experts are predicting that the fund could return maybe 10 or 12 per cent. That would be an enormous investment in universities with billions of dollars flowing to the sector.

What the member for Perth omits—or perhaps he does not understand higher education policy—is that the Australian government already commit significant funds to capital works and research infrastructure. The endowment fund will provide more funding, but we already commit funding to capital works and research infrastructure for our universities. Last year we provided $600 million in funding for our universities for capital programs and research infrastructure. The member for Perth refers to the ANU needing $125 million for a new medical school. Last year the Commonwealth provided $54 million for that project. We have already invested $54 million, and now we have this endowment fund for universities to be able to apply for more funding for capital and research infrastructure.

One of the great things about the endowment fund is that it will also encourage public philanthropic investment, as donations to the fund will be tax deductible. This single unprecedented initiative will chart the future course of universities in this country for the 21st century.

We know that Labor will want to steal from the Future Fund. We know that they cannot produce surpluses. All the while, the Howard government is investing in higher education. But also we have implemented a range of reforms that will assist our universities. We have increased the number of Commonwealth scholarships so that over 12,000 scholarships will be available every year. We have increased the number of Commonwealth supported places so that virtually every eligible student in this country can find a Commonwealth supported place at university.

We have also increased the capacity for students to support themselves while they are at university. We have extended rent assistance to Austudy recipients. That means about 11,000 students aged over 25 will get rent assistance. For the first time, we have extended the eligibility of youth allowance and Austudy to students undertaking master’s degrees by coursework. So, under the Howard government, we have seen a massive increase in funding for places. There are now more students at university than at any time in our history. We have delivered a budget package that will give our universities the freedom, the flexibility and the funding to become world-class institutions for decades to come.

I want the phrase ‘Australian universities’ to be a byword for excellence on an international scale. This budget opens up a new era for our universities, with the first wave of reforms to support the efforts of the university sector to diversify, to specialise and to respond to labour market trends. The Howard government has a strong record on providing Australians with choice and opportunity in education. (Time expired)

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems quite strange that for some time we on this side of the chamber used to get criticised by those on the other side of the chamber because we talked about universities. We have just heard 15 minutes of nothing but universities. I just reflect upon that as I begin my comments.

Education is central to a prosperous future for Australia. Education is about fairness. Education is the pathway to prosperity. It is the pathway out of poverty. It is the pathway to a career, to security and to a decent standard of living. Education is the core challenge for any economy. Labor has always demonstrated an enduring commitment to this issue, emphasised again by our leadership on the issue with the commitment of a Rudd Labor government to an ‘education revolution’. On saying those words ‘education revolution’, I am immediately reminded, sadly but amusingly, of Crocodile Dundee. It was Crocodile Dundee who said, ‘That’s not a knife; this is a knife.’ It is the Prime Minister who is saying, ‘That’s not an education revolution; this is a genuine education revolution.’ I have to say to the Prime Minister that this issue is far more important than trying to put some copycat behaviour as against Crocodile Dundee. It is a far more important issue than one-upmanship. It is a far more important issue than singing that old Broadway song Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better. It is a serious issue that should stand on its own as a serious issue of government.

Those opposite have for 11 years given the pretence that they believe in education, but they have really done nothing to formulate a longstanding view to take education into the 21st century in this country. Despite what the Minister for Education, Science and Training has just claimed, those opposite have underinvested in our schools, our colleges, our TAFEs and our universities. As my colleague the member for Perth said a few moments ago, we have seen 60 per cent Commonwealth funding reduced to 40 per cent Commonwealth funding for universities alone in the time this government has been in power.

Five minutes before midnight, in what I can only describe as a cynical act of desperation with an election coming on—and, I believe, in total reaction to Labor’s leadership on this important challenge to build a world-class education system for the future—the government have put together some headline-grabbing education commitments. Whilst we on this side of the chamber welcome the announcement of some of these measures, they only begin the task of addressing the challenge of filling the education hole—an education hole this government has dug for itself over the past 11 years and is now attempting to fill. In its latest budget, this government has continued to fail to present a vision to the Australian people—a comprehensive plan for education that will take our community well into the 21st century at all levels of education.

