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

Mr Speaker has received letters from the honourable member for Lyne, the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Petrie proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), Mr Speaker has selected the matter which, in his opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:

The importance of education for regional and disadvantaged communities and concern about cuts in education budgets.

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

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

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Normally everyone gets to their feet, so obviously this is a divisive topic. This is important, because for regional and disadvantaged communities education does matter. There is a great deal of concern in the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, as I know there is in many other regions of Australia, about cuts underway in the education budgets of various governments.

I do not raise this point for any party-political reason. I am not advocating one side or the other. I am advocating the education strategy that has been taking place on the mid-North Coast over the last four years. It has been making a difference to the lives of many. It has been building resilience among many individuals who have previously faced generational disadvantage. As a consequence, this local strategy on education has been helping build the resilience of the community.

This is not to kick one political party or another. It is to try to get governments to recognise the value of education and the value of investment in education in public policy. Of all the areas not to cut first, it would be education.

Yesterday we saw New South Wales cut $1.7 billion from the New South Wales public and private education sectors. I would imagine there will be other members speak in this debate about what is going on in other states. In New South Wales we have seen announcements of $116 million cut from independent schools over four years; $201 million cut from public schools over four years; 800 TAFE teachers to go; TAFE fees to increase by 9.5 per cent thus pushing up the cost of the lower level entry courses, the certificate I or II courses, by $44; adding $150 to advanced diplomas; and, subsidies for certain TAFE courses to be scrapped.

I also understand yesterday in New South Wales that the department of education announced they will shed 600 jobs from state and regional offices, and 400 jobs are to go as a result of an online management strategy. All of this totals 1,800 department jobs cut. This is in the context not of Australia being one of the world leaders investing in education; this is all in the context of Australia being ranked 18th in the industrial world in educational investment. This will now over time, more than likely, take us further backwards.

Part of raising this issue today is to start to challenge the myth that this is somehow being done for necessary savings in various state budgets. I put it to the House that this is not about savings of a necessary nature at all. When you look at various state budgets you see that, rather than being necessary savings across the board, this is more about choice. This is more about the lack of commitment to education as a public policy area compared to other areas in state budget spends.

In New South Wales, for example, we have seen, not only in the last 12 months, but for at least the last five and possibly 10 years, an intense focus on Sydney metropolitan transport needs and the investment needs of that area of public policy alone. In this year's New South Wales state budget, supposedly the tough-love savings budget, we have seen $8 billion committed to new Sydney metropolitan transport projects. One of them, the North West Rail Link—I fully understand, is a growth corridor in the Sydney urban area—is not recognised on the Infrastructure Australia planning priority lists. It is not recognised by the New South Wales infrastructure planning priority needs. It runs into a bottleneck called the Sydney Harbour Bridge which only has two lines across it. So it is only adding to the congestion problems of urban transport issues in Sydney. It is being done with an allocation this year of $3 billion.

So, the choice is between $3 billion going to a questionable, highly politically motivated infrastructure request for the North West Rail Link in Sydney or the Pacific Highway completion—the one item on the New South Wales infrastructure and Infrastructure Australia needs that is said to be a priority. The second item would be not to do the education cuts that were announced yesterday. It is not a necessary savings argument at all. This is a choice argument between education needs or completing the Pacific Highway, or a highly questionable—not on the infrastructure planning needs of New South Wales—highly politically charged $3 billion commitment to the North West Rail Link and say, 'Thanks for voting for the Liberal and National parties in New South Wales.' It is not savings—it is choice.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

The implications of that choice are that many in disadvantaged areas right across New South Wales are going to miss out on the opportunities to aspire to education or to participate in the universities that the Father of the House attended. Those opportunities will be lost to many students in New South Wales as a consequence of political promises. That is not good public policy development and that is not fairness or equity at all.

There is very clear educational data that all political and parliamentary chambers in Australia need to recognise. We are letting down the future standard of living of Australia and losing many opportunities to allow generational disadvantage to be turned into opportunities via people engaging in education and building opportunities for those individuals. The educational data is in three very clear categories.

In New South Wales a National Party education minister directly challenges opportunities and makes cuts to opportunities for regional students. The educational data says there is about a 30 per cent gap in educational outcomes for those from regional areas compared to their metropolitan cousins. Likewise lower SES communities, poorer communities, compared to their more affluent cousins have roughly a 30 per cent difference in educational outcomes. The third very clear dataset is the comparison between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities with, again, roughly a 25 to 30 per cent difference in educational outcomes.

Yesterday's announcement in New South Wales does not help one zack. In fact, it makes it harder and it entrenches that gap. The choice between that lovely North West Rail Link promise, the $3 billion, or continuing to commit to building opportunity for regional New South Wales, for poorer communities and for Aboriginal students to engage in TAFE, in post school options and in vocational and tertiary education is now threatened, challenged and made more difficult by this choice that has been taken in New South Wales.

Mr Ruddock interjecting—

The Father of the House continues to bang on about it being a promise. I do not question that it was a promise, but you would then have to acknowledge that part of that promise—

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wanted to be like the Labor government here.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Father of the House is highly agitated. Part of that promise being committed to means more disadvantaged students will have less opportunity to engage in education. If the Father of the House is going to say we delivered on our promise, he has to acknowledge that part of that promise relates to a choice—there are cuts in education of $1.7 billion and that has implications for the standard of living in many communities right throughout New South Wales and other states where similar cuts in education have been occurring.

So this is a problem. We are trying to get agreement on a new funding model in schools. We are working in the post-Bradley environment to lift aspirations for vocational and tertiary education engagement. Early success stories are happening in that post-Bradley environment. The point of the exercise was to target those three areas—educational disadvantage, engage better, change funding models—and put some pressure on universities. Early results are saying that is delivering. Gonski is a similar model. It is basically targeting those three areas and placing some pressure on the education system to engage better than it has done in the past. So why in New South Wales would we introduce cuts when we are trying to change the funding model, add more money and really lift education outcomes for all has me and I know many in this chamber completely stumped.

As a local member I have worked hard in making education central to the strategy of not only lifting aspiration and opportunities for the disadvantaged but also, in parallel, driving to get better employment outcomes in the local area. The Mid-North Coast now has the lowest unemployment figures in the history of the electorate of Lyne. My view is that a big part of that is that many locals have participated in three education and skills forums that are now operating in three different communities. They have been trying to be strategic by getting the highly competitive schools sector working more closely together and the schools sector and the vocational and tertiary education sectors working more closely together, and actually trying to give meaning to many of those cliched lines like 'collaboration not competition' and 'building pathways', turning them into something of a practical nature that does deliver.

