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

The Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for La Trobe and the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46 the Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important—that is, that proposed by the honourable member for La Trobe, namely:

The immediate need for bipartisan support to improve our schools and give our children a better future.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's outrageous.

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

If the member for Sturt has a difficulty, he can take this one up with the Speaker. I will not put up with that.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not your fault.

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

That is what I am trying to point out. I therefore call upon the honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly that push for bipartisan support has gotten off to a great start with the member for Sturt's contribution! Both sides of this House have spoken at length about the opportunities presented to our nation in what is termed 'the Asian century'. Both sides of this House have spoken about the benefits that come with being a part of our region. Yet, when it comes to the key driver of prosperity for our country, when it comes to the thing that this government—indeed, any government—can do best to give our own people opportunity, skills and a future with some certainty, it is only ever Labor that stands for meaningful investment in education. Once again we are seeing that that is the case.

I have some hope about the prospects for bipartisan support for better funding of education and for an improvement in education. I have some hope. I say that because last night, in the Federation Chamber, four members of this House stood up and spoke very strongly about their concerns about education cuts put forward and implemented by the state Liberal government in Victoria. They expressed very clearly their concern. Curiously, there was only one lonesome member of the coalition benches, the member for Riverina, who was prepared to stand up and defend the Baillieu government's cuts to education. There was only one member of the coalition—indeed it was left to a member of the National Party—who would defend education cuts in Victoria.

That gives me some hope that members opposite are starting to reflect upon what it means to cut funding from schools and from TAFE, and what it means to cut things like education allowances that enable students to get the kind of education they deserve. That leads me to believe that at least some members of the back bench are prepared to entertain the prospect that we might have a bipartisan approach to improved school funding.

It is also important in this place, and in the context of this debate, to reflect on some other members of the opposition benches who have demonstrated what might be regarded as bipartisan support for the improvement of school funding. The member for Aston, for instance, has joined me on at least one occasion, at the opening of a Building the Education Revolution project in Fern Tree Gully. So I assume, from his attendance on that day, that he is at least prepared to support—if not in votes, at least in voice—increased education funding for schools in our area.

I note also that the member for Bowman has been out very clearly 'giving a Gonski'. He was very clearly happy to be photographed 'giving a Gonski'. I know that members in this place are somewhat alarmed by things like the Victorian Liberal government's decision to undercut TAFE spending, which means that so many people, particularly in regional Victoria, who rely on TAFEs for local economies as well as for the obvious vocational education and training of young people within the regions. I know that for so many of those members the defunding of TAFEs is a significant cause for concern.

For instance, the member for Gippsland took part in a debate in this place in relation to the future of TAFE funding in Victoria not terribly long ago and did express some reservations about those funding cuts. So I begin this debate by saying that I think there is hope, at least on the coalition back benches, for some measure of bipartisan support when it comes to ensuring that our students have the funding that they need in schools and to ensure that we improve our schools and give our children a better future.

It is an important national debate begun by this side of the House, because, as we all know, it has been 40 years since the last meaningful funding review of schools. What an opportunity we have to look at the sources of funding available to schools. What an opportunity we now have to consider how best our country might support students into the future and in this Asian century.

While we have heard members of the back bench indicating their support for things like TAFE and while we have seen, through last night's reticence to come forward and defend the Victorian Liberal government's cuts to education, some indication that members of the coalition are prepared to talk about school funding and are prepared to give support for improved school funding, there are still those, largely on the opposition front benches, who have entirely retrograde views about education funding in this country. We heard quite clearly the member for Sturt, who began this debate so supportive of any kind of discussion about education investment! We have seen him talking about the repeal of any Gonski reforms—the repeal of any funding changes that might result from the Gonski review.

We know that he has already pledged to cut around $3 billion from education and we know that the opposition went to the last election with a policy which resulted in around $3 billion being stripped from education. So that is just the starting point for members like the member for Sturt.

In July the member for Sturt stated on Lateline that he does not believe that a person's socioeconomic background affects their educational outcomes. He made that point quite plainly. So it is unlikely that members such as the member for Sturt are likely to consider entering into a bipartisan approach to education. In terms of the socioeconomic background of a person affecting their capacity— (Quorum formed)As I was saying, the member for Sturt has made it very clear that he does not believe that a person's socioeconomic background affects their educational outcomes—despite the fact that we know that, by year 9, the gap in reading, writing and science literacy between disadvantaged and advantaged students is equivalent to around two years of schooling. That is an extraordinary figure but it is one that the education spokesperson from the opposition frontbench is unwilling to even hear.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Leader of the Opposition is echoing those kinds of sentiments when he says that public schools should be the ones to face funding cuts—because public schools are somehow getting an advantage. From my point of view, it seems that the opposition will be going to the next election with the coalition's plan for real action on quality education but with 'except if you are at a public school' added in a set of square brackets. That is the point that has been made by the member for Sturt over months and months when he has talked about things like socioeconomic background not affecting educational outcomes. It is exactly the same thing that the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in his remarks about the funding of public schools.