Let us briefly look at the government’s record on education spending. We continue to slip behind our competitors. Australia’s overall investment in education is 5.8 per cent of GDP—behind 17 other OECD economies, including Poland, Hungary and New Zealand. Despite the new measures in this budget, as the Prime Minister in this place conceded, funding for education as a proportion of total government expenditure is forecast to drop from 7.7 per cent of total spending in 2005-06 to 7.4 per cent in 2010-11. What does this budget do to address this? Let us take a look at a couple of the budget’s key education announcements.

We heard 15 minutes worth of description from the minister about the Higher Education Endowment Fund—an interesting proposal and one that in principle we do not really object to. But it is like the Christmas package: sometimes the wrapping is more exciting than what is inside it. The vice-chancellors and the university sector in general are saying that this is a welcome initiative. The minister quoted probably half a dozen of them as saying that it is far beyond their expectations. Of course it is, because, given this government’s behaviour over recent years in relation to funding for universities. Their expectations have been made so low.

Let us look at the $700 vouchers to help with literacy and numeracy. I notice that the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals are most upset about this. They are not at all impressed. They say:

The tutorial vouchers are a complete waste of money. Why not put the money directly into schools so we could lower class sizes, have more targeted literacy and numeracy programs? And then we wouldn’t have these problems.

In other words, why put it in another glitzy package? Why not put the money straight into the education system and allow the system to use it? The Primary Schools Principals Association says:

The $50,000 reward for schools for improvement in literacy and numeracy would reach less than three per cent of schools.

In relation to technical trade colleges, there will be three new colleges in addition to the past commitment for 25 colleges—from which we are yet to see any graduates. By the government’s own admission, Australia faces a shortage of 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. The government’s plan for new Australian technical colleges will provide opportunities for fewer than 10,000 students by 2010.

What doesn’t this budget address? Most seriously, in my opinion, early childhood education is the foundation of our education system. What is in the budget for it? Virtually nothing. The government continues to ignore the body of national and international evidence that highlights the importance of a strong early childhood education.

The government is doing nothing, in my view, to improve affordability or accessibility to a university education for young Australians. The government has increased the HECS contribution rate for accounting, administration, economics and commerce degrees from the present annual rate of $7,118 to the highest annual rate of $8,333. In effect that means from 1 January next year universities will be able to charge new students an additional $1,215, should they decide to do so. We have heard the government say it is not compulsory. The reality is this: the last time the Howard government allowed HECS to be increased, all but a handful of universities quickly passed on significant increases in fees to their students. The government has to face and admit the fact that that will be the reality.

What else is this government up to? Again it is the stick and not the carrot—no commitment to effective, constructive collaboration. Let me give an instance concerning the ACT. I understand that, when education ministers met with the federal education minister in Darwin three weeks ago, none of these proposed changes—to universities, for instance—were even raised. There was a throw-away line in the budget papers about external assessment for year 12. I imagine the people in the ACT would be a little unsure as to whether the Commonwealth wants the cessation of our extremely successful continuous assessment model. Our college system is extremely successful, and continuous assessment is part of the success of our students. I understand the ACT government is very concerned that the ACT does not have a large enough population to support a model of designated selective entry high schools, for example.

On selective high schools, we in Canberra have programs within our schools at the moment, such as gifted and talented programs, which can be accessed by those particular students, but that does not prevent those students who may not be so gifted or talented from attending those schools. There are issues to do with equity of access to public schools, and we believe we have the mix right. So why are the government demanding that we think about selective high schools—possibly with a connection that you do it or you do not get any funding? One could not be blamed for having that belief, given this government’s attitude. What we need if we are to achieve the best outcomes for students and their families is genuine collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. But this government prefers to grandstand, not to work collaboratively—to be almost megalomaniacs with the power and money that they have.

