Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 and the impact that this bill will have on the constituents in the Paterson electorate. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 by introducing a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses, up to a maximum of $750 per child undertaking primary studies to provide a maximum offset of $375 and up to $1,500 per child undertaking secondary studies to provide a maximum tax offset of $750 per child per year. The bill proposes that families who purchase school related materials—such as computers, computer related equipment, internet connections, computer software, school textbooks, stationery and course required tools—will be refunded 50 per cent of these costs. In the second reading speech the Treasurer stated that this bill is ‘a key part’ of the education revolution, ‘helping parents meet the everyday costs of their children’s education’. While I support the notion of tax offsets to assist Australian families in the expense of education, this bill does not go far enough to ensure the education revolution that the Rudd Labor government promised and does not relieve families of the real everyday costs of education.

The former Howard government proposed at the last election that all Australians should have the opportunity to deem what is best for their own children. The coalition stands for choice. The former Howard government empowered Australian families by enabling parents to choose the best education for their children, which often required them to juggle their priorities but also the costs associated with educating their children. The coalition believes it is the parents who know what is best for their children. The former Howard government’s aim was to meet the everyday needs of Australian families.

The coalition’s policy adopted a broader approach, allowing Australians to prioritise the costs associated with educating their children. The coalition went to the election with a policy to rebate up to $800 annually for each secondary student and up to $400 for each primary and preschool student. The policy that the former Howard government brought to the last election explicitly included school and preschool fees, school uniforms, textbooks, stationery, calculators, camps, excursions, laptops, broadband, software and extracurricular activities such as sport and music. These are the real expenses of education that Australian families need assistance with. The former Howard government’s policies offered more scope and empowered choice.

We all heard the shallow promises and cheap publicity stunts resorted to by the Rudd Labor government in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. ‘Every child shall have their own computer’, we repeatedly heard those opposite claim. Now, 11 months on, the promise has been replaced with a much-watered-down approach, replaced with a promise to provide every child from years 9 to 12 with ‘access’ to the latest technology. The Rudd Labor government’s proposed tax offsets do little to assist parents and students alike in the purchasing of ‘education revolution’ tools such as computers and associated expenditures. How the Rudd Labor government can be confident and assured in their approach to this matter and continually proclaim unfulfilled promises to the future leaders of our nation is beyond me.

The bill’s inadequacies concern many members of the Paterson electorate. It is far too narrow and far too limiting. It is yet another example of why ‘Kevin07’ has quickly become ‘Mistake08’. Many parents in my electorate struggle to keep their children in school uniforms, let alone have the luxury of a computer. How is this bill going to help them when the price of an average computer starts at around $1,500, a quality laptop is at least $1,000 and printers start from $150? How on earth is a family who is struggling to put clothes on their children’s backs going to afford $1,500 for a computer? This bill is absolutely unrealistic. Furthermore, the bill goes to show just how out of touch the Rudd Labor government truly is with Australian families and their associated needs. In reality, disadvantaged families will not be able to afford the upfront costs of a computer.

This bill fails to address the real things that people are struggling with, like the cost of school uniforms, which starts at around $200; the cost of a pair of solid school shoes, which is at least $50; and the cost of school camps, which can be upwards of $300. And the Rees government in New South Wales has recently announced the abolition of the $50 back-to-school bonus and of free travel to school for schoolchildren. These are the issues that parents have to deal with on a day-to-day basis, the issues that the Rudd Labor government is not acknowledging. This government purports to represent working-class families when it is obvious it is out of touch with Australian families, the issues that concern them the most and what education costs are causing them the most significant financial burden.

This bill is yet another example of the Rudd Labor government failing to address the basic things families and children need. In the Paterson electorate alone there are over 2,200 preschool children whose families will reap no benefit at all from this bill. What I demand to know is: why has the Rudd Labor government excluded preschool children from this bill? If the Rudd Labor government truly believes that reimbursing books and computer software will give our children a better start, then why wouldn’t the most logical step be to include rebates for preschool children as well? Sending children to preschool does represent significant financial costs to parents. There are costs associated with preschool fees, books and school equipment. Is the Rudd Labor government too blind to see this? Or perhaps it is just that those opposite are already too arrogant to listen to the Australian public and ask them what is important to them during this time of significant financial stress. The people of Australia deserve better. What is the Rudd Labor government doing for my electorate? And what, may I ask, are the Rudd Labor government’s plans for constituents in my electorate who may already own a computer but need relief from the other educational expenses? This bill simply neglects those families.

I agree with the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, that the Rudd Labor government’s bill does nothing to address the basics of a good education, does nothing to support families with the real day-to-day costs of schooling and does nothing to encourage choice. The bill, in summary, is a joke. The Rudd Labor government is a joke. Australians need relief from the expensive burden of education brought on by the mismanagement of the economy by state Labor governments. The Rudd Labor government said this bill is an education revolution. I say, particularly to those children up in the gallery, this is an education dissolution. Since the Rudd Labor government came to power, their ability to implement such a revolution has been replaced with an embarrassing display of acts which highlight their incompetence and absolute inefficiency. All this bill is good for is revealing the complete lack of credibility and capability within the Rudd Labor government. This bill is significantly less comprehensive than the policy that the former Howard government took to the last election.

My real concern is how this bill will affect families in my electorate of Paterson. Why should parents in my electorate be totally out of pocket for education which is supposed to be free? The Rudd Labor government has again failed Australian families. This bill should have addressed the cost of school uniforms, fees, camps, children’s extracurricular activities and now, in New South Wales, things as simple as the cost of transportation of children to school each day. The Rudd Labor government is, as I said, out of touch with average working families in Australians. If it had consulted with the community the government would have know that these are the real concerns of Australian families. I personally know many families in my electorate that struggle to afford to pay for their children to be engaged in sport, have difficulty affording to keep their children in school uniforms, cannot pay for their children to attend school camps and cannot even consider attempting to pay for extra tuition if their children are struggling with a particular subject. And this bill does nothing for them.

The Howard government always put the interests of Australians first, rather than simply trying to look good in the limelight. The former Howard government were not into cheap publicity stunts; they were about substance. In stark contrast, the Labor government is showcasing a terrific example of what can happen to a country’s governance when the party in power is solely concerned with attracting the limelight but fails to implement fair, realistic and effective policies. This so-called ‘education revolution’ is just like a fake tan: it looks good first up but the gloss wears off eventually and, when it does, you are left with a mismatch and a mess. In contrast, the coalition’s policy was to help families provide more educational opportunities for their children, and the coalition introduced a 40 per cent rebate on education expenses, including school fees. During its 11-year term, the former Howard government worked hard to help Australian families and to provide realistic education opportunities for our children. Unlike the Rudd government, we did not parade shallow education revolutions. We designed a policy that would actually help the Australian people.

The Rudd Labor government has not done a single thing to ensure Australians get the relief they urgently need. It is absurd for the Rudd government to suggest that refunding money from a computer or textbooks is enough to deem it an education revolution. What if the parent has already bought a computer for their child and is looking at reimbursements for other education needs? They will miss out. There is nothing brilliant or remotely exciting in this bill. There are many families in my electorate who do not need a new computer every year. What they need is help with the ongoing financial burden of education—like school fees and uniforms—and help to fund extracurricular activities. This bill is a gimmick to trick the Australian people into thinking that the Rudd government is working in their best interests. The government is doing nothing to support the real cost of education.

I believe that education is the most valuable investment that can be made in our children because, no matter what happens to children in their lives, education is the one thing that can never be taken away from them. The bill does absolutely nothing to address the basics of a good and successful education. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, said that this bill will help kids get the best start. I ask the government: how will this bill ensure that kids get the best start? I doubt that reimbursing even the cost of a computer or some schoolbooks is enough to fulfil your promises and give Australian children the best start. My constituents tell me that they are greatly concerned about the time it will take for the rebate to be put in the pockets of hardworking families. Some of the families in my electorate cannot afford the cost of a computer without being reimbursed immediately. If somebody bought a computer tomorrow, they could not seriously put in a claim until they got their group certificate, and realistically that could mean Australian families may not be reimbursed for up to 12 months.