In my view, while it is possible that members of the coalition backbench might be prepared to stand up for education, it is certainly clear to all of us on this side that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the opposition's spokesperson on education take at all seriously the need to look at funding mechanisms for our schools and the next 40 years of education funding. It should come as no surprise to any of us really because while this government has almost doubled education funding during its time in office, the opposition's track record has been to oppose every progressive measure to support schools, to support early learning, to support things like higher education. While this government has stood for $2.4 billion in computers in schools, the Liberals opposed it. While this government has stood for over $16 billion in capital investments in schools, the Liberals opposed it. While this government has stood for $2.5 billion in trade training centres, the Liberals opposed it.

For electorates like mine, those figures have very significant effects. In my electorate alone we have seen $110 million supporting 61 schools that would have got absolutely nothing in capital investment from those opposite—and they know it well. In my electorate the Computers in Schools program has delivered around 6,000 computers in my local area alone. In my electorate the trade training centre program has delivered around $13 million to three trade training centres that will service the needs of students in the immediate area. So these things have a practical and real effect.

In this year's budget alone we have allocated around $13.6 billion for school, early childhood and youth programs. We have invested in these programs because we believe education and training gives people the opportunity to go on to fulfilling work and fulfilling lives. Education creates opportunity and improves our society. For so many of those students in whose education we have invested since coming to office, it means the capacity to go on to tertiary education. It builds on our existing commitment to tertiary education. In terms of the practical effects of those kinds of progressive policies, in Victoria alone, as a result of this government's uncapping of tertiary places, which is the next step in education for students at primary and secondary schools in my electorate, we have seen an increase of 25 per cent in the number of students who will go on to tertiary study since our government came to office.

In my electorate alone, it is 36.1 per cent. It is an extraordinary number of people who are now going to university and to higher education institutions, people who would simply not have been able to do so had it not been for this Labor government.

The opportunities that are presented through our investment at primary school in early learning, in secondary school through our investments in TAFE via the states and through our investment in tertiary education will change the lives of so many Australians. It will mean that they have employment prospects that otherwise would not have been available to them and it will mean that our country stands to do far better in the international arena and in our region educationally and economically. It is for these reasons that it is important that we have a bipartisan conversation and bipartisan support to improve our schools and to give our children a better future.

It is extraordinary that the opposition has seen fit in this place to stand against any kind of discussion about school funding reform. Not only have they opposed practical measures that we put in place that delivered capital investment for schools, that delivered national partnership programs which improve literacy and numeracy and provide support for schools delivering those kinds of educational outcomes that are important for our children's future, but they stand opposed to even the discussion of education funding reform, pre-empting at every point any kind of discussion which would see a fairer approach to school funding.

This government has taken the opportunity to look at school funding, a very difficult issue, a very complex issue and one that has been dealt with sensibly and appropriately through the Gonski review. This government is working in a methodical way to deliver school funding reform yet the opposition is not prepared to entertain a sensible conversation on it. But it is hardly surprising considering what we have seen when state Liberal governments come to office. Victoria is a prime example of that. Its vision for students is one in which TAFE funding is cut, school funding is cut and education maintenance allowances are cut. (Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I must have been given the wrong topic for this matter of public importance debate today because the topic in front of me says we are going to be discussing:

The immediate need for bipartisan support to improve our schools and give our children a better future.

I emphasise the word 'bipartisan', which typically means that you are reaching across the chamber and trying to embrace those opposite to try and find some compromise. But what we have seen, as members in the gallery would have observed, is 15 minutes of bipartisanship like we have not seen for some time.

Let me offer an olive branch to those opposite on the government benches. There is indeed bipartisan support for the intent of this MPI. We on this side certainly would like to improve our schools and give our children a better future; absolutely we would like to see that achieved. I do not doubt the sincerity of those opposite on the government benches who would also like to see that achieved. However, where we do disagree is in the mechanism to achieve that. You will not find bipartisan support in this chamber for wasting billions of dollars. You will not find bipartisan support in this chamber for adding additional red tape to the school sector and you will certainly not find bipartisan support for cutting the funds of 3,200 schools across the country. What you will find bipartisan support for is measures to improve teacher quality, a stronger curriculum and ensuring that no school in the country receives reduced funding. I would like to expand on some of those points.

By and large we actually have exceptionally good schools in this country. When you look at the international testing data, we have performed consistently well for decades now—in the top band of performance. For example, in the last OECD PISA test, out of 65 countries, we performed ninth in reading, 10th in science and 15th in maths. We also have very good social mobility and social equity in our school system, despite what some people may say.

But, despite our absolute levels of performance, we have declined in recent years and quite considerably so. Indeed, we are one of only four OECD countries that has declined in our performance both in absolute terms and in relative terms as well. We are starting to be overtaken by our near Asian neighbours. In Shanghai for example, the average 15-year-old maths student is now performing two to three years above his or her Australian counterpart at the same age level. In science and maths they are about 15 months ahead and that is similar to some of the other countries in our region. This has occurred despite there being a 44 per cent increase in real funding in schools over the last nine years. So we can do better and, indeed, we must do better to maintain our standards, to constantly improve our standards and to offer the best chance in life for our school children. The question is: what should be done to improve our schools? Here is where we do depart from the government in the prescription for what should be done.

The government has been saying for years now that it has got an enormous education revolution occurring throughout the nation. But what we really have had is billions of dollars of waste and the creation of further bureaucracies, which will further strangle our schools. Probably the No.1 thing it has talked about ad nauseam is the Building the Education Revolution program. This was a $16 billion program but all the analysis, all the independent reviews and our own anecdotal evidence show that we received about $8 billion worth of value out of that $16 billion program.

We know, for example, that school halls were built in schools which were closing. We know that school halls were built alongside existing school halls. Every single member in this chamber knows examples of overly expensive school halls built in their electorate. In mine there was a school hall built right beside another school hall. Meanwhile there are other schools which are falling apart, where the maintenance has not been done and where they needed a further injection of funding. We absolutely support injections of capital funds into schools, but we do not support it being done in the way that the government did it, where over $8 billion was wasted in that program—an enormous amount of money. They will not get bipartisan support for programs where money is wasted like that.

Equally, they will not get bipartisan support for some of the teacher quality measures they are putting in place. I fear that they are just adding another layer of red tape. I am pleased that the government has recognised that teacher quality is important—indeed, it is the single most important thing in improving student outcomes. It is great that they have identified that, but their primary reform is the development of what they call the National Professional Standards for Teachers and school principals. This sounds very grand and sounds fantastic, but you need to look at the detail of this to assess whether it will actually improve the quality of teaching or whether it will just hinder teachers. My concern is that it will do the latter. This teacher standards process is going to require each of Australia's 250,000 schoolteachers to be centrally assessed against 37 different categories. Each of those 37 categories has three or four subcategories, so there will be an incredible 100 to 150 points that every teacher across the country has to be assessed against centrally—not by the school principal but by a central bureaucracy—and they will have to do that on a very regular basis.

This is not going to improve the quality of our teachers. It is another classic case where the government announces a grandiose sounding program, but, when you look into the detail, it may actually have the reverse effect to what is intended. In this case my concern is that this will just consume teachers' time, as they will be going through enormous checklists on a very regular basis, against 150 minuscule items, in order to continue their advancement. What really should be occurring is that the school community, led by the school principal himself or herself, should be making those assessments about the performance of the schoolteacher.

Finally and most importantly, we will not provide bipartisan support on the government's proposal—supposedly to improve school education—to cut the funding of 3,200 schools across this nation. It is not me that is suggesting that. This government has put forward a blueprint for school funding—the Gonski review—and this blueprint has been assessed by the Victorian education department—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: under standing order 90, about reflections on members, I find that imputation about what I am supporting in Labor Party policy to be highly disorderly and offensive.

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

Order! The honourable member will withdraw.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had an earlier ruling by the Deputy Speaker precisely on this matter in relation to that section of the standing orders, and there was no request to withdraw at that time. However, for the purpose of the House I will withdraw.

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

I am very pleased that you have done that and I thank you.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the Victorian education department's analysis of the Gonski review, which was published in the Sunday Herald Sun just a couple of days ago, which showed that 3,200 schools across the nation would be worse off under the Gonski reforms. It is not just the wealthy schools across the country—which we know those opposite dislike and have targeted in the past—this was down to the very poorest schools in the community. I had four schools in my electorate that were targeted and on this hit list—four low-fee Catholic primary schools. St Luke's, for example, in Wantirna services an ordinary middle-class community and charges fees of $1,200. According to this Victorian education department analysis, it is going to lose $218,000. That is $750 per student. If this school is to make up for that lost funding in school fees, it will have to increase its school fees by something like 60 or 70 per cent, up to around $2,000. Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School in Bayswater is going to lose a similar amount. St Jude the Apostle Primary School and Holy Trinity Primary School in my electorate will also be affected. There are 3,200 schools across the country that will be affected, in the electorates of members opposite as well as in every single coalition electorate.

We will not be providing bipartisan support for cuts to non-government schools or to government schools. You can have our guarantee upon that, Mr Deputy Speaker. They will get bipartisan support for the intent to lift the performance of our schools, but you do not do that by cutting the funds of 3,200 schools across the nation.

Government members interjecting—

Those opposite are interjecting, saying: 'No, no, of course we are going to give extra money to schools!' The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, just yesterday afternoon, was asked a simple question: he was asked to guarantee that no school would be worse off under the Gonski proposals. It was a simple question. Do you know what he did? He evaded; he could not guarantee it. He has been asked repeatedly to guarantee that no school will be worse off in real terms. He cannot guarantee it, because he knows he has a hit list.

The last time Labor put forward a non-government-school funding policy was eight years ago, and we know how that policy went. It was the famous Mark Latham hit list policy of 2004. In those days only 59 schools were targeted. Today, 3,200 schools across the nation have been targeted. We will not be supporting that.

A few things are required. I will highlight at least three that the coalition has been putting forward as constructive mechanisms to improve the performance of our schools. The first one of course is to guarantee that every school will have real funding increases of six per cent a year. That is the first guarantee. Those on the government side cannot guarantee that. The second thing is to put in place mechanisms to improve the performance and quality of teachers. We know that that is the single most important measure to improve school performance. We also want to give school principals greater independence so that they can manage their school appropriately. We like the model, of 100 independent government schools, that the Western Australian government is introducing. We believe that that type of model should be rolled out further. Finally, there should be a strong and rigorous school curriculum which is benchmarked against the best curriculums in the world, not against some of the weakest. Those are the things which need to be put in place in order to improve school performance. If the government were to propose those things, it would get bipartisan support.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am always happy to rise to talk about education. I commend the member for La Trobe for this optimistic matter of public importance motion. I say optimistic because she is seeking the support of those opposite on education, a topic that is in the nation's interest.

Education is my background. Before I became a lawyer and a member of parliament, I worked in the education sector. I worked in state schools in the country and Catholic schools in the city. I worked as a teacher for 11 years and as a union organiser in the independent education sector. I worked as a union organiser all over regional Queensland dealing with the private school sector. I worked with both the very wealthiest schools in Queensland, where I was proud to be the organiser working with the very first protected action at one of our grammar schools, and some of the very poorest schools: some of the private schools in Aboriginal communities and some of the Christian and Catholic schools where people can barely scrape together enough money for uniforms or even, on occasion, for food. That was my background before coming into the parliament. So I do have a particular understanding of education.

Education is a major reason why many of my colleagues here joined the Labor Party in the first place. If you believe in education, if part of your nature is that you like a fight and if you want to change the world, you normally join the Labor Party. If you like a fight but do not want to change the world, you join the Greens. If you do not want to change the world at all, if you do not want to make any difference, you join the National Party. If you do not want to make a difference and you have had a rails run in life, what do you do? You join the Liberal Party.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can hear those opposite gagging on their silver spoons. The reality is that, if you believe in education, if you believe in equality and justice and opportunity—those great Labor values that have persisted since we went under the tree of knowledge in Barcaldine in the 1890s—you join the Labor Party.

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's gone!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know where it is, and it is our tree, even though it is in your electorate. It is in Barcaldine, and it is our tree of knowledge, not yours. I was so surprised to hear the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, state on Lateline in July that the socioeconomic status of a student does not impact on their educational outcomes. That is pure bunkum! The reality is that it has a great impact. I have great schools—great state schools and great private schools—in my electorate. Two of the top 10 improving state schools in Queensland—Corinda State High School and MacGregor State High School—are in my electorate. They are big schools. I taught in North Queensland with the principal of one of them. I also have national partnership schools in my electorate. I have small, poor Catholic schools and I have small, poor state schools that are benefiting from the national partnerships program—even the school my son goes to is benefiting, because of its significant African population. So I know the things that impact on improvement.