Federal Labor is committed in government to what we call a true education revolution. What will we do? We will support parental choice by funding all schools—whether government, non-government, religious or secular—based on need and fairness. We will set up a national curriculum board to develop a rigorous, consistent and quality curriculum for all Australian students. There is much that we will do. For example, we will invest $450 million to provide four-year-olds with 15 hours a week, for 40 weeks, of high-quality early childhood education—the very beginning of an education process for our children. We will provide up to $200 million for 260 new childcare centres based on school sites. There is absolutely no question that the budget has been filled with glitz and glamour at the last minute. What the Australian people really want is a vision for a high-quality accessible and equitable education system for everyone into the future. (Time expired)

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this matter of public importance debate. I note that the member for Canberra was somewhat critical of the area of education in this very fine budget that this government has handed down. She will get her opportunity to pass judgement on it when we vote on it in this House, so enough of the hot air and rhetoric. If it is as bad as she says it is, she can vote against it, as can the other members opposite. If it is as bad as they say it is, they can vote against it. They can vote down all of the measures. They can vote down the $5 billion fund to support our universities. They can vote against giving a tutorial voucher to young children who are struggling at school. They can vote against new Australian technical colleges. They can vote against the whole range of measures. Rather than hiding behind all the hot air and rhetoric, they can stand up and be counted on this. It is quite hypocritical to say, ‘We don’t agree with all of this,’ and then vote for all of it. We will see where those opposite in this House really stand and we will note what they really think, especially if they really believe what they have been saying.

It is interesting that we are witnessing a new-found interest by the Australian Labor Party in the future wealth and prosperity of this country. Only yesterday we had the member for Lilley, in the matter of public importance debate, raising the notion of Australia’s productivity growth. A party that supported unions and restrictive trade union practices for years and years has suddenly discovered the notion of improved productivity! Now we have the member for Perth venturing into the field of education. You need look no further than Tuesday’s budget to see this government’s commitment to education. But the thing is that education can very much be seen in terms of cause and effect. While education can create improved productivity, a stronger economy and improved society, the reverse is also true: a strong economy can create demand for education and training. It is interesting to note that plenty of people out there realise they have real opportunities in this economy and, as a result, want to upskill; they want to improve their qualifications. They want to participate in the Australia of 2007.

If you go back to the early nineties and Paul Keating’s Australia, you note it was a very different Australia indeed. If you go back to Paul Keating’s Australia and the recession he alleged we had to have, you note there was little hope and little prosperity and that there was despair amongst many in our community. In fact, unemployment in my electorate was sitting at around 20 per cent—over 20 per cent in some places. I can tell you there was not much productivity or prosperity amongst the unemployed. When I used to go down the street in my area and talk to young people, I noted they had no hope. They were in despair as they did not feel they had a future—and that is a very depressing prospect. We had Paul Keating telling the Australian people, ‘This is the recession we had to have; we’ve never had it so good,’ yet we had countless young people and old people thrown on the scrap heap—and those people were not rushing out to get training. There were very few apprenticeships. Perhaps there might have been the odd apprenticeship for someone working for mum or dad. The number of apprenticeships in my electorate has tripled since 1996. In those days, there was no opportunity and there was a lot less demand for training because people had no hope. Education creates opportunity and opportunity can create demand for education and training.

So what do the ALP do in their first detailed policy announcement? They produce an IR policy that turns the clock back 20 years and they go full speed ahead at destroying opportunity and taking Australia backwards. They want to reduce flexibility and somehow improve productivity. They want to reduce flexibility and somehow create opportunity. It just does not work. You cannot take the high ground on education and take the low road on labour market policy. Australia is a trillion dollar economy, and the Australian Labor Party’s shop steward driven economics just will not cut it in a one trillion dollar economy. It is more complicated than that.

This government is committed to education and training, and there is no clearer example of that commitment than the budget that was handed down on Tuesday night. The $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund is a brilliant new initiative. It resets the ground rules for education in this country. It is a visionary policy that will provide $912 million over three years from 2008-09 and will also provide for improved capital works at our universities.

The budget also provides an additional $556.9 million over four years to assist universities to simplify funding structures and provides additional funding for key disciplines, particularly in high-demand areas. The budget provides $211.2 million over four years to allow universities to adjust student numbers and course mixes to respond to demand. It is all about flexibility: flexibility in the labour market producing results and flexibility in the education market producing results. There is $208 million for a new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund. There is $222 million to improve access to tertiary education for students by increasing the number of Commonwealth scholarships, extending the eligibility for rent assistance to Austudy recipients and extending the eligibility for youth allowance and Austudy to those undertaking approved master’s degrees by coursework.

There is no better way to improve the educational outcomes in our schools than to improve the quality of our teachers. This budget provides $77 million to assist in providing greater practicum experience for teachers. As chairman of the education inquiry, I can say that one of the key elements impeding teacher training is the difficulty that universities are having in placing practicum students. This funding will certainly assist in this regard by helping universities to provide better practicum experience and to support their students when they are out getting that vital practical experience.