The Rudd Labor government’s attitude is that the single most important thing that they can do for young Australians is to give them a chance at a decent education. This is a paradox. The Rudd Labor government have excluded key factors for reimbursement that would help a child’s education. In this bill the Rudd Labor government do not reflect their supposed passion for protecting and helping Australian people. They are all spin and no substance. The Rudd Labor government’s Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill is not practical, and it disadvantages Australians and denies them choice. In my electorate alone there are over 20, 000 schoolchildren who expect more from the Rudd Labor government after all the promises they made during the election campaign. After nearly 12 months of government the bill shows how out of touch the government have become. This so-called ‘education revolution’ is nothing more than a throwaway line. This bill is an empty promise. It reminds me of the election campaign launch in June 1987 when then Prime Minister Bob Hawke said that no child would be living in poverty in Australia by 1990. Hawke’s promise was just a throwaway line, a gimmick. Unfortunately, there are still Australian children living in poverty to remind us of this every day. The Rudd Labor government’s so-called ‘education revolution’ has similarly amounted to little more than a throwaway line, a fake promise doing nothing to relieve Australians of the real cost of education.

I would like to leave you with the words of a very alarmed Paterson constituent. Steven Loft’s views echo my concern and the concerns of the coalition and represent the views of many Australians. Mr Loft recently wrote to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. He said:

Dear Prime Minister,

There is nothing more important than the education of our children.

It’s time to invest more in our public schools to ensure every child gets the best education.

More funding would make a real difference.

The money should be spent on the things schools and students really need: smaller class sizes, more individual attention for students who need it and modern buildings and facilities.

Yours Sincerely,

Steven Lofts

Mr Loft’s views reinforce the fact that the Rudd Labor government are not taking their responsibility in government seriously enough and that they are abusing their power and the trust and livelihood of the Australian public. These tax offsets need to cover a wider scope of rebates to ensure more choice for Australian punters. The Rudd Labor government need to inject more money into the education system as a whole to ensure a more realistic, prosperous and efficient future for Australian education.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008, because the Rudd Labor government is committed to supporting families and supporting Australians of all ages to get a quality education. This bill provides financial assistance for families with primary and secondary schoolchildren to offset the costs of their children’s education. The government has allocated $4.4 billion to deliver this promise for Australian families through the new education tax refund. As opposed to the fantasies and insults we have just heard from the member for Paterson, the Rudd government is committed to an education revolution. First of all, you have to imagine the future. Then you map the future and fund the future, and indeed that is what we are doing with our education revolution. We believe that investing in education is crucial to driving productivity growth and to building a modern and prosperous economy.

We believe that education has the potential to not only drive productivity but also empower individuals to help overcome disadvantage. We are backing our beliefs and our pre-election commitment to the Australian people with funding to drive the education revolution on multiple levels, and this is what the member for Paterson in his previous comments simply ignored. Our entire focus, let me stress, is revolutionary because it starts with very young children. If we want to look for the areas of greatest neglect by education ministers during the Howard years, I suggest that this is where we need to shed a light—because one OECD survey after another has pointed to the shameful underperformance of Australia when it comes to investing in the early years of education. For instance, in 2006 Australia was ranked 25th out of 26 countries on the OECD indicator looking at the proportion of students enrolled in preprimary education—so much for the choices of the Howard years.

There was also a complete failure by the previous government to invest in the professional training of those who care for very young children. The fact is that 40 per cent of those who care for our very young children have no qualifications whatsoever. That is where the education revolution is being focused: on investing in the qualifications of those who care for our very important young people. What an indictment this is when all of the scientific research points to the critical importance of an appropriate learning environment for very young children. The Rudd government has committed to ensuring that all Australian children have the best start in life, long before a child even arrives at school. We have an investment and a policy commitment to a $2.4 billion package over the next five years aimed at turning around the kinds of statistics revealed a couple of weeks ago by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth in their Report card on the wellbeing of young Australians.

The government is taking action, as I said, on a number of fronts. I would like to note just two of the initiatives that are being implemented as part of the education revolution in support of our youngest Australians. The first is the investment of $533 million—that is, half a billion dollars—over the next five years to ensure that by 2013 all Australian children have access to a quality, affordable early childhood learning program delivered by a university trained teacher in the year before formal schooling. We have given a commitment to recurrent funding after 2013 to the states and territories so that early childhood learning programs continue to be an expected and normal part of every child’s educational experience. Again I would like to draw the attention of all members, and particularly the member for Paterson, to the fact that in many parts of Australia 20 per cent of children do not get access to a preschool education. The children in his electorate of Paterson are undoubtedly going to benefit from the amount of funding that we are putting into preschool.

In Indigenous communities the figures are far worse—something like 50 per cent of Indigenous children do not get access to preschool. COAG has signed off on $564 million of joint funding over six years, therefore, to address the needs of Indigenous children in their early years. As part of this, 35 children and family centres are to be established across Australia to deliver integrated services that offer early learning, child care and family support programs.

The government has high ambitions for our schools and for what they can deliver for all of our students. Our stated ambition is that all Australian school students acquire the knowledge and skills to participate effectively in society and employment in a globalised economy. We are working to meet this ambition by stating our clear expectations around several things—quality teaching, strong outcomes for students, improved student retention, importantly, and good parental engagement. It is a highly collaborative approach.

The government has also taken unambiguous steps to support all of these ambitions. I refer to two practical examples of how the government has acted to support the education revolution in our schools. I point first of all to the $116 million in funding to nearly 900 secondary schools across Australia for the first rollout of new computers in schools. This is part of the $1.2 billion funding commitment for the digital education revolution. In my own electorate of Bennelong, the first rollout of computers in schools has seen computers delivered to Holy Cross College, Marist College, Carlingford High School and Ryde Secondary College. These schools are very grateful for the improvement that that has made to their ICT departments. In addition, there is the allocation of $90 million of funding involving almost 100 secondary schools for the first phase of the trade training centres. Again, this is part of a much bigger commitment, a $2½ billion commitment. In my area, the electorate of Bennelong, this initiative is going to deliver hospitality training resources and a commercial kitchen at the outstanding Epping Boys High School. They put in a terrific submission. This facility is going to used by not only students at that school but also students attending neighbouring Carlingford High School and Cheltenham Girls High School.

I come precisely to the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. This bill will expand on all of the initiatives—and they need to be seen as a whole—that support Australia’s education system. This will help parents meet the everyday costs of their children’s education. The third part of the government’s education revolution is about our ambitions for working-age Australians. Our goal here is that everyone has the opportunity to develop the skills and qualifications needed to enable them to be effective participants in a modern economy. Again, on this issue I point to the actions already underway by the Rudd government. There is the $2 billion Productivity Places Program, which is already offering training places to over 53,000 job seekers in this financial year. Indeed, more than 12,000 people have already completed training courses, and last week the government announced an additional $187 million for this Productivity Places Program. It will translate overall to an extra 56,000 places. In all, the government will be offering training places to 700,000 people over the next five years.

Further, the government has acted to bolster the investment available for Australia’s training and academic institutions through the creation of an $11 billion Education Investment Fund. The key priorities of this fund will be capital expenditure and renewal and refurbishment in universities and in vocational institutions as well as in research facilities and major research institutions. As the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, said in the House a fortnight ago, she has invited 14 universities from around the country to bid for government funding worth nearly $700 million for strategic investment in capital and research facilities. I was delighted to see that Macquarie University, situated in the north-west of the electorate of Bennelong, has been invited to put forward a proposal in this round.

I have taken the time today to describe the government’s ambitions and multiple actions in enacting an education revolution. This bill forms one of a number of elements that the government are putting in place in support of the changes that we are driving across all sectors, starting with early education, going through to school education and then to the important area of training. It is a revolution that starts by giving our youngest children the best start in life. It aims to embed high expectation of our schools in preparing our young people to further their careers, and it encourages working-age Australians to engage in ongoing training.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 will play a key role in delivering up to $4.4 billion in financial support for schooling costs. Around 1.3 million Australian families will be eligible for this assistance, which is expected to support around 2.7 million primary and secondary school students. The refund is a tax offset for 50 per cent of eligible education expenses for children undertaking primary and secondary schooling. Under this initiative, eligible families will be able to claim 50 per cent of education expenses—up to $750 for each child undertaking primary school, giving parents a refund of up to $375 per year; and up to $1,500 for each child undertaking secondary school, providing parents with a refund of up to $750 per child per year. Thus a family with, say, one primary school student and one secondary school student—not an unusual combination—can receive up to $1,125 per year.

The education tax refund bill sets out the expenses that are eligible for the refund and they include laptops, computers—and the associated costs of repairing and running them—as well as printers and paper. They include home internet connections, education software, school textbooks and other materials, including study guides and stationery, and also prescribed trade tools. So there are a range of things that can be claimed by parents.

The refund bill also sets out the characteristics of the families who are eligible to receive the financial assistance available under this bill. In defining family eligibility, the bill recognises there are a wide range of different family circumstances. Families that are eligible are in receipt of family tax benefit A and have children undertaking primary or secondary school studies. For those school students who enter or leave in any one school year, a claim of half the amount of the refund attributable to the half of the financial year that they attended school will be allowed. Parents can claim the refund against eligible expenses incurred from 1 July 2008 when they complete their 2008-09 income tax return. Parents who do not pay tax and are not required to complete a tax return will still benefit from the tax refund. Importantly, this financial assistance is available for eligible education expenses incurred from 1 July 2008.

The bill is part of building a stronger and fairer Australia by funding parents with real support regardless of their location or the schools that their children attend. In my own area of Bennelong there are 44 primary, secondary and special schools—government, Catholic and independent. I know the parents of children at all of those schools and indeed across Australia will be able to make choices with regard to what they purchase to assist their children in achieving their educational goals. I know that families such as those in my electorate value education highly. They are going to welcome this substantial contribution to their children’s educational expenses.

In this country we need dedicated efforts to ensure that every child has the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential. The Rudd government’s commitment to the education revolution is aimed at a more equitable distribution of resources for those in lower- and middle-income brackets, as it is without a doubt that by increasing the participation of young Australians in early learning environments and providing financial assistance to struggling families we build a better society with skilled and productive members in the community.

Earlier I mentioned the recently released Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Report card on the wellbeing of young Australians. Against the measure of reported deprivation, ARACY noted that lack of educational resources is one way that poverty may be linked to poor educational achievement. In comparison to OECD countries, Australia ranked only 10th in a ranking of 30 countries on this measure. Indigenous Australia ranked a dismal 29th in a ranking of 31. These are awful figures, but I also noted one other—that is, in 2006, the ARACY report said, seven per cent of children reported having fewer than 11 books in their home. This bill, a very practical measure, offers families financial assistance by reducing the effective cost to families of practical educational resources.

To sum up, this education tax refund bill is a concrete, practical example of how the Rudd government’s education revolution is an agenda based on actions and not just on words. It demonstrates the renewed valuing of and commitment to education, to Australia’s students and educators and to parents as the first educators of the future generations. Those who diminish this notion simply do not understand or have not bothered to inform themselves of the very wide range of policies that the Rudd government is committed to. As I have said on many occasions before, I want to see the kind of early learning and educational system that will ensure that every Australian child can reach for the stars. It will certainly be a revolutionary act when we eliminate the current long tail of educational underachievement and when Australia meets the Prime Minister’s goal of lifting school retention rates from an abysmal 75 per cent to something like 90 or 95 per cent by 2020. Equally, we will know that the barricades have been breached when every Indigenous child in the Northern Territory and in remote areas of Western Australia and Queensland graduates from school and has exactly the same set of opportunities and choices as the school graduates who live in my electorate in suburbs like Denistone, Eastwood and Epping. If we do that, the report cards on Australia’s future will be looking a lot more optimistic than the one that was released just a few weeks ago. I commend the bill to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 today. As we know, this bill seeks to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses, which are extremely limited. I will go into those details further in this speech. The proposed offset is for expenses totalling a maximum of $750 per primary school student, meaning a $375 offset, and $1,500 worth of expenses per secondary student for a $750 or 50 per cent offset.

This bill could be a lot better for and a lot more beneficial to Australian families and Australia’s 3.4 million enrolled students. There are over 22,000 students in Canning, made up of 15,215 primary school students and 7,250 secondary school students. It is interesting to note that the government’s description of all eligible items is not at all comprehensive, and this is where this bill falls short. The eligible items are limited to computers, home internet connections, computer software and textbooks associated with computers. It is nowhere near wide enough for the families of today. As we know, it is not good enough for the much generated focus group of the Labor Party, using the slogan ‘working family’, either. Under the bill, eligible families will be those receiving family tax benefit A, those who receive other payments—which means those not receiving family tax benefit A—and those independent students who receive youth allowance, disability support pension or Abstudy living allowance.

This bill emanates from the Labor Party’s election promise which was in this year’s budget. Labor’s education revolution continues to be lacklustre, all spin and no substance. Members might recall seeing the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the election standing there with a computer saying, ‘This is the toolbox of the future.’ A senior journalist from Perth who happened to be there when the Prime Minister, then opposition leader, was saying that said to me he thought it was one of the biggest spin-over stunts that he had seen in any pre-election campaign. The follow-up has not happened. We have got computers, but I will come to the detail of why this is more spin than substance later.

While the coalition support a tax offset for education, those working families that Labor vowed to look after are exactly the people that this bill could have been better for. The coalition strongly support helping parents and caregivers with the cost of education—and we are non-exclusive. All parents—and I emphasise all parents—have a right to choose how best to educate their children. The coalition’s Helping Families to Provide More Educational Opportunities for their Children policy was intended to make the offset of up to $800 for secondary school students and $400 for primary school and preschool students available to all families. The coalition, recognising the breadth of learning and the needs of individual students, included in this policy a broad range of eligible items, again reflecting the choice of parents and the cost of education. The coalition included as eligible items school fees for both government and non-government schools, as well as uniforms, books, stationery, school excursions and camps, laptops and broadband software and extracurricular activities such as music, dance and sport. In other words, the coalition covered all of the expenses, whereas Labor continues on this one-way digital street. It is so narrowly defined. As some have mused, what happens when they all end up with their computers? Does that mean that they cannot claim eligible expenses? Are there no other eligible expenses under this policy that the Labor Party has now proffered?

Canning Vale High School, which was one of the most modern new secondary schools in Western Australia even before this policy came in, has huge banks of computers for students. Not every student is going to be working at a laptop or computer monitor day in, day out the whole time they are at school. To share them is a far better use of such items and is a far better bang for the buck to those paying for them. We are now seeing the Labor Party drift away from the suggestion that everyone will end up with a computer to saying that it could be one between two students. The Labor Party did say before the election that all students would get one, but it has gradually been diluted to one for two. There is more to come.

We do know that education is not cheap, but it is certainly imperative. Many parents struggle to pay fees, pay for books and provide internet access for their children. The coalition recognise that families need help with fees no matter where their children attend school, and that is why it was included in our policy. However, it is not reflected here. Research shows that the basic cost of raising one child to the age of 18 now exceeds $200,000. The Australian Scholarship Group estimates the cost of schooling, depending on the choice of government, independent or private schooling, as follows: the cost of preschool is between $2,662 and $6,952, reflecting parents’ choices; the cost of primary school is between $5,317 and $12,561, again reflecting the range of choices; and the cost of secondary school is between $5,618 and $21,112, again giving a range of choice. As I have mentioned, the cost of schooling is astonishing, and any help is a big help. As we know, many parents either end up with a second job or take out substantial loans to put their children through school.

Without wishing to go into the bona fides of the Prime Minister’s well-documented, old-fashioned, working-class upbringing, I would like to suggest that the Prime Minister consider giving back to those who gave him a leg up when he needed it. As a Queensland youngster Mr Rudd and his brother were fortunate enough to be offered the opportunity to attend and board at the elite Catholic boys Marist Brothers school, Marist College Ashgrove. Despite its extensive waiting list, the exclusive school made room for the future Prime Minister and the Marist Brothers themselves covered the fees. Mr Rudd then completed his secondary education at Nambour State High School, coincidentally also the school the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, attended. Mr Rudd has reached the highest office this nation can offer. Without doubt, he is extremely well educated. With Mr Rudd’s family’s highly publicised affluence, he could afford to provide an annual scholarship to both the Marist Brothers college and Nambour high school. He received a fine education from both institutions and should consider giving back to the public and private schools that gave him his start. I am sure that those schools would welcome such an offer and would be delighted with such a showing of gratitude by the Prime Minister now.

Returning to the cost of education, those figures I gave you do not take into account the cost of extracurricular activities. Whether they be ballet classes, junior football or cricket, piano lessons or any other activities, they are a huge additional financial burden on parents—parents of any demographic who want to offer every opportunity to their children. Extracurricular activities are a big cost, and they hit low-income-earning families particularly hard. A Brotherhood of St Laurence survey found that 69 per cent of parents surveyed had trouble paying for sport and other activities. Disturbingly, I must point out, 39 per cent of parents said their children had been absent from school because they could not afford the excursion, the camp or the transport. As a former schoolteacher I remember it was often very heart-rending and embarrassing for the students or their parents when the students were asked, ‘So, why aren’t you going on camp this year?’ and they would say, ‘Oh, Mum doesn’t want me to go,’ or, ‘It’s too cold,’ or, ‘I don’t like that part of the bush.’ You knew it was just an excuse because they could not afford to go, and it was very sad. On many occasions schools out of their own fundraising and on their own initiative paid for many of these students to go on camp. They would lightly sidle up to the parent, quite often a single parent, and say, ‘Look, if you would like, we will find a way to actually get your child to the camp,’ or get them onto the excursion et cetera which was part of their overall education. But it really should not be like that, because the tax offset that we are talking about would actually provide this greater choice for parents to redeem 50 per cent of those fees rather than the narrow focus on computers and computer equipment.

And what about those students who need a little bit of extra help—in tuition, for example? This is not covered under Labor’s offset either. We know that the Labor Party has now scrapped the vouchers that were available for literacy and numeracy et cetera, so parents will struggle. As a parent I know that children do need help in certain areas. If they are weak in maths, for example, it costs a fair bit of money to get in a private tutor to help. No matter how affluent you are, it would still help them if you had the opportunity to get help with some of those extra fees to help your children get through their courses.

This is a government that advocates its early childhood education credentials, yet it is excluding the cost of that education from the offset. Here we have a $4.4 billion initiative that could have been better directed to benefit Australian families. Remember the working families? They are the ones who would not mind benefiting from this as well. So go back to your focus groups and find out if they are happy with this narrow focus on education fees. Everybody agrees that we need to put money in education, but it must be directed in a way that it will do the most good.

The trumpeted ‘education revolution’ has come apart at the seams. With the additional cost of implementing the computers-in-schools program estimated at $3 billion, state Labor governments and the now non-Labor government in Western Australia are finding it pretty tough. For example, in Western Australia, every $1 of federal government funding costs the state an extra $3. It is all right to give schools computers, but where is the connection, where is the backup, where is the ongoing support? What about the repairs and maintenance of these computers? It is not there, and that is why the state governments and many of the state schools at which this initiative is targeted are bailing out: they just cannot afford it.

The way the Labor Party has spruiked its laptops you would think that there were no computers at all in Australian schools. That is just not true. In fact, Australia was one of the world leaders in providing computers, third behind Lichtenstein and the United States, in a 2003 report showing there was one computer for every three students in the country. So that was happening without the Labor Party’s much-vaunted education revolution, which is fizzing out to become less a revolution and more of a disturbance.

Despite having to pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt, the coalition provided record funding for schools. Between 1996 and 2007, investment in state schools doubled from $1.4 billion to $3.5 billion. So much for the criticism about the coalition’s lack of investment: it in fact doubled in that period. Public schools enrol roughly 67 per cent of students yet receive 75 per cent of the funding, whereas non-government schools enrol roughly 33 per cent of students and receive only 25 per cent of funding, and it is the parents and the school communities who make up the shortfall. You hear this sort of thing so often: ‘Look at that school over there; they’ve got all those nice ovals and they’ve got a bus.’ Parents who choose non-government schools for their children—and it is a choice; it should always be a choice, even though the ideologically driven would probably argue against this—make up the difference in funding out of their own pockets. It has been estimated that this difference, in addition to the cost of fees and amenities for students entering non-government schools, is $4 billion per annum.

While we are on the topic of education, let’s not forget those opposite who have axed one of the coalition’s most successful and valuable initiatives: the Investing in Our Schools Program. I defy any member of the government to tell me that not one school in Australia appreciated the funding from the Investing in Our Schools Program. In fact, I would like a dollar for every time the principals, teachers, parents or students came to me and said: ‘Look we could never have afforded that shadecloth over the playground for kids. We could never have afforded the computer hub in our school. We could never have afforded the freezer in the canteen that we had to pay for that we have finally got.’ All of those extra things that the schools could never have afforded to do were provided through the Investing in Our Schools Program and it was axed. So much for investing in schools by the Labor Party. They are so narrowly focused that they are just taking this computer direction and excluding everything else that adds to a child’s education in terms of amenities.

More than 75 Canning schools will feel the pinch with the Labor government scrapping the Investing in Our Schools Program. This funding filled a hole for projects desperately needed by schools that never seemed to make it onto the state government funding priority list, as I said, like adding to the libraries, carpeting and even air conditioning in remote and hot areas. Let us talk about not what they are doing in terms of the education revolution but what they have actually taken away. I conclude by saying we do need to give offsets and support to parents in terms of their school costs but not by just narrowly focusing on computers and the hardware that goes with them. They need to realise that an education is far broader and far more comprehensive than the narrow focus they have chosen on this occasion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 introduces the education tax refund. This refund will provide Australian families with a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses up to a maximum of $750 per child in primary school and $1,500 per child at secondary school. This is a significant $4.4 billion boost for education in this country. It is part of the Rudd government’s commitment to provide all Australian children with the opportunities afforded by a world-class education.

It helps to take the pressure off working Australian families, particularly at this time of global economic crisis and increasing strains on family budgets. Who can receive this refund? It will be families in receipt of family tax benefit part A. It will be those who receive other payments that preclude them from receiving family tax benefit part A, and independent students who receive youth allowance, the DSP or Abstudy living allowance. Taken all together it will cover some 1.3 million families and 2.7 million children. It will be claimable when income tax returns are submitted from 1 July 2009, so it will come in next year.

There is a long list of expenses that will be eligible for this education tax refund including computers and computer related equipment, such as printers, disability aids and associated costs. It will cover home internet connection, computer software, school textbooks and other paper based school learning materials including stationery. It will cover course prescribed tools of trade. It does not cover school fees or school uniforms.

The aim of this government is to create an outstanding world-class education system so that every single Australian child will have the best job opportunities and the best life opportunities in future. As I say often when I go to schools: the gift of an education is, apart from the love that we can give our children, the best possible gift that we can give to set children up for their future lives. It is the giving of that gift of education that is the reason why the Rudd government is committed to implementing an education revolution. The features include a universal preschool entitlement of 15 hours per week for all four-year-olds, a national curriculum board to develop a national curriculum in the areas of English, mathematics, science and history by 2011 and $1.2 billion for a digital education revolution—meaning a school computer for every student in years 9 to 12 supported by digital content resources, professional development and broadband connections. There will be a $2.5 billion investment to build trades training centres in state, Catholic and independent schools to develop vital skills. There will be Future Fellowships to support Australia’s top researchers, and the government is also investing in the teaching of Asian languages and studies to ensure that as a nation Australia is prepared for what is being called the Asia-Pacific century.

This government’s education revolution is about opportunity and it is about prosperity. It is about opportunities for all Australian children and it is about securing national prosperity in the future. It is not enough for the opposition to say that they believe in quality in education. It is not enough for the opposition to say that they believe in choice. It is not enough for them to say that they believe in providing all children with the best education possible—they have to back their words with actions. They failed during their time in government and they are still failing now. One wonders if the deputy opposition leader, who spoke earlier on this bill, has actually read the bill. She claimed:

This bill refunds parents for only a limited amount of expenditure on information technology related goods.

She further claimed in her speech in this House that the bill does not cover expenses for textbooks. This is simply false, which she would know if she had made it to page 12 of the bill. It is typical of a lazy opposition frontbench and, in particular, it is typical of the intellectual laziness of the deputy opposition leader.

The deputy opposition leader has decried the fact that this bill does not fund what she terms ‘extra tuition’. What the deputy opposition leader really means when she says this is that she wants to prioritise government spending on private tutors in Dalkeith, Nedlands and Peppermint Grove over the very real needs of the great bulk of Australian working families, who are doing it tough and trying to provide a decent education for their children. The deputy opposition leader also claimed:

It is through values based reform measures that quality in education will be achieved.

It is an interesting choice of words from the deputy opposition leader, assuming that she has not picked them up from somewhere else. If the opposition wants to turn this debate into one of values, that is a debate that I am more than happy to have.

Underlying any government action to improve schooling in Australia must be principles of quality, equity and choice. These are values that Australian families understand to be important in providing the best future for their own children and for all Australian children. Equity in education is vital, and as a government we reject the notion that hundreds of thousands of Australian children can or should be left behind by the Commonwealth government.

The coalition talk about choice, but they fail to understand that when you remove investment in public education you remove choice from the vast majority of parents who send their children to state schools. When a government undermines investment in public education, it removes the choices that parents are able to make, the choices that schools can make in the provision of services and the choices that children will have in the future.

What values are the opposition promoting when they put up speaker after speaker on the cognate debate on the Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 which we had earlier this year to argue against the most basic levels of accountability on the part of schools and institutions that receive enormous levels of funding from the Commonwealth government? The outrage expressed in the arguments that we heard from those opposite gave the game away. They do not believe, it would seem, that private institutions that receive billions of dollars in government funding should in any way be accountable to the Australian public for the expenditure of that money. I cannot go past the speech by the member for Sturt, who was outraged in a way that only he can be outraged that schools might be required to ‘publish information about all of their sources of funding’. Imagine that a private institution that is carrying out an important public purpose and that is reliant on public money might be required to assure the minister that the institution is financially viable!

If you are looking for an example of the failure of those opposite—the failure of the Liberal Party and the Nationals—to understand accountability and good governance, you cannot go past the example that has cropped up in vivid colour in the last two or three weeks, that of ABC Learning Centres, of which the Rudd government is now trying to pick up the pieces. Under the former government, ABC Learning Centres were allowed to grow and grow to a dominant position in the childcare industry—

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mrs Irwin interjecting

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was in fact going to mention Larry Anthony. It is now clear that many of its centres were running at a loss, but the Liberal and National Party approach to accountability of companies and organisations receiving large amounts of public funding is that accountability and disclosure are not necessary. Notions of good governance and accountability are foreign, it would seem, to those opposite.

Perhaps it is that they did not want to hold to account one of their own, the former member for Richmond, the Hon. Larry Anthony. He lost his seat, and thereby his ministry, at the 2004 election—and I remind honourable members that he was the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. In that role he was responsible for the childcare industry in this country. He went virtually straight onto the board of ABC Learning Centres. That is revealed by the annual report, which I happen to have. At the annual general meeting in November 2005, Sallyanne Atkinson, the former Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who was the chairman of this company, had this to say about Larry Anthony joining the board.

We were looking for another when Larry Anthony had a career change and I was absolutely delighted when he accepted my invitation—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Reluctant though I am to interrupt the member speaking, the fact is that what he is saying now appears to have nothing to do with the bill in hand, and I suggest that you draw him back to the legislation before the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for his point of order and I will ask the member for Isaacs to come to the bill before the House, but I do point out that the bill is on education and that many other speakers have been fairly broad-ranging on the topic of education.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed they have, and many other speakers have spoken on this subject of accountability, which lies at the core of the Rudd government’s approach not only to education but to funding generally with public funds of private institutions. This company, ABC Learning Centres, and Larry Anthony’s role in it, provides no better example—

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, members opposite can start defending Bob Carr and the Macquarie Bank and the—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Warringah is now abusing the point of order.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is abusing the standing orders by speaking as he has.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Isaacs will address the bill before the House, which I again state is on education and I think there has been a fairly broad-ranging discussion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sallyanne Atkinson, the former Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, said:

Apart from his personal skills (and his considerable charm) he has a Bachelor of Commerce degree, a background in banking, and some experience in our industry as Federal Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

Question negatived.

This is an excellent example of the failure of the Liberal and National parties to understand what accountability in education is about. It is an excellent example because this was one of their own: the former National Party minister responsible for this industry who, on leaving this parliament, virtually went straight onto the board of the largest childcare provider in this country, supposedly as an independent director, which he was not. (Quorum formed) This example of Larry Anthony, supposedly an independent director of ABC Learning Centres, is the best possible example of those opposite’s complete lack of understanding of accountability in education or indeed in public administration generally. This same Larry Anthony was described by the company in several annual reports as an independent, non-executive director, and those same annual reports record that in 2006 he received some $43,000 in fees and superannuation and in 2007 received some $65,000 in fees and superannuation—

I will ask the member for Isaacs to refer to the bill before us. I would contend that perhaps the member for Isaacs is now straying from the bill and I would like him to bring his remarks back to the bill.

I will move back to the bill by leaving on this point: the fact is that of course Larry Anthony was not at all independent. As a consultant he received fees of $110,000 for the year ending 30 June 2006 and $125,000 for the year ending 30 June 2007. Will Larry Anthony now accept responsibility—

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the member speaking can talk about his fees from the Labor government in Victoria—

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. Points of order are not for abuse of the parliament. The member for Isaacs will continue on the bill.

I fear, given the tradition of those opposite, the Liberal Party and the National Party and their limited understanding of accountability, that we will not be seeing Larry Anthony taking any of the blame for the debacle of ABC Learning Centres, given the relationship between this former minister responsible for child care and the company is just too cosy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have appropriately asked the member to bring his remarks back to the legislation. I do believe he is defying your ruling.

The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The member for Isaacs has the call.

We hope that when those opposite stand again to speak about accountability and why it is that there should not be accountability by private institutions operating in the education sector—be that in early childhood, in primary, in secondary or, indeed, in tertiary education—they will bear in mind the kind of debacle that has occurred in ABC Learning Centres involving one of their own, where the lack of accountability and the lack of transparency can really be said to have brought this about. This cosy relationship was so cosy that Eddie Groves of ABC Learning Centres gave $50,000 to the National Party in 2007 in the run-up to the last election. The idea of accountability, which those opposite have spoken about regularly in education bills throughout this year, is a notion that they do not understand. The government does. We are looking for accountability when public funds are expended.

This bill is a key part of the education revolution that the Rudd government has embarked on. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a father of two children at a local state primary school in Cowan, I share the interests of my fellow parents in all matters educational. The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 is a very important means by which parents in Cowan will be able to claim a tax offset. So I am pleased to speak on this bill, but I am also very keen to state how it could be much better. The bill is known colloquially as the ETR, or education tax refund, bill and it essentially provides a refund of $375 for a primary school aged child after $750 is spent and $750 for a secondary school student after $1,500 is spent. This will allow parents and caregivers to seek refunds for expenses to do with computers, a home internet connection, software, textbooks and stationery.

This brings me to the alternative proposal, which was the coalition’s plan which we took to the election. In our plan, the rebate could include preschool education expenses, school fees, school uniforms, extracurricular school activities and tutoring. I would encourage the government to look at extending the list of expenses for which this rebate can be claimed—that is, if they really want to focus on improving educational outcomes. The point I would make is that there are schools around this country where the children would prefer to fit in by having a uniform on as a priority before they start selecting software. There are children that would like to do the incursions, let alone the excursions, before having a printer at home.

That is the trouble with this bill and the government’s policy: the almost myopic focus on computer hardware, software and peripherals has meant that they do not understand one of the basic requirements in a young person’s or child’s life—the need to fit in. I think that it is a very bad thing for a child to miss out on the opportunities that their classmates are being given, because they are then reminded of the challenges of their socioeconomic position or other issues in their lives. To that end, I advocate that the government look at the matter of individual inclusion and widen the criteria for the items that can be claimed under this bill.

I am sure that all the government speakers will talk up this bill and the comprehensive benefits that it will provide, but my view is that the benefits are neither comprehensive nor targeted towards the reality of the need. I again urge the government and the government members to think carefully about the best way to assist parents and their children to ensure they fit in and are therefore comfortable enough to pursue the opportunities that education offers. If you do not make sure children, particularly those from more challenging socioeconomic backgrounds, are supported with a school uniform like everyone else’s and the opportunity to participate in all school activities like everyone else, then you risk these children feeling isolated. They may become disruptive, bringing themselves down and those around them.

Of course, by expanding the criteria for claims, you do not guarantee that parents will spend the money on uniforms, school activities or other expenses, but you make it a bit easier for them to come to that decision to act now and claim it back later. As a father I want my children to have the same opportunities as their peers. I do not want my children to miss out and feel bad. I know that a majority of parents think the same way. For those who do, change in the criteria in this bill would be of benefit to the parents but, most importantly, to their children. Children do not wish to be different from other children, and I believe that assisting children to fit in is the best way to start.

I draw upon my experiences with my own children and my significant experience in coaching teenagers in sport to refine my views of what is important to young people, but I also have very up-to-date information on this matter. I recently assisted the senior class of Waddington Primary School in Koondoola by paying for one of them to go to the school camp. Koondoola is a suburb challenged by lower than average socioeconomic standing and I know that many of the parents struggled to find the $170 for the camp. If they knew they could get the money back, maybe that would make a bit of a difference. Widened criteria would mean that all the children could have the nice graduation polo shirt uniform or in fact the regular school uniform.

This is not to say that Waddington Primary School is not a proud school. I do like what they do. I like the commitment of teachers like James Cunningham, a man dedicated to ensuring the children in his class have the best opportunities. He is a fine example to the children and a role model to them. James actually brought his class up to my office and we all had morning tea. I was very pleased to have welcomed them to the office. I look forward to providing every assistance that I can in the future to the school. I would also mention that the principal of Waddington is Leanne Alderman, and she has continued the great work of previous principals of the school Stephen Blechynden and Peter Mulcahy.

I would next like to turn my attention to the Hawker Park Primary School in the suburb of Warwick, in the south-west of Cowan. The school has a strong community feel to it and an outstanding reputation. When I mention the school to other principals I always get the comment that Hawker Park is held in high regard. A school’s reputation is often developed over a long period, and it is a credit to committed staff and parents that although the school is just 25 years old it has been such a great success and holds such a positive position in the community. At the helm of this great little school is Dr Irma Roberts, the principal. The acting deputy is year 1 teacher Felicity Randell, but Tom Kelly, normally the deputy, is on long service leave and has served for many years as the deputy principal. Tom is the lead organiser behind the sports carnivals and serves the school very well.

It is also appropriate for me to mention that six teachers have 17 or more years service at Hawker Park. In fact, for 25 years Tony Bourne has been teaching the year 7 class and is now teaching the children of his former students. Tony has been a great and positive influence on every graduating class over those 25 years. The other long-serving staff include Julia Hill, with 18 years service; Lois Watt, 19 years; Pamela Barnes, 19 years; Lori Chatman, 18 years; and Liz Everall, 17 years. It says something about a school when the teachers want to stay and contribute over such a long period. I thank them for their efforts, their dedication and overall commitment to quality education.

The P&C has been working very well and effectively for many years, undertaking fundraising activities and supporting the school. Although there are many outstanding volunteers that have been there for years, I will just mention the president, Margaret Brocx, and long-time school volunteers Vicki Mattock and Chris Henry, who have been integral to the success of the school community over many years. I would also mention Belinda Mackay, who again did many years of dedicated work with the P&C. Finally I will mention Beth Worsdell, who runs the canteen. Beth has been in the position for many years and the canteen serves the school very well. Again, widened criteria for the education tax refund would benefit Hawker Park. Voluntary school fees should be included under this bill. This would encourage more parents to contribute, which would then result in an increase in funds available to the school to use for educational outcomes.

I also want to speak about another school in Cowan, which I have had a long-term association with. In 2005 I went to see Peter Smith, the then principal of South Ballajura Primary School. South Ballajura is in the north-east of Perth and it gets particularly hot in summer. The school has demountable classrooms that are air-conditioned, but in 2005 the remainder of the school was not. I offered Peter the option of me writing the Investing in Our Schools Program application for him, and Peter told me that he did not have the time to get everything done, so I agreed to get the quotes and put together the application. This was done and the grant was received. The result was that evaporative cooling was installed in South Ballajura Primary School. I certainly found it was an easy case to make, the case for air conditioning. There is little doubt that children are able to make the most of school when they are in a cooler environment and can therefore better maintain their levels of concentration. South Ballajura Primary School is an example of the coalition government’s commitment to education, and the facts cannot be brushed away, like the current government likes to do so often.

But I think it is important to talk about South Ballajura in 2008. There are more than 600 students at the school, representing 30 nationalities. In the languages other than English program they learn Indonesian, which adds to the rich diversity that they derive from the different cultures represented by the students. A couple of weeks ago I went and spoke to a year 5 and 6 group of students about a stronger and better community. While I was there, Miss Jade Green asked me a number of questions that demonstrated to me that she cares about being a good citizen in Australia. I would say that the children were very well mannered and they are therefore a credit to their teachers, and to the principal, Lynda Moir.

I have the highest regard for Lynda and her outstanding registrar, Betty Vlahov, who has been at the school since it opened in 1994, and the dedicated school staff, yet the support of parents and volunteers remains critical to the success of the school. To properly acknowledge the work of the P&C, I will mention, with my thanks for their efforts, president Annie Whitehurst, vice-president Rachel Whitworth, Jane Green, Julie Cruden, Naomi Brown, Tracey Jones, Judith Hill, Charmaine Robertson and Karen Markham—to name just a few of the current members. I also mention the good work of previous executive members of the P&C Caroline Bennetts and Mrs Lisa Raats. Given this bill is about supporting parents, I would note just one of the many examples where the South Ballajura P&C have supported the children. This year the P&C funded 15 flexible pianos for the music room. This ensures a better and more enjoyable music experience for the children. I have great pleasure in acknowledging South Ballajura primary’s staff and parent volunteers for the excellent work they do for education in our community under what are, at times, challenging circumstances.

It is for that reason that I also believe widened criteria for the education tax refund would benefit South Ballajura Primary School. In these suburbs of challenged socioeconomic circumstances, it is all the more important that children feel that they are fitting in. School uniforms, incursions and excursions are all key features of a child fitting in and therefore feeling that link to the educational process. Without such a link, children are at risk of feeling isolated or second best and therefore may avoid school, undermining their futures. Again, if the government included voluntary school fees, extracurricular activities and uniforms under this bill, it would encourage more parents to make these outlays and make the children feel part of the school and better linked to education and its great value.

However, South Ballajura Primary School is just one part of the South Ballajura story. It would be wrong of me not to mention principal Cheryl Lennox, registrar Lee-Anne Green and the truly dedicated teaching and support staff at the South Ballajura Education Support Centre. The ESC exists to provide education for children with disabilities. Several Fridays ago I had a look around and was better able to appreciate the challenges, the conditions and the achievements of the ESC and its students. I am informed that there are children with disabilities integrated throughout the primary school as well as classes specifically for ESC students only. This policy is good for all the students. It would be good to see widened expense criteria added to this bill in support of the parents of the ESC. These parents already struggle with the costs of transport and the other additional costs for their disabled children. Extra help and tax deductibility should be included for these parents.

Before I conclude, I will make mention of Woodvale Senior High School. Woodvale senior high opened in 1985 and has almost 1,600 students. Paul Leech is the principal and he is a great advocate for this excellent school. I know that parents at Woodvale would also appreciate a widening of the criteria to which the education tax refund applies. I make mention of the benefits that could apply to parents of Woodvale students because of the outstanding specialist programs offered. These include the academic extension program, the music program, basketball, soccer, science enrichment and forensics. The great success and high standing of the school mean that there are long waiting lists for entry for those who live outside the local intake area or who are unsuccessful in gaining entry to a specialist program. Widened criteria could result in, for instance, parents claiming a rebate for a musical instrument so that their son or daughter could fully participate in the highly regarded Woodvale music program in which more than 300 students currently participate.

I should also mention that Woodvale senior high’s students perform very well academically, being in the top 25 per cent of students in the state. State, national and international testing reinforces the high quality of academic success the school enjoys. The parents and school community have been fully involved in this success, and I will rightly acknowledge the parts played by the P&C president, Virginia McNamara, as well as Dee Briggs and Fab Zannutigh, for all the hard work they do for the school and the students. Although there are around 130 staff, I will also acknowledge the work they do in making Woodvale senior high a success academically and the help they provide for young people through the specialist programs, the extra tuition classes on offer, programs to support student development and strong cross-curricular links with students working on specialist areas. I know Phil Mullane does an excellent job with the music program, which has resulted in the school’s concert band especially being highly sought after to support local community events. I will also mention some other staff that I know do a great job at Woodvale, including Steve Jurilj, who is renowned for his great coordination of the student services staff; Sue Festa, whose can-do and positive attitude plays a crucial role in running school administration; and, of course, Carol Stokes, the chaplain, for all her work in pastoral care.

Although I have named a number of strengths of Woodvale senior high—programs and individuals—I particularly want to mention three more areas that have also impressed me. They include the digital media capabilities and professional-level software supported by the campus-wide information technology network. I have seen the work of the students with digital media, and the level of imagination and creativity is a credit to the teachers. I also have been impressed with the manual trade skills that students can learn at Woodvale. Finally, I would make mention of the ongoing cultural exchange program with Japan which continues to work well in building strong connections with Asia. I understand a sister-school relationship also exists with a school in Jinan in China.

Further evidence of Woodvale’s high-quality education programs is provided by reference to its accreditation to enrol international fee-paying students. Today I have made reference to the many reasons why Woodvale is one of the best schools in Cowan. They are all valid reasons, yet what continually bears out its outstanding reputation is the number of parents whom I have spoken to from out of the intake area who want their child to attend Woodvale. Woodvale Senior High School achieves across a wide range of areas. They provide academic, artistic and vocational options for young people, and I am sure their success will carry on into the future.

Before concluding my contribution, I will mention of one more school, the Wanneroo Primary School. The principal is Penny Halleen and the school has around 530 students. The language other than English taught at Wanneroo is Italian, which is a departure from almost all other schools in Cowan yet reflects the history of the Wanneroo district. Of course, that is not all that the school does well. I know they focus strongly on literacy and numeracy and I know they emphasise the school values of respect, tolerance, self-discipline, cooperation, courtesy and confidence.

In closing, I reiterate the points that I made before about the shortcomings of this bill and the policy behind it. If the government is looking for another dot point in attempting to propagate just the term ‘education revolution’ then the almost exclusively narrow focus on information technology probably delivers that dot point. However, if the government believes in supplying real support and choice for parents that will benefit the children, it should look at school and preschool fees, uniforms, stationery, calculators, camps, excursions and extracurricular school activities as well as what is already part of this bill. It should add those things into the bill and achieve the basics. These things really do matter for some of the children out there from families that would really benefit from such an amendment. I urge the government to do this for the families and children of Cowan and the rest of Australia.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be speaking on the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 because I think it is one of those great bills that come before the House that come from the bottom up. It is something that really has come from the people, it is something that they have wanted for a very long time and it is something that they have deserved for a very long time—some would say for more than a decade, and I would agree with them. It is finally being delivered here in this House under a Rudd Labor government.

It is has been interesting—and, I have to say, very informative—to listen to coalition speakers on this bill. While not too many of them volunteered to speak on something which I would have thought would have been key and instrumental in their electorates, it certainly has been informative. It appears to me that they only really have two arguments in relation to this bill. One is that it is just not quite ‘wide enough’, which seems to be the term they are using, and that we should include a few extra bits to hang off the bill. The other one is just the sheer disinformation or, I hazard to go a little bit further, perhaps mistruths that have been provided about what is contained in the bill.

I will try to shed some light for listeners on just what this bill is about and how much benefit it will have for parents right across the country—in every single electorate and in every single school. That should be something that the Liberal and National parties take note of. It is something which is at the core of what Labor does in terms of education policy. I can remember vividly over many election campaigns dating back quite some years a comment made to me by many parents. It was made by parents when I was out campaigning, doorknocking, on election day itself, just talking to my branch members or anywhere else—the old barbecue-stopper type conversations that you have. I recall they always said that there was one thing that would guarantee anybody a win when trying to get into government.

There are always lots of different views about what will guarantee you a win and there is lots of debate about it. But one thing that always sticks in my mind is that people would say to me: ‘If only the government could see its way clear to providing some sort of tax incentive or tax relief—some sort of offset—in terms of educational expenses for children.’ It stuck with me because that comment came from parents regardless of where their children went to school. It did not matter whether they were going to a government school or a non-government school; it seemed to be the same issue. They were content with where their children were going to school. They were happy in broad terms about systems. There are always improvements that can be made in a range of things but, in terms of their family budget and what government could do to give them some relief, parents always said to me: ‘Look, you’d make a real difference to us and our budgets if you could see your way clear to providing some sort of tax relief for education expenses for our children.’

I am pretty happy today to be speaking on this bill that actually delivers on a promise that we made during the election campaign and delivers, I think, very realistically in the budgets of ordinary, everyday working mums and dads and parents right across the country. It is a real pleasure. The Rudd government are committed to implementing an education revolution. It is something we have talked a lot about. More importantly, it is something we are doing a lot about and something that we are funding. It is something that we are more than just talking it; we are doing it and we are funding it. A key part of the education revolution is helping parents meet those everyday costs of their children’s education. That is what this bill is about, and that is why the budget included $4.4 billion to create the new education tax refund. That new education tax refund is, quite simply, payable at the end of the new financial year. That will be next year, so parents need to be collecting their receipts now and working on making sure they have all the required receipts and documentation to make a proper claim in next year’s tax returns.

The education tax refund is a refundable tax offset. It is 50 per cent of eligible education expenses for children undertaking primary and secondary school studies. Again, I want to note that it does not matter which school you go to. This is about all schools in Australia, both primary and secondary. What it will do is help about 1.3 million families across the country. That equals roughly 2.7 million students who will be eligible for this particular refund. Under the plan, eligible families will be able to claim 50 per cent of all eligible education expenses up to $750 for each child undertaking primary school to provide a maximum tax offset of around $375 per child per year. For children attending secondary school studies, families will be able to claim 50 per cent of their eligible expenses up to $1,500 per child to give a maximum tax offset of $750 per child per year.

That is a pretty good return and a pretty good offset. For the first time in Australia it provides parents with a real opportunity to offset all of their education expenses, not just the ones that are contained within this bill—and I will get to those in a minute—but all others as well. By enabling them to get an offset in the areas which are eligible, it frees up more of their money, more of their budget in the areas that they would have spent their money on, to spend in other areas for their children. So when we hear calls from coalition Liberal and National party members saying that it is just not wide enough, I think that they ought to have a second look and another think about just what this does. Quite simply, this puts cash back into the pockets of ordinary families, mums and dads, through the education tax rebate.

On the area of what those rebates and eligible expenses will be for, typically they will be for laptops, home computers, printers, paper, education software, textbooks and associated materials, trade tools and a range of other interlinked materials in those areas. I think that is pretty wide. I think that the scope of this bill is wide enough that parents could quite legitimately have a look at their expenses in terms of their children’s education and make a decent claim back in the next year’s tax return. It goes further than those things that you might immediately see as necessary for a child’s education: the laptop, the home computer, the printer, all the software included in helping provide for their education, paper and school textbooks. It goes just that little bit further, and it actually goes all the way back home where a family establishes and maintains a home internet connection. That is also included so parents can claim that as well.

So I did find it intriguing and a little bit informative when I heard Liberal and National party members standing up in here saying that the bill was not wide enough and talking about other areas that could have been included. I would challenge them to have a close look at the bill—and I suspect that many of them have not read it. While on the surface they might be providing some sort of cursory support, because obviously this is a very good idea for mums and dads out there trying to educate their children, they have not actually read the bill, they have not read the detail and, if they have, they have not understood just how wide and how comprehensive the bill is. Nor have they understood that it stretches right across those educational expenses for their children. In the case where there might be a particular expense which is not covered—and it is not 100 per cent coverage of all education expenses—but where they do have a tax offset, where they do save money, where they do get a return, the money that they have saved is money that they can spend on other areas of their children’s education. This is a huge bonus for parents trying to educate their children. So I am very proud to be able to say that the Rudd Labor government is delivering on its promises in terms of an education revolution not just in words but in good policy, sound policy, and with money on the table.

It does not stop there; there is more. While we want to do everything we can for parents at the coalface in terms of trying to return some cash to their pockets at the end of the financial year with this rebate, we have not stopped there. We want to ensure that a child’s education is catered for properly at the school level as well as at home. In the federal budget in May we announced measures that total more than $19 billion of new education funding—$19 billion! As I have said many times now, I am very proud to talk on these issues. We not only made an election commitment; we kept that election commitment, and we will continue to keep our election commitments and then we will fund them as well—something a little bit novel perhaps for people who are used to the past decade of policy delivery.

I will give a few examples. We have allocated $1.2 billion for the digital education revolution which will see all years 9 to 12 students have access to a school computer. Already there has been more than $116 million handed over to the states and territories and non-government school authorities to purchase more than 116,000 computers. There has been $2.5 billion set aside for trade training centres in secondary schools, and the government announced in July that 34 projects worth more than $90 million and involving almost 100 secondary schools had successfully applied for round 1.

I have got a really great story in my own electorate about how significant this funding is and just how far it has gone to create some new initiatives within schools. For the first time we are seeing out of this funding program a desire from government and non-government schools to talk together about ways they can pool those funds for trade training centres to deliver a better outcome for their students. In recent weeks I have met with five schools in my electorate, both government and non-government schools. They had got together and had a talk about how they could pool the resources that were being offered by the Australian government and whether they could build a trade training centre that would service all of their schools in that region. Obviously it is a fantastic idea. It is a great idea to be able to say that for the first time we have got a funding program through which schools can collaborate, not in the traditional way you might think a couple of non-government schools might work together or a couple of government schools might work together, but the sector coming together on the basis of providing better education for their students.

Some of the conversations I had with those school principals, I have got to say, were completely amazing and have absolutely left for dead the archaic debates of the past about government schools versus non-government schools. I could see for the first time that schools of whatever denomination wanted to work together. They were encouraged by the fact that the Australian federal government had encouraged them to work together through funding and they had a unique opportunity. It is an innovative way for schools to get together to pool their money and spend large amounts to achieve a better outcome for their kids. The sorts of comments that I got from the school principals were: ‘Wouldn’t it be great if our students could mix with students from other schools, government and non-government? Wouldn’t it be great if they could appreciate the different circumstances that people experience, if they could learn from each other? Wouldn’t it be great if teachers that may have only one educational experience could learn from another teacher having a different educational experience? And perhaps students could do the same thing.’ All the principals saw a great new advantage and ability for their students to grow and prosper out of this funding. So while it is a lot of money in total and represents quite a large sum, by the time you divide it, it is still a small amount of money for each school—between $500,000 and $1.5 million. But what it has meant for those schools is that if four or five different schools can pool that money they can build a first-class, first-rate facility where all of their students will get something much more than they had anticipated in the first place.

There is also a new $11 billion Education Investment Fund. That is going to help to renew our universities and vocational education institutions. There has been a great lack of spending and maintenance over a long period of time which has resulted in some of our higher education institutions actually falling into disrepair in some areas or not being able to cope with demand. We are facing a global crisis in financial terms and the impact of that will no doubt be felt right around the world. There will be some job losses and Australia will not be immune to that. People will be looking to re-educate themselves, to retrain. Young people have been coming into what has been a very strong jobs market and have automatically slipped into a job, almost commanding whatever salary they want. They will now probably have to think a little bit more about either extending their studies, getting into university, going to TAFE and doing a trade or perhaps looking for those skills that they may not have needed in previous years. So universities, vocational educational training institutions and TAFE colleges all need our support to make sure that we can cater for the long term, for the future of young people and people that need training.

We have also extended our investment through to a $530 million fund to help deliver universal access to early childhood education in the year before formal schooling. We believe that it is important to provide money not only during the school years but also in that pre-educational year, that year before formal schooling, and also after school when students go on to training, whether it is at university or elsewhere.

The Rudd Labor government is very committed through its policies in a range of key areas. There are three new national partnerships which I think are critical to all of this and to how it comes together between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The first is raising the quality of teaching in our schools—again, in all of our schools. There should no longer be this debate about government and nongovernment. This is about raising the standard, raising the bar. In the end they are all our children and they should all have an equal opportunity to work hard, study hard and get a good job and further education if that is what they want.

We also want to help improve the results in disadvantaged school communities. You do not want to leave anyone behind—those most disadvantaged regional and rural areas where they struggle to get good teachers or where they struggle to get any teachers at all, areas where they just do not have the facilities regardless of the type of school. We need as a government to invest in those schools and in those areas.

We also need a new partnership in improving literacy and numeracy. At the core of everything we do there is an absolute critical need that we deliver on children’s ability to read, write and understand numbers. With that core they can achieve anything they want to achieve. But without those core skills they will struggle. I do not need to go into statistics for people to understand that. I think it is well understood by everybody that the very basis of our education system and opportunity is the ability to read and write and to understand numbers. I am proud to stand here to talk about a very important bill which delivers on the promises that Labor made during the campaign and continue to fund and maintain while in office. I commend the bill to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in this House to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. The bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce the education tax refund or the ETR, as it is commonly known. The ETR will provide a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses up to a maximum of $750 for children undertaking primary education study and $1,500 for children undertaking secondary education studies.

Education is the key, as the member for Oxley said, to many things. It is certainly the key to improving the quality of life for all people. Education enhances a person’s fulfilment in work, personal relations, social development and the pursuit of interests outside the workplace. Education has a profound impact on all aspects of a person’s life and on social cohesion within our communities. It is always very good to see in this place the many schools that come to visit. These kinds of bills have a great impact on those schools and those students—and there are many in the gallery today.

The fact that education is so profoundly important is why whenever we ask people in the electorate of Pearce to tell us what their main priorities are, the availability and quality of education always feature very prominently. They are always up there in the top three issues nominated as priority issues for the federal government. Any increase in funding to assist parents to ensure the best possible education for their children is very welcome.

In the lead-up to the last election—almost 12 months ago—the Prime Minister and his government promised an education revolution in Australia. However, every policy they have come up with in the last 11 months is defined by what it lacks rather than by what it offers, so it is little wonder that even the government’s own backbenchers are becoming frustrated at the lack of real action to deliver that promise. I am sorry to see that the member for Fowler has departed the chamber because speaking on this bill in the last sitting the member for Fowler let her frustration spill over when making the telling comment that while these measures ‘are welcome ... they are hardly a revolution’. Later in that speech she said:

It is not hard to see why there is some confusion about the so-called education revolution.

One only has to wonder about the adequacy of the government’s response when their own members are questioning it.

The revolution involves the government going round and round in circles without actually delivering the outcomes that families should rightly expect given the promises made prior to the election. First the Prime Minister promised each high school student between grades 9 and 12 access to a computer at school. The reality is that some schools now have to borrow money—in some cases up to $100,000—to bridge the gap between what it actually costs to run programs and the underfunded promises of the government.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 is yet another example of the Prime Minister and this government falling short of what they have promised Australian families. The announcement of the education tax refund comes in the wake of reports over several years that highlight the difficulties many parents experience in meeting a variety of schooling costs. This is particularly so for low-income families and, while this money will be welcomed by parents, the difference between the Rudd government’s policy and the coalition’s policy is quite stark. The coalition policy in 2007 was comprehensive in its delivery and administration of new refundable tax rebates to provide additional assistance to parents for school costs. Further, it was flexible in letting parents decide to what aspects the additional education expenses rebate would be applied. Conversely, the government’s ETR policy falls short of what is really needed—and falling short in this legislation on education is characteristic of much of what the Rudd government is doing in other areas. To date there have been plenty of talkfests, reviews, inquiries and roundtables—all code for stalling and doing little of consequence. It is the oldest trick in the book. But to remain credible any government must very soon start making the hard decisions, implementing real legislation and delivering real policy outcomes for those that they are elected to serve.

When I first came into this place I observed the amounts of reports, inquiries and reviews which lined the walls of this place and which were not acted on. The public were not fooled: they were well aware that much was talked about but that there was little observable action on those issues which addressed their priorities and the quality of life expectations. On reflection, most of us would agree that was, in part, one of the reasons we saw the demise of the Hawke-Keating Labor government.

In the specifics of this bill, eligible expenses for the ETR focus mainly on information, communications and technology. I agree that all young people need to be able to use modern communication technology. We have seen a great example of this today with the launch of the Australian Diabetes Map by Diabetes Australia, aided by Microsoft and by Associate Professor Jonathan Shaw from the Baker IDI. This is a great use of technology and all young people should know how to make the most of it. The Rudd government did make this core promise without thinking through the whole policy. They need to complete the funding of that program by giving money to parents and then placing strict boundaries around what parents can apply the money to. Thus, they rather sneakily roll out their computer for every student program—clever but disingenuous. In truth, parents are missing out on being able to spend that money in the way that best suits the educational needs of their children.

One of the significant exclusions of what the money can be spent on is school based extracurricular activities. I think that everyone, regardless of what side of politics they sit on, would agree on the importance of regular physical activity to children’s growth and development. However, the high cost of organised sport often serves as a barrier to participation and social inclusion—an integral part of any child’s education. As Chair of the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of the obesity epidemic and its relationship to the growing and debilitating effects of type 2 diabetes and the increasing number of children who have been diagnosed with this disease—a disease formerly seen only in the elderly. In fact, the Australian Diabetes Map that was launched in this place this morning shows that there are now 350 children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. As I said, this was formerly a disease of the aged.

We should be doing everything we can to encourage our young people to undertake some form of activity, some form of informal sport, to maintain good health. These activities are excluded from this tax rebate. The diabetes issue should be evidence enough for the government to allow the use of the rebate for school based extracurricular activities. The need for greater flexibility in the use of the rebate was further highlighted in a survey by the Brotherhood of St Laurence which found that 69 per cent of parents reported difficulty paying for sport and recreation and that 62 per cent of people reported difficulty in paying for school camps and 47 per cent for excursions; yet the government has chosen to ignore them in this bill. When you have up to 39 per cent of those surveyed admitting that their children have missed school because they cannot afford to pay the extra cost of excursions, sports days, school camps, uniforms and equipment, and when the government is being so rigid, you have to ask yourself whether we are really in an education revolution or whether this is just an education devolution. It is a challenge to maximise children’s learning if they feel left out and excluded from extra activities. There are often ways to engage children’s imagination and to inspire and motivate them to learn. Not all of these things take place in a classroom. Parents need all the help they can get to encourage their children to fully participate. In the words of the French novelist Anatole France, ‘Nine-tenths of education is encouragement.’

As for the government’s stated commitment to early childhood education, words are definitely much louder than action, because preschool education is not eligible for ETR. Some consideration might also have been given to families in situations of financial hardship who would struggle to meet the upfront costs and then have to wait until the next tax return before being able to claim. By contrast, the coalition’s policy Helping Families to Provide More Education Opportunities for Their Children proposed to introduce a new refundable tax rebate of 40 per cent for education expenses—which included school fees—for every student from preschool until the end of secondary school. The coalition policy recognised that it was better to enable parents to choose the best education for their children and to make the rebate available for a wide range of education costs. The scheme included government and non-government school fees, school uniforms, preschool fees and expenses, textbooks, stationery, calculators, camps and excursions, laptops, broadband, software and extracurricular school activities such as sport, music, dance and drama. More than 2.1 million families would have been eligible to claim education expenses for 3.6 million Australian children under the coalition’s policy. I have listened to the criticisms of the coalition’s record on education from the member for Fowler and the Minister for Education when she introduced the Australian curriculum assessment.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Pearce will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.