The reality is that, when it comes to improving the future of Australia, we must invest in education. I know things are good, or reasonably good—it is a patchy economy—but we need to do more. At the moment, the economy is growing at above its long-term average, at its fastest pace in over four years. Compared to the rest of the world, it is miles ahead: low unemployment, 13-year-low inflation, strong consumption growth with high national savings—people have put their credit cards away. That is not good if you are in retail, but the reality is that we are saving more. Out of the 200 economies around the world, ours is one of only seven that have a sovereign AAA credit rating from the three major credit ratings agencies.

How they can get a jeremiad going from next door with these figures I do not know. It is the fastest annual growth in labour productivity in a decade. As we all know, the measure of an economy is its productivity. Sadly, for the last 10 or so years productivity has been flatlining. We need to do more. I will touch on that. But I would also point out that since election night when we came to office in 2007 there has been $919 billion of private investment. In fact, in the last quarter we had it at the highest level of GDP percentage in the last 40 years, at 16 per cent. Productivity is what it is all about. That is why you invest in education. It is not just education for education's sake; it is the future of the nation.

I know that those opposite do not like these figures, and they would like to close down my contribution—

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like you to bring the member for Moreton back to the topic of the MPI, which is education and bipartisan support to improve our schools. It is nothing to do with the current economic state of the country.

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

The honourable member will address the question before the chair.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not think we could uncouple education and productivity in any argument. To do that you would have to be a paid-up member of the Flat Earth Society. (Quorum formed) It is sad when people are objecting to an MPI on a bipartisan motion about education funding.

I was surprised to read in the paper today the part of the member for Warringah's speech to the Independent Schools Council yesterday where he said:

The 34 per cent of Australians who attend independent schools get just 21 per cent of government funding … So there is no question of injustice to public schools here. If anything, the injustice is the other way.

That is what they have flagged. They have remarked that at the moment there is too much money going into state schools. That is unbelievable. I do not know how anybody who goes to a state school in their electorate could argue that, for a start. Surely not even in Warringah would we be arguing that those schools have too much money.

The Labor government have doubled the education budget since we came to power. We built 3,000 libraries. What did they contribute over 12 years? It was 3,000 flagpoles. I will stack my libraries up against your flagpoles any day. We will make a great contribution to productivity; you will make a great contribution on Anzac Day. That is good. That is important. But I will take our 3,000 libraries any day. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to see the member for Moreton got a little bit more time. I have listened to two government speakers in this debate and I would have to say that any notion of bipartisanship on this MPI is sadly lacking. For the member for Moreton's edification before he leaves the chamber, I came through the state school system. I am very proud of that fact. I agree that we need to give our schools a robust financial foundation for the future and, equally, we need to give our children a sound foundation for the future.

But the question I raise, as with anything that this government seems to do, is about the fact that they seem to have all this funding available but no way to pay for it. If we are going to spend an extra $5 billion on top of our existing funding to the education system, my first question is: how is the government going to pay for it? It has not yet explained that fundamental question of funding these promises. Or is it going to be the case that the very students that are supposedly going to be assisted through this extra funding proposed under the Gonski model when they enter the workforce are going to be the ones paying the debt and the interest that paid for their education? Is that a question that this government opposite can actually answer? No, they cannot because they have not been able to tell us yet how this is going to be funded.

We hear all this rhetoric of the education revolution, but what we really need is to support what we have and what we have built upon and use that as an existing foundation to continue to improve our education system. We need to improve the quality of our curriculum. We need to improve the training and experience of our teachers, to improve the environment in our schools. In order to get these things done, it is paramount that we continue to apply an appropriate level of funding to those schools.

It is quite evident that this government, from reports over the weekend, is more than a little reluctant to actually achieve that outcome, with some 3,200 schools potentially at risk of losing funding. Under that model there are some six schools in my local electorate which would lose some $3 million. How are we going to improve those schools in my electorate, schools such as Waterford State School? My old primary school will lose almost $1½ million. Eagleby South State School will lose some $700,000, Highland Reserve State School some $400,000, Beenleigh State School close to $250,000, Shailer Park State School over $200,000 and Assisi Catholic College some $50,000. Most of these schools are located within the lower socioeconomic areas of my electorate, and these are schools that have been working extraordinarily hard to improve the educational outcomes for their students. Many of those students have disabilities and special learning requirements.

To juxtapose the government's position with ours, the coalition has quite clearly said that it is our policy to maintain the current level of funding plus a yearly six per cent indexation, meaning over four years both government and non-government schools will receive recurrent funding increases under a coalition government. Compare this to Labor's spin of 'no school will lose a dollar in funding'. Well, we heard there would be no carbon tax as well and look what happened there. It is easy for the government to say that no school will lose a dollar of funding, but is it a dollar of funding today or is it in real terms, meaning that their payments will be indexed, or will there be no indexation and just the current funding arrangement, thereby meaning schools will actually lose funding?

Historically, Australia's education system has performed relatively well. According to the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment 2009 results, of the 65 assessed school systems, Australia was ranked ninth in reading, 10th in science and 15th in mathematics. These results were significantly above the OECD average on all three measures and ranked us clearly above nations like the US, UK, Germany and France.

It is sad to say, though, that between 2000 and 2009 Australia was one of only four countries to record a statistically significant decline in student reading performance. Yet this decline occurred despite education spending over that period increasing in real terms by some 44 per cent. In other words, we have been paying more and achieving less. For the last five years we have heard the constant refrain from the current federal government about an education revolution, but instead of a revolution we have seen a masterclass in wasteful spending and appalling mismanagement, all without any tangible impact on what actually matters: improving how and what teachers are teaching so student outcomes can be improved.

I would like to make another point in relation to improving our schools, and that is about the misconception that non-government schools should receive less funding support because they are considered privileged. There are probably a few facts that are worth noting in relation to school funding. There is a lot of discussion that private schools receive funding unfairly. Let's look at some of the facts. Government schools currently receive some 78 per cent of the total funding from all governments and educate 66 per cent of all students. Non-government schools receive 22 per cent of funding and educate 34 per cent of students. There is no support for the argument that non-government schools receive an unfair distribution of the funding. In addition to that, the parents who send their children to those non-government schools pay taxes like everybody else and a portion of their taxes is going to support not only their school but also the government school sector. So there is absolutely no merit in the argument of unfairness in funding. We have clearly stated that we will maintain funding to both the non-government school sector and the government school sector.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're at odds with your leader!

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is entirely consistent with what he had to say, so you need to check—

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not have debate across the chamber.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

what was said in its entirety. Whilst I accept the premise of the member's MPI, what we need to see from this government is bipartisan support, because in four or five years of being in government they have not demonstrated it in any manner whatsoever. To them bipartisan support means that we accept every idea that they put on the table and they are not prepared to consider any idea or any alternative that we put up.

We have seen that in any number of pieces of legislation where we have sought to implement amendments to produce better outcomes for that particular legislation and the government nearly always has voted those amendments down. Then, some six months later, some bright spark genius decides, 'Oh, now we'll make this amendment look like ours and pass an amendment to the law.' Well, why not do it in the first place and have a decent piece of legislation from the get-go?

It is a coalition government that will restore hope, reward and opportunity to the education system, by providing clarity and certainty on their funding requirements for the future. (Time expired)

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this MPI today, because making sure that we have the best education system is so important to people on this side of the House. But it is also important to the young people in the gallery today. I see some schoolchildren in the gallery today. We should not be doing it for ourselves; we should be doing it for them.

A bipartisan approach to this is so critically important. But what we have heard from the other side of the chamber today is just no. 'No, we're not going to agree with you, because you've suggested it.' It is just no, no, no, no, no. There is a long track record of the Liberal Party saying no to initiatives in education. We have had many announcements by the coalition to cut education funding for initiatives that this government put forward, very sensible initiatives. But of course the Liberal and National parties have said no: 'Because it was the Labor Party's initiative, we are just going to say no.'

The first of those was the trades training centres in schools. I have seen trades training centres in my local schools, and they have made a real difference to students there. They have ensured that young people who do not necessarily feel that they want to follow an academic path can get a certificate I, II or III. This is quite in contrast to the elite trades training centres that the previous government put up. They did not allow every school student to get access. In fact, only 200 students in my electorate could get access to that school. Instead, through a huge investment by this government, we have been able to ensure that many other school students get the opportunity for a trades training option at school. But of course the coalition is going to cut that, as announced in August 2010.

The Digital Education Revolution is another very important initiative. (Quorum formed)It is not surprising that the opposition are playing these interfering tactics, because I have a long list of cuts that they were willing to make to education: to the Digital Education Revolution; the Smarter Schools National Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality; the Smarter Schools National Partnerships for Low Socio-economic Status School Communities, the Reward for School Improvement; and the list goes on. They want to cut all of these programs and just say no.

Their most recent negativity has come from the member for Sturt, who said that he will just repeal the Gonski reforms. He is not interested in looking at the system that actually will deliver better outcomes for students. And, let's face it, that is what we on this side of the House want to ensure. We want to ensure that no matter where you come from around this country you get a great education that will be the passport to the rest of your life.

We on this side of the House know, as do many academics and people who have studied in this area, that socioeconomics does make a difference in your opportunities when it comes to education; it does affect how you might go in the future. That is why there has been a focus by this government on literacy and numeracy and on low socioeconomics. But the Manager of Opposition Business, who spends more time doing that than focusing on education, has said that socioeconomics does not affect children's outcomes and chances when it comes to education.

I think everyone on this side of the House would be appalled to hear that. He should go out to some schools in low socioeconomic areas to listen to the teachers, listen to what they need, listen to what is affecting them on the ground and actually come up with a policy that addresses some of these issues to ensure that we can continue to make our school system a much better system.

On this side of the House we are focused on that. We are focused on how we can look at funding that has not been looked at for many, many years. But there is a false argument coming from those on the other side, and that is that somehow the Labor Party is against private schools. That is not true. We have made clear that we will assist all schools, whether that be through our Building the Education Revolution, which those on the opposite side opposed and which we delivered to all schools, or whether it be through the Digital Education Revolution which we delivered to all schools, or through the school chaplaincy program or our $200 million for students with disability. We are delivering to all school sectors.

Of course, we know those on the other side of the House will not deliver to all school sectors. We know those on the other side will just make cuts to public education—cuts to students—often in areas that need the money the most. The member for Sturt does not even acknowledge that to be the case. But of course they will make cuts to public education. That will affect students in my electorate quite significantly. I think the comments on this by the Leader of the Opposition were really quite poor. Once again, we are seeing the Leader of the Opposition trying to create his old fear campaign of misinformation in the community. He has form on this, and he will continue to do it.

But on this side of the House we are going to get on with the job. The Howard government did not have a very good record when it came to schools. We have heard a lot about our record—a record I am very proud of. They talked a lot about a national curriculum in the 11½ years they were in government—a lot of talk, no action. It took the election of a Labor government to actually deliver a national curriculum, to do the hard yards, to get it in place and to ensure that we are actually rolling that out. Of course, there was some money and infrastructure to put up flagpoles. Flagpoles have been put up quite readily in my electorate. That does not radically change the education system. I hate to give that news to the opposition, but it does not radically change it. It is important, but it certainly does not radically change it.

As the member for Greenway mentioned, as part of the Digital Education Revolution many electronic whiteboards were put into classrooms, and they are delivering exciting— (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance about the immediate need for bipartisan support to improve our schools and give our children a better future. The first thing I will say is that this MPI is typical of the government. So obsessed with spin over substance, they have put up an MPI about the need to improve our schools and give our kids a better future. Talk about the bleeding obvious. Of course we the coalition support our kids and want a better future. It is a given.

What the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth needs to do is to come into this chamber and explain to the parliament why the government is wasting our time on pointless politics and spin instead of actually getting down to the job of improving education in Australia. This whole debate reminds me of an article written about the federal government by a WA public servant in 2010 which argued that 'an education policy that can't be delivered isn't worth the paper it's written on'. Sadly, the government still does not seem to understand this, even after four years of waste and education policy stuff-ups. The government is not shy when it comes to flashy policy announcements and big press conferences on the subject. But, when it comes to actually delivering, this is a government that time and time again is found wanting. In that article, a story was used to illustrate the importance of implementation in the policy process, and I will repeat it for the benefit of the members present and for the young people whom the member for Kingston acknowledged earlier in the chamber.

It is the story of the owl and the mouse. The mouse, faced with the constant threat posed by other animals in the forest, asked the owl how he could avoid being eaten. The wise old owl, known as the smartest animal in the forest, replied that the best way would be to join him atop one of the branches of the many trees high above the forest floor. The mouse saw the wisdom of the owl's thinking and over the next few days proceeded to try everything he could to get to that lofty branch. He clawed, jumped up and climbed his way up the tree but never got very far before falling back to the ground. Weary and beaten, the mouse finally asked the owl how he could get up to the branch. The owl replied that he was just the policy person and did not concern himself with implementation.

The moral of the story is that it is not enough for the government just to say it will do things—to say that every child will get a laptop or that the number of training colleges should be increased. The real worth for Australia is in actually delivering on those promises. The laptops were raised by members opposite in terms of how good they think that laptop program is. I would just remind them of some of the waste involved with that. There was a particular public school in Western Australia where it was compulsory for every student to have their own laptops. But this government, in its wisdom, still delivered over 300 laptops to that school, and I think they are still sitting in their boxes, because they did not need them: 'Let's not get down and make sure we work efficiently; let's just deliver a policy and a box of laptops, and we can go out and tell everyone how great we are because we've delivered laptops that probably never got used.'

Sadly, the Prime Minister doesn't seem to realise that promises actually need to be delivered on. As with the carbon tax, which is supposed to be an environmental policy but fails to stop emission increases, this government has consistently placed spin and media opportunities over the need to deliver on policy. This MPI merely insults the many voices that have cautioned the government against their wasteful policy approaches over the last four to five years. The reality is that only the coalition is genuinely committed to across-the-board increases for both government and non-government schools, inclusive of full indexation, which sees funding rise by approximately six per cent per year. Every school knows that under the coalition they would not have their recurrent funding cut and every school would get real funding increases, allowing them to properly plan for the future.

We know that under modelling leaked over the weekend, one in three schools will be worse off under the government's policy, including 2,330 government schools.

Labor Senator Cameron on the ABC last night declared new taxes should be imposed, which would cost more than $26 billion. Yet again we have the government reverting to type. This is a government that thinks new taxes can substitute for good policy and, as we have seen with the carbon tax, this attitude is not limited to the education portfolio.

This government, when they cannot fix a problem, just throws money at it—and, when that does not work, they blame someone else. After the four biggest budget deficits in Australia's history, the government have already cooked the books to claim their imaginary surplus next year. It would not be surprising if the government put new spending measures on the nation's credit card to prop up their education promises. The Australian public can be confident that the coalition will not cut funding for any schools, and that we will give those schools the certainty they need to plan for the future. Even if the government were to deliver the additional $5 billion a year, in 2009 dollars, proposed by the Gonski review, 3,254, or one-third of all schools, would be worse off, including 2,330 public schools.

The government are not being upfront with the public. They are not even talking to their state counterparts. I refer to comments made by the WA education minister, Peter Collier, who said today:

I am getting more than a little frustrated with the federal government! We have one of the most significant changes to funding in education on the horizon through the Gonski Report and the states are being informed of federal policies through the media.

I think it is often glossed over by this government that it is actually the states who own, operate and primarily fund state government schools, yet we see that even the states are being kept in the dark on education reform. Perhaps the government is not communicating with Minister Collier to avoid revealing the $305 million funding to be cut from WA, hitting hundreds of public, Catholic and independent schools. That was reported over the weekend. If those reports are true, it would appear the federal government is again treating my home state of WA as a cash-cow for a federal government spending binge. According to the reports, WA is listed as the only state who will lose cash overall, with 688 schools to potentially emerge as losers.

Over the weekend, the Sunday Telegraph went as far as to describe the debate as having an Alice-in-Wonderland quality, as it said:

… down, down the rabbit hole, talk of fairness, lollipops, teacher quality and promises of a "no loser" policy abound—

Given the spin and political games played by the government on this issue I would say the Sunday Telegraphcould be forgiven by being a little bit cynical of the government's policy direction. Much of the education policy debate is skewed by popular myths put out there about school funding. Proponents of the government's policies often use biased statistics to misrepresent the funding situation to claim that Australia lags behind the OECD average on overall school education funding. The reality is that, when parental contributions are included, Australia spends around the equivalent of 3.6 per cent of GDP on school education, a total investment only marginally below the OECD average of 3.8 per cent.

Much of the reporting in the media does not fairly represent the state-school funding situation. The statistics do not take into account the state and territory funding available to state government schools. Government schools receive 78.7 per cent of the total funding from all governments and educate 66 per cent of all students in Australia. Non-government schools, on the other hand, receive 22 per cent of funding and educate 34 per cent of students.

Often the claim is made by those who want to run our school system down that Australia is a low-equity country in comparison to the OECD. Again, this is a false claim. Since 2003 Australia's PISA results have been in the high-equity and high-performance quadrant. As is common with those government members who cut their teeth as far-left political activists when at university, the Prime Minister often frames education debate through a social-equality lens. This obsession by the government over many years continues to misdirect policy priorities, as the government pursues an ideology out of fashion since the 1980s instead of good policy. This is why we often see reports of funding cuts for private schools, as the government itches to return to a divisive 'class war' education policy.

The Gonski report itself states that 86 to 87 per cent of student performance is linked to factors other than socioeconomic status, such as the quality of the teachers, parental engagement, the school and principal autonomy. The coalition believes that, while additional support to disadvantaged students is important, it is also equally important to concentrate on the other policy areas known to be linked to student performance. There will be a clear choice for Australians at the next election: sincere, practical policy proposals from the coalition that do not just look good on paper but are able to be implemented, verses a record of waste and political trickery from this government. Thank you.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.