We have purposely through this process targeted many people who are the first in their family to ever go to a university. On the Mid-North Coast, surprisingly to some, only 12 per cent of 25-35 year-olds have a bachelor's degree or higher. That may be a different story in seats like the one the Father of the House represents, and therefore he may not understand what on earth I am talking about when I refer to engaging disadvantaged communities through education. It is a huge challenge. To be the first in the family to walk through the door of a university is a big step, a challenging step, and a step that quite often is easily lost through something as simple as paperwork, something as simple as some of those procedures like when to put in a form, how to put in a form or who to talk to. Many in this chamber may take that sort of thing for granted because they have been through that whole tertiary education experience. Targeting first in family has been a big part of our local strategy—that lifting aspiration within individuals, within households and within communities has been a big part of that strategy.

Yesterday's announcement does not help a zack—it pushes it backwards. I am frankly astounded that it is a National Party education minister and the National Party in New South Wales that has allowed this to happen. This is supposed to be the National Party market—the regional, poor and Aboriginal sectors are all supposed to be National Party heartland; they are all mainly, by comparison, populations represented by National Party MPs at a state level. It is time for them to step up. The state National Party MPs must fight their National Party education minister in New South Wales because it is their communities who are going to be hit most by these cuts and it is the children in those communities who will miss out on their opportunities in the short and the long term.

Education matters. Everyone says that, but what are we going to do about it? We have to invest in it and fight against cuts like those that happened in New South Wales yesterday and that have occurred in the Queensland budget and in the Victorian TAFE sector. These cuts seem to be happening right across the board with too much frequency. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assure the member for Lyne that this Labor government recognises the crucial importance of education in the life of the nation, particularly for those who are at school and making their way along their learning journey. I agree with him that it is a clear question of choice—whether governments are prepared to make the necessary investments to ensure that all children in all schools are educated to the greatest capacity. He is right; I do note there is a significant gap for regional students. It is one that, as a government, we are very well aware of, as we are very well aware of the challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Education is the great enabler. That is something that this Labor government understands and believes in strongly, and we will do everything within our power to bring improvements in education to fruition.

It is the difference for many people between poverty and prosperity. It is a way out of disadvantage. Particularly for those living in communities away from the cities, perhaps with a lesser degree of service or opportunity, it is absolutely crucial to their capacity to be the kind of person they want to be and to have the jobs they desire for the future. And there is no question at all about the linkages that occur when we talk about education and productivity. Just by simply completing year 12, we are adding over 10 per cent to an individual's income. We can see that the jobs for highly skilled Australians are growing at a rate much greater than those for lower skilled employees. So for anyone listening to this debate, anyone concerned about the future prospects of young Australians, education is absolutely central.

I do note there are significant regional student disadvantages. We see non-metropolitan students scoring lower on the Australian Early Development Index, so that means fewer students going on to university than has been the case before; although, as the member noted, we are seeing welcome increases in parts of the country. The fact remains that in a state like New South Wales almost 35 per cent of students from metropolitan areas who complete year 12 go on to university; only slightly more than 10 per cent of students from non-metropolitan areas do. The necessity for us to make sure that we have an appropriate focus and level of support for students in remote, in rural and from disadvantaged communities is absolutely understood.

Look at what this government has already done in making sure that education sits right in the middle of our agenda and in providing the necessary reform, focus and investment nationwide. For the first time, we have a national curriculum. They said it could not be done. For the first time we have the MySchool website providing an unparalleled amount of information for parents, for communities and for teachers on how schools are travelling. The testing that is now done for the first time through NAPLAN provides an opportunity for us to get a strong sense of how our students are achieving and identifies what we as governments need to do to help them achieve better.

The quantum of funding from this Labor government has been significant—about $65 billion over a funding cycle, nearly double what was paid and invested by the previous Howard government. It is the case that the Gonski panel review found amongst other things that we now are in a period of educational decline in comparison to our international counterparts, a decline that is judged to start from around the year 2000, a decline which reflects in part the neglect on the part of the former government to make sure that education policy and investment was being applied in appropriate measure.

We have had national partnerships on literacy and numeracy for teacher quality into low-SES communities, national partnerships that have been applied across jurisdictions, into states and across school systems—government and non-government. It is particularly important for people to understand that not only has this government provided more investment but it has made sure that that investment is shared between states so that they are able to put into practice in their schools those programs that can make a difference, and shared across systems as well, government and non-government. The fact is we have been through a period of unprecedented reform and investment in education, a reflection of this government's understanding about how crucial education will be to the prospects of the nation in the future.

Let us think for a moment about the environment we inhabit: we have skills shortages identified as a crucial issue for us; we have the Asian century as it is called under way with a number of nations to our north competing vigorously, with their education systems performing well and with additional economic and political weight; we have a globalised economy where the tempo of economic activity in our region is increasing; and we have a concomitant requirement to make sure that every young Australian has the skills they need to get the high-paying jobs of the future to be able to compete in that global environment and to set us up as a nation for future sustainable prosperity. It is the young people going to school now who are our most important national resource for the future and it is those young people that we are focused on and have been focused on ever since we came to government.

We have announced that we are willing to sit down and start working with the states on what we call, rightly, the National Plan for School Improvement. This comes on the back of the first serious look at education funding we have had in the 40 years, the Gonski panel review into funding. Mr Gonski, a Sydney businessman, with an eminent panel of educationists from across the education sectors and across the political landscape delivered to governments and to this government a report with clear findings: we are experiencing education decline and there is a growing gap among students from low socio-economic communities and others in their educational attainment. The Gonski panel recommended we ought to give consideration to a way of funding education that is based on the identified needs of students in all schools, and we have agreed to do that. We are willing to do that and we are going to do that. But everybody has a role to play. It is about choice and it is about commitment. Our choice is for the students in Australian schools now and in the future. Our commitment is to ensure they have the support they need to be the best they can be. I was pleased to see Andreas Schleicher, the ED of the OECD Education Directorate, make some welcoming comments to the way in which this government has responded to the Gonski panel. It is particularly important given that we still sit a little below the OECD average when it comes to investment in education.

So I think that any fair-minded assessment of what this government, firstly, has done; and, secondly, intends to do, would need to recognise both the level of support and investment in education, the amount of reform that has happened for the first time—reform that has involved education stakeholders, the states and the Commonwealth—and also the challenge in front of us. And that is the most important challenge that this nation faces: how do we set ourselves up for the future, how do we make sure that every young Australian is educated to their full capacity and is able to get the jobs of the future which pay better and which contribute significantly to our national income?

We are very clear about the choices that we want to make as a government. I was pleased to be able to indicate to states that I think the loadings that were recommended by Gonski panel in relation to both low-SES and to Indigenous ought to be amended to provide additional opportunities for support for students in low-socioeconomic communities. We will potentially increase that loading from the 25 per cent quartile to the 50 per cent; and for the Indigenous loading, recognise that any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander kid in any school deserves a level of support, and that is what we will be proposing and putting to the states.

The member for Lyne's matter of public importance addresses not only how significant education is for regional and disadvantaged communities but also concerns about cuts in education budgets. The fact is now that, wherever we look, and wherever there is a coalition government in power, the first thing that they do is apply cuts in education and cuts in health. In New South Wales we now have a $1.7 billion cut in education that has been put forward by the minister. The consequences and the scale of that cut are extremely significant: 600 jobs going from public education; 400 jobs from the front offices; $116 million that comes out from the non-government schools that the Leader of the Opposition believes is in his DNA to support, and that it is an injustice to support government schools—but I will let that go. But what this means, as that sector tells us, is fewer teachers, less support for disadvantaged students; and 800 jobs are to go from TAFE as well.

And we are seeing it in other states—in Victoria, stripping funding from schools to pay for things like excursions and pencils for children from low-income families; and in Queensland, cutting funding to principals and parents organisations, and to music and literacy initiatives. At the end of the day, I say to members opposite: you are judged in government and in opposition by the commitments you make to better the capacity for every Australian to do the best that they can and to have the best education made available to them.

When it comes to the question of choice, from coalition governments in states all we have seen so far is a willingness to cut education and other services. After 16 years of continuous investment in New South Wales—it has been 16 years since cuts of the magnitude that are proposed by the O'Farrell government have been in place—we hear very clearly the kind of impact that those cuts will have.

But I think, in concluding, it is important for us to join the dots. Because the fact is that we have had a commitment to education in this parliament that is significant, substantial and which we want to have endure. In order to do that, we have to look at what the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister have got on offer on education. They have on offer already identified cuts in education of $2.8 billion. The shadow minister was jumping up yesterday saying, 'There are no cuts! There are no cuts!' I simply refer him to the announcements by the leader and by the shadow Treasurer in the budget reply. They are all there; on the record.

But there is more than that. When he has been asked about whether there will be additional cuts in education, the Leader of the Opposition has never ruled them out. When he was asked by Paul Bongiorno, he effectively conceded that that would happen. As well as that, when we were talking about the level of investment that had been a feature of New South Wales Labor governments in the past here in the House, the member for Sturt thought that this was a matter of some hilarity.

We stand at a really important point here because, if we are going to make sure that we set ourselves up for the future, everybody knows that an investment in education is absolutely necessary. If we are going to make sure that young Australians in school now are able to come through into those jobs in the future, they need the access to TAFE, they need the support within the school sitting—and, if they are regional students, they need it especially. We have recognised that in our National Plan for School Improvement. We have indicated a willingness to contribute additional investment to ensure that the needs of every Australian student in education are met. It is those opposite, the Leader of the Opposition and state Liberal-National Party governments which are now, at this point in time, doing the complete opposite—sending us as a nation in the wrong direction and, as a matter of choice, applying cuts to the very things that we need to see supported in the future.

When the shadow Treasurer was asked this morning, three times, whether he would rule out cuts to education and called education 'a waste', he made perfectly clear the coalition's position on this issue—and I have made ours perfectly clear as well. (Time expired)

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

There is a lot of hypocrisy that we have to put up with in this chamber, coming from the other side of the House, but perhaps the greatest hypocrisy we have seen today has come from the member for Lyne. We heard the member for Lyne speak for 15 minutes almost exclusively on issues concerned with chambers other than this one. In front of us today, the government has proposals to implement the Gonski review—a government the member for Lyne is holding up—whose proposals would see 3,254 schools lose funding. This is the main game in front of us today, because the predominant funding which is provided from the federal government to Catholic and independent schools, and the minority funding to public schools, is in front of us now. When the government signs off on this agreement, when this parliament passes this agreement, it will lock in funding for the next four years.

What this agreement is likely to do, according to analysis done by departments of education and the independent and Catholic school sectors, is that 3,254 schools are going to lose their funding. Hundreds of schools in regional Australia are going to be targeted. Very low fee Catholic schools in my electorate are going to be targeted. For example, St Luke's School, a small Catholic school in my electorate, which charges about $1,000 in fees, is going to lose $756 per student under the proposals which the minister just said that he was keen to implement. Our Lady of Lourdes, another small Catholic school in my electorate, is due to lose $576 per student under these proposals.

According to the modelling which has been done by the independent and Catholic school sectors and the education department, in the electorate of the member for Lyne, the member who moved this motion, there are 22 schools that would lose funding under the proposals that are currently being considered by the government. Bobin Public School, for example, is going to lose $135,000 and Taree Public School is going to lose $694,000. I would be pleased to table this list for the benefit of the member for Lyne so he can see the schools in his electorate that are potentially under threat if the government moves forward with the proposals that are in front of them today.

The front page of the Sunday Tasmanianhas the headline 'Gonski hit list'—more than 80 Tasmanian Catholic and government schools would lose funding under the proposals. This is what is in front of us today, in this chamber, proposed by this government with the support of the member for Lyne. But he did not mention that once in his 15-minute address. Instead he spent his entire time talking about activities which are going on in other parliaments in this nation over which he has no control.

This analysis which has been done on the Gonski proposals talks about what would occur in year one in terms of funding cuts for those schools. But it is not just about the immediate hit that would occur to schools; there is also the medium-term hit which would occur to schools under the government's proposals. In the medium and longer term, the key issue that schools look at is the indexation rate for future funding increases. We on this side of the House have guaranteed that schools funding will increase by six per cent—year on year on year. On the other side of the chamber they have acknowledged—and the Prime Minister said this the other day—that the indexation rate would no longer apply and, in fact, a lower indexation rate would be applied going forward. This has implications for every single school across the country. The reason we are committed to a six per cent increase is that it matches what school costs have been increasing by. If there is a lower indexation rate, that means every single school across the country will have funding increases which are lower than what school cost increases are. For Catholic and independent schools, that means fees will have to go up considerably.

That is the main issue in terms of what is in front of us today on Gonski. But this is not the only time when the government has cut funding to schools or, indeed, has broken promises of funding to schools. I would like to highlight, for example, the Reward for School Improvement program, which the government promised in the lead-up to the last election. It was a program to provide between $75,000 and $100,000 to high schools that showed fantastic improvement, with year one reward payments to be provided in 2013. But we know that this program has been quietly dropped by the government. We heard from officials at Senate estimates that no longer is it going to be delivered in 2013. We heard that it would be delivered in 2015 at the earliest.

This program was a key condition of Mr Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, signing up to put the Labor Party into government. I have the agreements in front of me. On page 7, under 'Regional education investments', it says that at least $125 million of reward payments would be awarded to schools in regional Australia that have shown the most improvement in student outcomes. It was a key condition of the member for Lyne signing up and keeping Prime Minister Gillard in the Lodge, yet it is no longer going to be delivered. If the member for Lyne had any integrity, he would hold the government to account for that—but he has not; he has not said a damned thing.

Can I also give a bit of advice to the government, to the Labor Party, while I am here. If they are going to break an election promise, can I suggest that they take their election commitments down from their website. It is still actively displayed on their website that they are going to deliver this promise by 2013. I know that they took down from their website their commitment to not having a carbon tax. I would suggest that, given that you are going to break this promise also, you take the Reward for School Improvement program down from your website. It is another broken promise that is not going to be delivered and, while it is on your government website, you provide false hope for schools and school communities right across the country.

Let me continue with other cuts. The Computers in Schools program, which was introduced with great fanfare by Kevin Rudd at the 2007 election, is no longer being talked about. It has quietly disappeared. It is not going to occur anymore. But we have not heard a thing from the member for Lyne or, indeed, the education minister in relation to what has happened to the Computers in Schools program. It is the same with the trade training centres program, another program that was introduced with great fanfare. It has been suspended.

Maybe we should look at the 2012 budget papers, which show that, despite a promise at the 2010 election that there would be no staff cuts to the public service, 1,145 staff will be cut from the department of education.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hypocrites!

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

They are absolute hypocrites. They come in here and talk about cuts in other jurisdictions, but they do not have the courage to talk about their own cuts. I could go on. I am sure the members after me will talk about youth allowance and about how the member for Lyne and the other Independents failed to follow up on our proposals to increase youth allowance and make it apply to more students across regional and rural areas.

It is great hypocrisy for the member for Lyne to come in here and complain about education cuts. He is helping to hold up a government that is doing exactly that. There are 3,200 schools across the country at the moment that are worried about what might happen in the future if this government continues. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address what is obviously a very important matter of public importance. I will go to a few of the comments made by the member for Aston. I will first draw the House's attention to the fact that, as a Victorian member, he did not once mention TAFEs in his contribution on education. Given what has happened to TAFEs in Victoria, I am not at all surprised. I very much look forward to other Victorians' contributions and their attempts to explain the drastic cuts of the Baillieu government to TAFEs in Victoria.

Mr Tudge interjecting—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wannon is disorderly by interjecting outside of his place in this chamber. He will find himself out of the chamber if he does it again.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would point out to my colleagues on the other side that despite extreme provocation during the contribution of the member for Aston I did not once interrupt his contribution. I would appreciate a similar courtesy. I have followed with great interest other MPIs in the debate that has been occurring about the Baillieu government's cuts to TAFE in Victoria. I have noticed that, on each occasion, they have failed to get Victorians to stand up and speak on them, by and large.

Mr Broadbent interjecting—

I look forward to the member's contribution today, because it is quite clear that the $300 million cut out of TAFEs in Victoria is having an extreme and extraordinary impact. I would take members beyond the contribution of people like TAFE Directors Australia, the TAFE unions in Victoria and the student body organisations. If their contributions are not ones that the members opposite would rely on, I might take them to comments made recently by Mr Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group when he was addressing the National Press Club about the cuts to TAFE in Victoria. He said:

There have been significant changes made to TAFE in Victoria, for instance which have led to closures of dozens of courses at regional TAFE colleges within Victoria … It is of significant concern to industry that we won't be able to then drive that skills pool into the future and kids in regional Australia will miss out on opportunities to gain skills and then get into the workforce.

It is clear that there is a widespread view, including from the peak industry group, that the cuts to TAFE in Victoria have been dramatic, significant and contrary not only to the interests of individuals who are seeking to get skills for the future but also to the whole drive of the national agenda of raising the skills base in this country and of the matching of people with job opportunities by creating the opportunity for them to get the skills they need.

There has been a contentious debate in this country in recent times about the use of foreign labour to fill skills shortages. One of the important issues that I would think would receive bipartisan support is that in the longer term we want to train Australians to meet the skills gap. How are we going to do that when at the same time that the federal government is putting significant new money—billions of dollars of new money—on the table for the vocational education and training sector, filling the bucket up to give young people across regional Australia a chance to match those job opportunities, state governments are pulling out the plug at the bottom? That is exactly what has happened in Victoria and it is exactly the problem that we will face as a nation if we cannot get people trained in the skills that they will need in the future.

As difficult as it is with one state perhaps going rogue—I can understand those on the other side not wanting to talk about what they were doing in Victoria; my colleague the member for Deakin, who is behind me, would know that even more effectively from his own direct experience in his electorate—now we are seeing the New South Wales government do the same thing. It is inconceivable that they did not learn the lesson from Victoria. No, Barry O'Farrell in New South Wales has now pulled funding out of TAFE as well. There are 800 jobs to go, courses to be cancelled and fees to rise. Again, more opportunities for young people in regional areas to gain the skills that they need have been dragged from underneath them.

I turn briefly, with the indulgence of the House, to my own area. The Illawarra is an important regional area. It has been very significantly affected by changes in the manufacturing base and the movement of jobs, which will require young people to get the new training and skills that they will need for the future. In the Illawarra Mercury today, the TAFE representative, Mr Terry Keeley said:

This is another broken election promise from this government.

Prior to this election they guaranteed an investment in TAFE funding and in quality teaching, and (said) they would ensure affordable access for all.

Now in a stroke of a pen, they have ensured that 800 teaching jobs will be cut over the next four years - that's 20 per cent of the workforce - which will probably mean up to 100 jobs will go at Illawarra campuses.

That is on the back of the investment in recent years by this government of significant money in TAFE institutes in my area. We have done that because we believe that vocational education and training is important and that at its base sits an effective public provider.

In my own area, for example, we have injected: at the Wollongong campus just over $2.8 million into upgrading outdated equipment there; $311,000 at Wollongong West in upgrading their equipment; at Dapto, $32,000 for upgrading lighting and power and the installation of voice over internet; $410,000 at Shellharbour campus, again for upgrading and the installation of voice over internet; and $475,000 at Yallah for photovoltaic cells, new toilet facilities, a low-height training roof and to install a hot water system. On top of that, we invested $9.8 million in the Illawarra Institute of TAFE's mechanical engineering, manufacturing and environmental technology faculties as part of providing the important skills needed for young people to get the apprenticeships and training they need.

It is all an investment that this government have made because, prior to 2007, we were very conscious of the constant warnings being made about two significant bottlenecks in the economic growth and opportunity and productivity of this nation. One was the infrastructure bottleneck. The minister for infrastructure has made the point to this House on many occasions that this Labor federal government over its term have invested more in infrastructure than anyone since Federation because we understand the importance of infrastructure.

Going along with that, there were numerous warnings to the previous Howard government about a bottleneck in skill shortages—that there were significant gaps emerging between the new job demands and skills and opportunities. We have injected an unprecedented amount not only into our schools system but also into our tertiary system, our vocational system and our higher education system.

On the back of doing all that investment, we presumed we could have national partnerships with the state governments. We presumed that they would have a commitment to the ongoing investment in our young people and in retraining workers who are in industries that are being restructured and need support to get training for new jobs. We presumed that there would be a common interest in achieving that. How wrong we were.

If there are members on the opposite side from Queensland who are going to contribute to this debate, I say to them: do not sit easy over there either. Do not sit easy if you are from Queensland. Indeed, we have seen in Queensland the skills and training workforce interim report to the state government there. What did it recommend on TAFEs? Perhaps it recommended increasing the investment because there is a growing mining industry that will need new skills in the mining sector? Perhaps it suggested that TAFEs should create more places and more opportunities for people? No, that is not what it suggested. It suggested cutting the TAFEs in half and going from 82 TAFEs to 44. Quite honestly, if that report is in any way claiming to contribute to economic growth and the development of the state then I think the government in Queensland would be well advised to throw it out before the final report comes out later this year. Those in Queensland should not rest easy thinking, 'Our TAFEs have been saved. We do not have to stand up in this place and justify our Liberal state government doing something really ridiculous in the face of a national skills shortage. We will leave that to our colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria. They can deal with the embarrassment of their state governments ripping the bottom out of skills training.' Do not sit comfortably at all, because that is exactly what is on the agenda in Queensland as well.

This government understands that our future growth, economic development, participation and productivity—quite simply giving a chance to the next generation to compete in the new world for the new jobs—requires skills. That means investing in places like our schools and our TAFEs, not ripping— (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very interesting to listen to the members opposite talk about giving opportunity to the next generation. This is the same group who sat here and voted for this government to rip money out of education for rural and regional students through youth allowance. I did not see you lining up and saying, 'Oh, how dreadful it is for rural and regional students,' at all. For two years you have ripped away opportunity for young people in rural and regional areas because you changed the criteria for youth allowance.

For the other side of politics and, even more hypocritically, the member for Lyne, who voted with this government for those changes, to come into this place today and talk about disadvantage for rural and regional students in education is rank hypocrisy. I sat here because it was our students who were affected by this dreadful decision by this government, supported and encouraged by the member for Lyne. I was in this chamber, as were many of the members here. I live with the families and the students that this did so much damage to. I have listened to all sorts of waffle today about disadvantage, but how many of them stood up for rural and regional students then? Not one. What rank hypocrisy.

The member for Lyne, who brought this matter of public importance today, should hang his head in shame because he voted with the government. Where is he? Where was he when this was announced? Maybe when this was announced by the government and he supported them he was hiding under the desk. Maybe that is where he is now. Maybe he is hiding under the desk because he does not want to front up in this place and say he was complicit in taking money and opportunity away from rural and regional students. There were young people in my electorate and in his electorate who were affected, and yet he supported the government in this action.

In 2009, over and over again, we brought motions and amendments into this House. What did the member for Lyne do? He supported the government and voted against those motions. He voted against us considering them. Yet he has, as I say, the utter cheek and the gall to come in here today and lecture us about opportunity. How about those young people in my electorate? I had to deal with those young people, Member for Lyne and members on the opposite side. To this day I have those young people and their families saying to me that, as a result of the Labor government cutting their opportunity to access youth allowance, their whole future has changed.

At that time, there were students who knew their families could not afford to send them to university. They could not afford to send them without the support they would get from youth allowance. But that was supported by the member for Lyne and the members opposite.

They were fine at the time with ripping money away from rural and regional students and their families. They were fine with the fact that some families, as they said to me, had to make those very tough decisions: 'Which one of our children will we allow to go to university? We can only afford to send one because of the government's changes.'

What do the member for Lyne and the members opposite say to those families now? What do the members opposite and the member for Lyne say to the people who, when these changes happened, actually changed the decisions they made about the pathways they would take in education? They knew their families could not afford to send them on to university, because they have to move, because of the extra costs and because the Labor government said, 'Equity of opportunity for you young people in rural and regional areas is not an issue that we focus on.'

I have heard this today and it really makes me cross. Two years it took. We gave the members opposite and the member for Lyne opportunity after opportunity to address this inequity. What did they do? We never heard from them. Every time we brought that type of opportunity to this place, in a motion or amendment, the members opposite were silent. It did not bother them that young people in my electorate and even in the member for Lyne's electorate did not have the opportunity to take up tertiary education. The government expected them to work two full years before they were eligible for youth allowance.

We know that there is already disadvantage in rural and regional areas. We know there are fewer students coming through the system because of the disadvantage they face in rural and regional areas. But this government made it worse, aided and abetted by the member for Lyne, who brought this matter into this place today. I am appalled by that. He should stand accountable for the actions he took during that debate, and he is not even here. As I said, he is hiding under the desk. Some of my young people did not get a chance to hide underneath the desk at a university because of the actions of the member for Lyne and the members opposite—this government. The government ripped away the opportunities. There are families affected by this constantly. It took two years to change. Then, to add insult to injury, the government include a means test for those families even now. Where is the opportunity in that?

We have to look at the issue for rural and regional families. It costs anything from $15,000 to $30,000 more a year. If you are a young person from a regional area, you have to leave home. You have to find somewhere to live. You have to pay for all of the things that young people who are able to live with their families take for granted. The other thing is that you are away from your family. You are away from your support base. You are away from the people who love and care for you and support you, particularly when you are going through a tough time, as you do, whether it is in exams, whether you have an assignment due, whether you just need to come home some days and blow off a bit of steam. You need people around you who love and care about you who are not going to respond to that. They are going to say, 'Okay, you must have had a bad day, but let's all get together and have a chat.'

That is what these young people face. They have to move away from home. They have additional costs, whether it is telephone costs to ring home to stay in touch or transport to get home. You try paying for an extra tank of fuel to get home when you are from a rural or regional area. My young people can be anything from two to three hours at least away from the university. Perhaps if they were not more than 90 minutes away then that would not be such an issue. You try driving every day. Yet that is what this government did, with the help of the member for Lyne.

I remember this process, but I also remember the fact that no member opposite stood up for their young people in this place. I find it appalling. Now we are being lectured, in a sense, by the member for Lyne and the members opposite when for two years they were quite happy to sit back and let young people who could not qualify for independent youth allowance either not go on to higher education or have their dreams completely dashed. It put so much pressure on them.

I had mums saying in the supermarket: 'My husband and I both work. We know we have to work to send our children to university, but we were relying on youth allowance. Now I have to find a second job.' I thought the most tragic ones were those who said to me: 'We have to choose which one of our children we can send to university.' I will repeat that: as a result of that decision, supported by the member for Lyne and the other side, parents had to choose which child they could send to university. I cannot get over the hypocrisy of this debate today. As I said, there were those who sat back and watched this happen, because there was a group of young people in rural and regional areas—

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They knew it was wrong.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would say yes, it was wrong.

Where were you then? Why weren't you standing up for your young people the way that members on this side stood up for our young people? It took two years to drag you kicking and screaming, until there was enough shame. We kept at it and at it, and we had to, because that is what it took to get any form of an opportunity for those young people to access youth allowance. For them, the damage is done. They have changed their pathway. They have not gone on to university. That is the tragedy. It is only two weeks ago that I met a friend of one of those young people who said that that young person is now almost a lost soul. I hope she gets another opportunity, but I am appalled at the hypocrisy. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Parents, teachers and students in New South Wales today have every right to feel betrayed and duped. When New South Wales voters went to the ballot box in March 2011 they were never ever presented with a policy proposal that would say to them they would be voting for a cut of close to $2 billion in school funding. No parent who sends their child to a Catholic school was told by the state government MPs in my area that those MPs were championing a funding cut. No parent who sends their child to an independent school in our electorate was told by the state member for Londonderry, Bart Bassett, that he was going to be secretly working on a cut to their funding.

No parent who sends their child to a public school was told by the state member for Riverstone, Kevin Connolly, that he was holding a secret plan that would see funds cut from education.

This has caused great outrage and grief in New South Wales. The Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, in their media release 'Funding cuts put State's future in jeopardy', spell out exactly the type of feeling they have about what is being done to them:

Executive director of schools in the Diocese of Parramatta, Greg Whitby, said he understands the deep level of anger in NSW school communities and sense of betrayal by a government which has shown a lack of understanding of what is needed to deliver quality learning and teaching in today’s world.

‘It is appalling to note that Australia already lags behind many of the OECD countries in its spending on education and now the O’Farrell Government has chosen to make even more cuts to this level of expenditure,’ Greg said. ‘The decision by the government not to invest in education jeopardises the very future of this state.’

That is the feeling from people at the coalface about what has happened to them.

The state government, when in opposition, never had the decency to outline their education plans. Of the nearly 70 schools in the Chifley electorate, none was forewarned about the New South Wales government's agenda to cut funds. No-one who attends TAFE was told they would have to cop a fee hike. No-one who works for the New South Wales department of education or TAFE was given advance warning that their employment would be cut short. There is a simple reason: those opposite simply do not value education. They do not respect or appreciate how it transforms lives. To those opposite, education budgets are not a chance to invest; they are an opportunity for a saving; they are a chance for a cut.

You can look at their track record in federal government. When the coalition federal government were there, they were told numerous times by the Reserve Bank of Australia that there would be an impact of capacity constraints on the economy. It was pointed out that skill shortages would throttle the economy, squeeze up inflation and have an impact on interest rates. That was the warning for the best part of the last decade. And what was their agenda? Their response to that type of warning was to fight universities. They were headlocking them to force staff onto Australian workplace agreements. That was their education priority: getting lecturers to sign individual contracts. Or, on the other hand, they were fighting state governments over vocational training funding, duplicating TAFEs by creating a system of training colleges that helped them dodge their responsibilities to properly fund vocational training in the states. That was their priority.

Labor in government has been exceptionally active in addressing the neglect that has been experienced. In Chifley, I am proud of the fact that, under the Building the Education Revolution program, the government has invested $137 million in 163 projects, benefiting nearly every single school in the electorate. Bear in mind that the BER funding is sneered at by those opposite, who deride the entire program as a waste. That has been their contribution when we have been reinvesting in schools.

There is the Schoolkids Bonus, from which 15,000 families have benefited. It is opposed by those opposite. The Schoolkids Bonus is designed to help students with their education costs. It is derided by those opposite. There are the trade training centres. Seven schools in Chifley are benefiting from three trade training centres, which are receiving $14.7 million. The schools are Evans High School, Doonside Technology High School, Loyola Senior High School, St Clair High School, St Agnes Catholic High School, St Andrews College and Tyndale Christian School. The National Secondary School Computer Fund has seen nearly 9,000 computers installed in schools across the electorate. That is what we have done.

From those opposite, we have had basically derision for any investment in education and no plans of their own. Worse still, we get a taste of where they are headed in terms of education policy. Christopher Pyne, on Q&A back in late July started warming up the public to the notion that big class sizes are not a problem:

… for the last 10 years, we've been obsessed about class size and being obsessed about class size, when all the evidence suggests that when you get down to 25 students, going a lot lower than that makes no dramatic difference and, in fact, is tremendously expensive, clouds the other issues in education like teacher quality, like parental involvement, like a robust curriculum.

So he is already getting the ground ready for the notion—as they seek to find $70 billion in cuts—that we are obsessed about class sizes and having teachers able to give quality focus and attention to students in smaller classes. While most people are trying to manage class numbers down, he is saying, 'No, you don't need to do that.'

In universities, we have already had the suggestion that they are looking to cap places and increase HECS. At UWS, that would have a dramatic effect. Bear in mind that, under us, 150,000 extra people have started attending university. At the University of Western Sydney, nearly half of the enrollees, I am proud to say, are the first person in their family who has gone to university. That is something to be proud of. Those opposite talk about capping places, increasing HECS and denying opportunity.

Let us focus on what else is on offer. At the state level, we have seen cuts of $1.7 billion for all schools, increases in TAFE fees of nearly 10 per cent, cuts to jobs in TAFE and education for cleaners, teaching assistants and support staff—2,400 public school and TAFE positions have gone. There have been cuts to the school infrastructure budget of $14.3 million this year alone. Two hundred and seventy-two schools have lost their special needs funding. At the federal level, the recipe is: no support for Gonski or the national school improvement plan, a nod and a wink for larger school sizes, capping university places, increasing HECS fees and not ruling out cuts, as part of this $70 billion push to cut government spending.

I worry about the impact not just for now but for the future. I want to read out a quote that should cause concern. It is from the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today. In relation to the debate about what they are doing to cut funding, Pittwater MP Rob Stokes is quoted as saying:

I can't see why building the north-west rail link and keeping the [electricity] 'poles and wires' is more important than education.

The debate in New South Wales is about whether or not the spending that has been committed by the O'Farrell government to an infrastructure project is starting to eat the government spending priorities.

We have seen them drag the chain on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are seeing cuts to funding on education. We have seen hikes in public-housing rents for the 5,000 pensioners in the electorate I represent and in other electorates as well. And, while no-one begrudges and everyone wants to see better transport in western Sydney, schoolkids should not be forced to foot the bill for it. As former Premier Nick Greiner has been apparently quoted as saying, the north-west rail project is a project that threatens to eat the government. What people want to know is: are school funds being cut to funnel a political commitment being made by the O'Farrell government? Are people losing their public-housing rents or being forced to pay more because funds are being diverted to the North West Rail Link? Are people being forced to suffer because they are not being included in the National Disability Insurance Scheme trial sites, again because money is being saved and being directed to a project of close to $30 billion in the north-west rail sector?

A suggestion was quoted in the Herald today. I see here that a friend of ours in the chamber, the member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, was quoted as telling the Liberal Party party room that these state party education cuts would not have happened if a Liberal were in the education portfolio in New South Wales. What a slur to the National Party, but also what a convenient dodge, when a government that is led by a Liberal and made up with a coalition, has approved these cuts and is now trying to dodge it.

As I say, for us, education is critical, because it gave us on this side of the fence so much opportunity, and it is being denied by those opposite. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I was just wondering whether the member for Chifley would table the New South Wales opposition education talking points he was—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the debate has gone right off the rails and is being used for base political purposes. It does not enhance the ambience of this place and certainly does not enhance the reputation of the member for Chifley—although I would never doubt the passion of the member for Cunningham for what she puts forward. So I just want to bring a bit of truth into the debate; that is all.

I just want to tell this parliament and the people that are listening to this debate the truth about what is happening, particularly in Victoria in regard to TAFE, because it has been raised by ministers and it was raised by the Prime Minister. If I am allowed to say so, the Victorian government, rather than cutting TAFE, have capped the expenditure on TAFE. They had to do it because the Labor government under Brumby and Bracks left them in the most disgraceful fiscal position since Joan Kirner left the last Labor government in exactly the same position. The Victorian government are actually spending an extra $250 million per year over the next four years on training. They are investing that in TAFE and other training facilities that will, in this case, have courses that do something amazing: they lead to jobs! They have changed the policy so that the courses that they are funding lead people into jobs.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How dare they!

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How dare they do that! A job! The most interesting part, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that your own minister suggested to one of our ministers that it was a good idea to fund appropriate programs to put people into jobs.

If you want to know a premier of a state who has been left in a diabolical position, I name Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, which have all been left in most difficult fiscal positions in their budgets. They come in and they have to make a change. And you want to talk about those premiers today. Why don't you talk about the people that put them in the position where the state governments have to react in such a way? If you want your pet projects up, if you want your hospitals funded properly, if you want the new roads that need to be done right across this nation, and if they are the responsibility of the states, do not allow Labor governments to destroy the financial positions of those states until they hand them over to a Liberal-National coalition to fix the problem, to introduce programs into TAFE colleges right across Victoria that will supply—what?—jobs: jobs for people. They supply more apprenticeships for apprentices, although the downturn that is creeping across the nation is affecting the opportunities for those apprentices.

You know, I reckon every member of parliament in this place is feeling that. I reckon every member of parliament in this place is getting a bit of a message about what is going on out in their communities. We are all a bit tentative at the moment because our builders' phones have stopped ringing; our electricians' phones have stopped ringing—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get a plumber.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you can get a plumber down our way at the moment. You can get a lot of plumbers at the moment, and that is a huge change.

I am just making the point: if you are going to talk about education and you are going to talk about it seriously, why is it that the first thing that every government does, when it talks about an education crusade or these things, is start attacking teachers? It is the first thing it does. It says, 'Oh, blame the teachers!' I can tell you that the members that are sitting here in this room—and they come from right across Australia at the moment—know very, very, very good teachers. They know teachers that teach with a vision and with a heart and a passion for the people that they serve within their schools and their communities.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm married to one.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are married to one? I did not know that, Ewen. What the Prime Minister did not know was this: school improvement plans in Victoria have been in place for—what?—a decade and a half. We have had school improvement plans, which the Prime Minister talked about. These are tied to principal and teacher performance plans, which is what the Prime Minister was talking about, and to the whole school and individual professional development programs. Those are what the Prime Minister is talking about in her crusade. For teacher registration with the Victorian Institute of Teaching, it is compulsory. This body mandates professional development of teachers as a condition of registration.

As for delivering a common curriculum attached to standards, providing individual learning plans, reporting to parents, and adhering to standardised testing in literacy and numeracy in years 3, 5 and 7, we are already doing it. Student teachers are already spending 15 weeks in training in schools. We are already doing it. So a lot of the Prime Minister's discussions were pure rhetoric.

What we forget—and every member of parliament knows this because they come across it every time they go to a school—is that our teachers and principals spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with behavioural, social and parenting issues, which detract from teaching time, of course. And why? Why do schools provide breakfast programs? Have you heard of breakfast programs? Why do schools provide breakfast programs? Because they have to, because the kids have come to school without any food. Teachers plead for more assistance from psychologists and speech therapists, and more assistance for disability programs and to deal with attendance issues, because if you are not at school you cannot learn. So the headwinds facing Labor in its response to Gonski are considerable.

I know the member for Gippsland would like to get on. I will get off and let him come forth, but first I just want to say one thing: we are all passionate about teachers and education. We run a crusade every day in our electorates for the betterment of our children and the betterment of our schools and the opportunities that we want to give the next generation. But you cannot have rhetoric and talk and not back it up with some money on the table for students to make a success of their lives.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance because it is, indeed, a matter of great importance. Education is the great enabler. I, myself, came through a public housing community into very good state schools. There were many children that I went to school with who had to leave school well before their 15th birthday because their parents could not afford to keep them in school. So, while I have been one of the lucky ones who managed to get a complete education and go on to university, I went to school with some very bright, articulate, witty and delightful children who will not have had the lives they could have had, because their educational experience was curtailed. So when we talk about education, we need to keep in mind that we are talking about perhaps the single thing, other than good parenting, which puts a child on a pathway to prosperity.

In my electorate, I have schools that carry considerable burdens. There is a delightful little primary school—which is now, since the last redistribution, just outside of my electorate—that has 150 children, and 75 of them come from African refugee camps. An extraordinary effort by that school is required to bring those children into what, in Australia, is considered quite normal, which is attending school every day and participating in education. I have schools in the south of my electorate that take the children that come out of Villawood. So they are constantly accepting new children that they have to find a way to bring into the school community. And then those children move on and new children come, so they have a continuous churn. There are schools that have extraordinary additional burdens—I use the word 'burdens', but I am not using that in any sense about the children. The children of course are not burdens; they are a delight, but they add considerably to the schools' workload because of the communities that the schools serve.

We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition over recent months—in fact, probably over recent years—on a daily basis, an extraordinary scare campaign. Every day he finds something to be outraged about, and if he cannot find anything that he can actually be outraged about he makes it up, and on more days than not he makes it up. The sky will fall! The world will end! Life as we know it will be over on Sunday! You name it. If there is not something to be outraged about, if he cannot find something, he will make it up—and does.

The extraordinary thing about the announcement by the state Liberal government yesterday is that it actually is scary, and it is factual. It has been put out in the words of the New South Wales Liberal government itself. It is probably one of the scariest things we have heard in a while, this extraordinary attack on our education system through our school system and our TAFE system—an extraordinary attack. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to go out on his scare campaign tomorrow he certainly would not have to make any of this up. We have heard really clearly what the cuts will be. In New South Wales, thanks to the state government, we are looking at 1,800 jobs cut in education, 800 TAFE positions axed, TAFE fees increased by 9.5 per cent, an overall three per cent cut in education funding, a four-year education funding freeze on all government and non-government schools in New South Wales, and the dropping of subsidies for certain TAFE courses as well—a decimation of the system that provides our young people with the best possible opportunity to build a good life.

We heard the previous speaker on this matter, the member for McMillan, talk about the pressures on the state government. He was actually talking about the Victorian government, I think, and the Queensland government, as well as that of New South Wales. There are very few governments in the world at state or federal level at the moment that are not facing revenue shortfalls relative to what they would have had a number of years ago. The global financial crisis is still working its way through the global economy. The commodities prices are currently lower than they were in Australia. We also have the Australian dollar. There are forces at work, internationally and within our own economy, that make things tight for governments of all persuasions at the moment.

You can tell the character of a government not by what it does in the good times, because in the good times they can do lots of things—and that is great, that is terrific, in the good times. But when things get a little bit tough what you look at is what they decide to keep, because that is where their priorities are. Look at what we kept, under incredibly difficult circumstances: the biggest pension increases in 100 years; paid parental leave; increasing the tax-free threshold to $18½ thousand; the doubling of education funding, and the biggest investment in schools that we have ever seen in this country; massive increases in health, including the building of cancer centres right across this country; the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and the dental scheme. These are the things that we chose to keep, in the face of having nearly $250 billion cut off our bottom line by the global financial crisis. They are the things we chose to keep.

In contrast, look at what the state Liberal governments choose to throw away. The knife comes out for health, the knife comes out for front-line personnel across a range of sectors and the knife—remarkably, given the debate going on in this country at the moment about the future of education—comes out for the education system, our schools and our TAFEs. I say it is remarkable given the current debate because, as all of us in this House know, the federal government has in the last year undertaken a review of education. It was the biggest review in 40 years—something well overdue and something we need if we are going to position our children, our young people, for the future.

We were one of the best countries in the world when it came to education. We were actually second in reading and we have slipped to equal seventh. The average 15-year-old maths student in Australia is now more than two years behind a 15-year-old in Shanghai. We have slipped from equal fifth to equal 13th in maths. We still see Australia as a country of opportunity, but the gap now between disadvantaged students and advantaged students in reading, maths and science is more than two years. Something needs to be done about this and this government is committed to doing it.

I know that most people on the opposition benches know this is something we need to grapple with. We can argue about the details, but I know in my heart that the vast majority, if not all, of the people on the other side know that we have to do something about this. I know the opposition are in a bind. While we, as a federal parliament, are talking about lifting every school, their state colleagues are running around punching holes in the bottom of the bucket, putting a dish under it and trying to siphon off whatever money they can for other things. The opposition know that. This is as much about the politics of cost shifting as it is about anything else. It is being done in the context of a federal government which is committed to raising the standard of every school.

I understand the bind the opposition is in. We have been in opposition when there were seven state and territory Labor governments. Both sides have been in the position the opposition are now in. But the opposition know as well as we do that our education system is falling behind and that there are schools carrying extraordinary additional burdens because of children with disabilities, drug and alcohol addicted parents, low socioeconomic status, generational unemployment and poor parental English language skills. The opposition know that we have massive amounts of work to do and that doing that work requires an increase in funding, not a decrease in funding—an increase in funding at the federal level and an increase in funding at the state level. It requires us all to get together.

I was incredibly gratified when I received the media release from Greg Whitby, who is the executive director of schools in the diocese of Parramatta. That diocese covers not only my electorate but also Greenway and it goes right out to Penrith. Mr Whitby is with the Catholic Education Office, which deals specifically with Catholic schools, the schools which last week were seriously under threat of a $24.5 million cut in funding. In his press release, Mr Whitby has made it really clear what we should all know—that this is about all schools.

Let's not let the state governments shift the focus from one sector to another. We are talking about all schools. All schools need to be lifted and every level of government needs to get behind this. The very future of our children is at stake. We are living in a world where our northern neighbours are advancing rapidly—the Asian century. We cannot fall behind. So I am urging you all to say what is in your hearts, which is that it is time for us all to get behind education and increase the funding. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Lyne for putting forward this matter of public importance and for his ongoing interest in education. The member for Lyne and I may not always agree on policy issues, but we do have a shared passion for education. I sincerely commend his work in regional education—in ensuring that systems put in place at state and federal level do not act in ways that disadvantage regional people and do, wherever possible, support those who need a helping hand to achieve their full potential.

I do note, though, that the member for Lyne said at the outset of his contribution that he was not going to be party political. But he could not quite help himself. He got about a minute and 10 seconds into his speech before he just had to give the National Party a bit of a touch-up on the way through. So I am sure he will excuse me if I just make a little point of my own which may be interpreted as being a little bit party political. I do fear that sometimes the Independents live in a bit of a bubble. They never have to make the tough budgetary decisions. I do not think there is anyone at state level making these tough budgetary decisions right now who is enjoying that process. It is a simple fact of life that it is up to the Liberals and Nationals in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland to clean up the mess which was left to them.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.