This budget also provides increased funding for teacher training, with the funding for teacher training courses increasing from $7,950 to $8,217. The budget encourages ongoing professional learning, with $101.7 million over four years to improve the quality of teaching in the major, important disciplines in our schools, such as literacy and numeracy, through the Australian summer schools initiative. This is a vitally important initiative, because for teachers, and for many other professionals, it is very much a case of lifelong learning. The completion of a bachelor’s degree is only the beginning of one’s journey to becoming a teacher. It is very important that teachers upskill, particularly in those areas which are rapidly changing. It is vitally important that our teachers—the teachers who are preparing our children for the future—are totally up to speed and on the leading edge of the latest developments.

There is $457 million for literacy and numeracy vouchers to assist children in years 3, 5 and 7. I heard the member for Canberra berating this idea and dragging it down. What is wrong with assisting children who are struggling after they have been tested in years 3, 5 or 7? Why should we not specifically assist children who are struggling? You can always deploy resources in different ways, but to spread that funding right across the education system could well mean that those same children would again miss out and fall through the cracks. This is very much about identifying those students who are struggling and giving them the sort of targeted help that is going to make their school experience easy. If kids are struggling at school from an early age, they are far more likely to fall through the cracks as they get older. If we can intervene at an early stage, build their literacy and numeracy skills and make going to school a happier, easier and more fulfilling experience for them, they will enjoy a far better journey through the education system and they will grow up to be far more productive adults. It is a real win-win situation, and I was disgusted to hear the member for Canberra denigrating what is an excellent initiative—one that is going to benefit our young people and bear fruit very rapidly.

There are also $50,000 grants for schools that demonstrate a sustained improvement in literacy and numeracy outcomes. This is a very worthwhile initiative and one that we should be supporting. I will be interested to see if the members opposite support it. Enough of the hot air and the rhetoric, we will see how they vote on the day.

This government is very much focused on building our trade skills base. We recently saw the Skills for the Future program and the establishment of Australian technical colleges. This budget builds on that. There are to be more Australian technical colleges, $1,000 of support for apprentices in years 1 and 2, and $500 skills vouchers. The list is virtually endless; it goes on and on. This fine budget reinforces our education commitment and will produce great outcomes. (Time expired)

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the member for Cowper that we on this side of the House understand fully that investing in education is both an investment in our children’s future and an investment in the future prosperity of Australia. We also know that investing in education, skills and training is about preparing Australia for the economic and social challenges that lie ahead. So I say to the member for Cowper, who is leaving the room: after a decade of underinvestment and neglect by the Howard government, it is Labor, not John Howard, that has put education back on the national agenda and at the front and centre of public debate.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will refer to members by their correct title—by their seat.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has done this through its ‘Education Revolution’ platform. At its core, the platform identifies education as a key building block in securing Australia’s economic future. It draws on Labor’s longstanding commitment to education as one of the most important pathways through which all Australians, no matter where they come from, are given the opportunity to start life on an equal footing and strive for self-betterment.

The Australian people know when their government is playing catch-up, with policies made on the run for short-term political gain, and that is precisely what the government’s budget announcements on education amount to. Whilst education spending has increased on average by 48 per cent amongst all the other OECD countries, in Australia it has fallen by seven per cent since John Howard became Prime Minister. Similarly, whereas higher education spending per student has gone up on average by six per cent among OECD countries, in Australia it has actually fallen by six per cent. These figures speak for themselves. They clearly delineate the massive gap that exists between words and action when it comes to the Howard government’s abysmal record on education and tell us that any ‘education revolution’ put forward by the Howard government is an education revolution in name only—and one of sheer convenience.

Under the Howard government’s watch, Australia has tumbled to last place among OECD countries when it comes to investing in early childhood education. And after all the pomp and ceremony of Tuesday’s budget blows over, Australia will still be in last place. In contrast, Labor’s Early Childhood Education Plan will, amongst other things, give every four-year-old in Australia the right to 15 hours of early childhood education a week, for up to 40 weeks per year, delivered by a qualified teacher. In contrast, the budget provides only a $700 private tuition voucher for children who fail to achieve national literacy and numeracy benchmarks in years 3, 5 and 7.

