Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. Minister, will you please update the House on how the National Plan for School Improvement is being implemented in partnership with state governments, particularly that in New South Wales? Minister, can you also inform the House about the ongoing response to this implementation?

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

I thank the member for her question. She is a great advocate for improved educational opportunities for the people in her region. The fact is that better schools mean a better future for Australia. If we look at a young person who is highly skilled, they can earn up to 2½ times as much over their lifetime as someone who does not have high skills, and someone who finishes school in year 11 is likely to earn about 10 per cent more over their lifetime, so it makes a big difference in a school how well a young person is educated. As the Prime Minister has already referred to in the parliament, the New South Wales government has delivered its budget and it has made the necessary investment in our plan for school improvement.

I just want to go back to what Premier O'Farrell said when they signed up, because he said it provides 'additional resources, fairer distribution to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales'. Today Minister Piccoli is saying quite clearly that New South Wales got a fantastic deal, a $5 billion deal—we contributed $1.7 billion—and they have followed it up by saying, 'We will always cooperate with the federal government to produce better outcomes for our students.' And we absolutely agree, because this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put our students above politics and to secure our future. That is why we voted in the House for the Australian Education Bill and that is why we are asking other states to get on board with this National Plan for School Improvement.

Now I am asked about responses and there is confusion among those opposite in terms of responses. I heard the member for Riverina lamenting the fact that in the top 50 schools in the region there is only one regional school and that is a private school and that is alarming, to say the least. Yes, it is alarming and the reason for that is that, under the new National Plan for School Improvement, regional schools would see specific loadings because they are regional schools. That may have passed by the member's notice at this point in time. Then we have got the shadow minister, the member for Sturt—he has never been interested; he never looked at the plan—dismiss the Gonski review in 20 minutes and describe our goal to have Australia's schools in the top five performing nations in education as a 'mad plan' and then he sort of said that, well, Gonski is 'conski'. Last night, I notice, the shadow minister said in the House:

With those few words, I point out that the coalition will not oppose this bill. … We cannot support it and we cannot oppose it …

There you go: 'we cannot support it but we cannot oppose it'. Well, what can they do about education in our nation when we are on the cusp of the most important reform to deliver a needs based funding system to make sure that every school in Australia is a great school?

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that, when asked yesterday about her $4.7 billion in cuts to education, she argued this question was based on false figures. I refer her to page 6-55 of last year's budget and to page 6-59 of this year's Budget Paper No. 1, which clearly show funding reductions of $1.15 billion, $0.2 billion, $1.3 billion and $2.05 billion, totalling a cut of $4.7 billion. Unless she is claiming the budget cannot be relied on, how does she reconcile her statement with—(Time expired)

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sturt for his question and I am more than happy to answer his question because the member for Sturt has been out there playing silly games with figures to try and confuse people. As to what he should be doing in this parliament, he should be referring to that section of the budget which shows increasing investment for our schools. Across six years it is $14.5 billion between state and federal governments and then, of course, there is the indexation figure and he should be looking at the note in that budget table that tells you the difference between our plan and the broken plan that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Sturt have decided that they support. The difference between those two figures, footnoted in the budget papers, is $16.2 billion. So the member for Sturt, if he wants to come in and quote the budget papers ought to take himself to that budget paper and ought to ask why he and the Leader of the Opposition stand by a funding system that would rip Australian children off, that would rip Australian schools off and which conservatives like Premier O'Farrell and his education minister, Mr Piccoli—conservatives—have referred to as 'a broken system'.

Why would the Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister stand behind such a broken system and a plan to rip off Australian schools? I do not think there is any mystery. These are the people who went to the 2010 election saying that they would rip more than $1 billion out of investment in trades training centres for schools and saying that they would rip almost half a billion dollars out of improving teacher quality—our national partnership to make sure that quality teachers are teaching our kids, driven by the research which shows that there is nothing more important to the outcomes of a child's education than the quality of the teacher standing in front of the classroom. The Leader of the Opposition says to that, 'Cut it by half a billion dollars.' Some $330 million of cuts for our poorest schools is what the Leader of the Opposition took to the last election, ripping off the most disadvantaged kids and disadvantaged communities.

It goes on and on. In fact, between the last election campaign and cuts announced in February 2011, almost $3 billion of cuts to Australian schools have been announced by the Leader of the Opposition. He and his shadow minister are not done yet. That is just a curtain-raiser for the amount of hurt and harm they want to do to Australian schools and the prospects of our children getting a great quality education. That is who they are. That is what they stand for.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of comments of Lisa Paul, the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, who said in Senate estimates about education funding:

… the best guide is not the budget papers , because of these assumptions which really are no longer true …

How does she reconcile her answer with Lisa Paul's statement that the assumptions in the budget 'really are no longer true'?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can give you a very specific answer to that. It has got to do with state Liberal cutbacks to education, because of the way in which indexation works for Australian schools. The fact that the opposition frontbench and backbench are tossing their heads at this shows a decade of indifference when they were in government and have never bothered once to understand how schools are funded. The Leader of the Opposition runs out the door and says that he stands behind this broken model of school funding. Premier O'Farrell said that it is a broken model. He has never understood the details of it. The Leader of the Opposition ought to try to understand.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be directly relevant the Prime Minister must explain why she is not admitting the cuts that she is making—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mackellar will resume her seat!

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and for once can she accept responsibility for her own policies?

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As predicted, she did abuse the standing orders. There is no use of debate during a point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And in that alleged point of order the member misled the House.

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will withdraw.

Mr Abbott interjecting—

The Leader of the Opposition will not tell me how to do my job! The Prime Minister will withdraw. There are other forms of the House if she wishes to pursue the issue she raised.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Speaker, with respect: the Prime Minister indicated that the member for Mackellar had misled the House. She did not use the term 'deliberately misled', which is what would be inappropriate and unparliamentary and would require a substantive motion.

Mr Randall interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Canning will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Canning then left the chamber .

The silence was to give me some time to prepare a reasonable response. I would have thought that in the circumstances that was warranted. But obviously any adherence to the standing orders by anybody in this place is not. I will ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. I do understand completely what the Leader of the House has said but, given the circumstances, I am going to ask her to withdraw for the benefit of the parliament.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I withdraw. Let me continue with what I was saying before, because the opposition clearly does not understand the school funding system that they stand behind—the broken funding system. The indexation rates in that broken funding system are a function of what state governments are investing in education. So if state Liberal governments are cutting, it cuts the indexation rate. That means what the Leader of the Opposition stands for is state cutbacks that then equal federal cutbacks. He is already on record as wanting to rip billions of dollars out of our schools. What he has got is an agenda of cuts and harm for Australian schools. He does not believe in their future. He will not dissuade us from getting on with the job. (Time expired)