Seven-hundred-dollar literacy and numeracy vouchers are not the answer to building an early childhood education framework in Australia. Just how far, you have to ask, will $700 really go? And why wait until grades 3, 5 or 7 before trying to identify and address potential learning problems? They need to be addressed at that critical stage of preschool education. Rather, as anyone who is interested in education knows, the solution is to invest earlier in Australia’s education system and build up its capacity, services and programs to avoid at a later stage the literacy and numeracy problems which the government purports it will fix with these vouchers.

The Howard government now claims that it has an education revolution of its own. But, at a time when Australia is experiencing a chronic skills shortage crisis, how can you have an education revolution that sidesteps Australia’s TAFE colleges altogether? Over the next five years, Australia faces a shortage of 200,000 skilled workers. TAFE colleges make up 70 per cent of all vocational education and training in Australia—that is, they play a key and fundamental role in skilling-up Australia’s future workforce—yet this budget provides no additional recurrent or infrastructure funding for TAFE colleges.

Labor has also consistently argued for a significant increase in recurrent and infrastructure funding for the higher education sector. Commonwealth recurrent funding for Australian universities stood at 0.9 per cent of GDP in 1996. And after Tuesday’s budget, recurrent funding to universities will still make up only 0.6 per cent of our GDP. This gives some indication of just how bad the Howard government’s funding record has been over the last decade.

Today, students face a university system where demand for university places far outstrips the number of places actually available. They are faced with rising HECS fees and record levels of HECS debt. In my electorate of Calwell alone, students owe a staggering $58.5 million in HECS debts. And after Tuesday’s budget, HECS fees for students studying—(Time expired)

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

The only revolutionary thing about Labor’s education policy is that it continues to go around in circles. This is a classic case of ‘black is white’ or ‘the earth is flat’ from the Labor Party. The fact is that Labor is stung because the coalition has delivered a stronger education budget than Labor had planned to deliver itself. I am sure that they have been scratching around in the backrooms for the last two days trying to up the ante, but this is no doubt a stronger education budget than they had initially planned themselves. Their view that they are superior on education issues has been seriously undermined by the budget on Tuesday night—a view, I might say, that is as wrong as many of the other delusions they hold. Let us leave their fairyland and look at the facts regarding education funding.

The first fact is that the budget includes a massive boost of $3.5 billion in education spending. And despite the nonsense we have heard from the other side, it is worth pointing out that education spending in Australia as a percentage of GDP has grown from 5.5 per cent to 5.8 per cent over the past 10 years—a growing proportion of a rapidly growing GDP. We are spending far more than Labor were spending when they left office.

This $3.5 billion boost in education will lift standards right through the spectrum from primary to higher education, help all young Australians achieve their potential, continue to encourage young Australians into technical education and help our universities become world leaders in research and teaching. In the higher education sector, in addition to the recurrent and capital funding, the main feature of this budget is the $5 billion that will go into the Higher Education Endowment Fund—a fund that will be added to year after year as the government delivers surplus after surplus.

It is worth pointing out that there would have been no way in the world that Labor would have been able to establish an endowment fund, because they could not run surpluses. And if Labor is returned to office, there is no way in the world that they would be able to continue to add to the endowment fund, because they would quickly turn the budget from surplus back into deficit. The only way this fund is made possible is by the running of the surpluses that are a result of this government being able to correctly and competently manage the economy.

The other thing worth pointing out is that this endowment fund will attract private sector investment as well. So it will very quickly grow because of continued commitments by this government and the private sector. It will steadily grow to the point of being able to provide a real boost to capital funding for our universities.

This announcement has been warmly welcomed right across the higher education sector. I could quote vice-chancellor after vice-chancellor but, to sum up, the President of the Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee, Professor Gerard Sutton, said, ‘The university sector is thrilled with the budget,’ which met the committee’s three requests: student support, dollars per student and the establishment of an endowment fund for university capital works. He also said, ‘This is spectacular for the university sector.’ He did not say, ‘It’s adequate,’ or, ‘It’s a bit better than we expected,’ or ‘It’s okay.’ He said, ‘This is spectacular for the university sector; there’s no doubt about it.’ Notwithstanding everything we have heard from the other side, this is spectacular for the university sector. There is no doubt about it.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired.