Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The importance of properly investing in education for Australia's future.

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—

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to debate the issue of the importance of properly investing in education for Australia's future at a time when we know that in the past week about 3.7 million students have flooded back to classrooms all across the country. In every single one of the electorates that we are privileged enough to represent in this place—and I can guarantee that every member of this parliament would agree—every single one of those 3.7 million children deserves to have a great education. The thing is, every member of this parliament can say that but only one side of this parliament is actually prepared to stand up and do something about it. Some members of the Australian community may still be shocked by that, and I can understand that, because we were told time and time again before the last election that things would be different. We were told by the member for Sturt:

You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.

That is what the government was saying before the election. They were also saying—and we might remember this—that 'they were on an absolute unity ticket when it comes to school funding'. That was their pre-election promise. Indeed, in question time today we were reminded of the huge signs that were up at polling booths across Australia—when voters went into the polling booth the last message they received from the Liberal Party was a sign that stated 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar'. What a farce that turned out to be—an absolute broken promise, a lie, in the lead-up to the election.

We saw the extent to which this has been trashed over Christmas. Some people may have been busy, because the government decided to wait until the period between Christmas and New Year, when they decided to take out all the trash, and they got the education minister to stand up and confirm that Prime Minister Turnbull intended to dump the Gonski reforms, but, more than that, to cut $30 billion of funding from our school system over the next 10 years. That is why they waited until between Christmas and New Year, because, far from a unity ticket, $30 billion will be cut from our schools if the government is re-elected.

In terms of context, we can have a debate about what big numbers are and what relatively moderate numbers are. Let's talk about what $30 billion ripped out of our classrooms would look like. This is the same as cutting one in every seven teachers in our classrooms or the equivalent of stripping, on average, $3.2 million out of every school in every state and every territory. Let's talk about the impact of that. Of course, that would mean fewer subject choices; less support for students with disability; literacy and numeracy programs being cut; learning support being cut; and less support and training for teachers. We know this is not just about what the Labor Party is saying. The education sector themselves know how devastating the government's plans and the government's deceit would be for them. We have seen the National Catholic Education Commission come out and say that, if the government's policies proceed, 'fees will increase, schools could close and the quality of education will be compromised'. Far be it from it just being Labor politicians who are standing up to talk about the impact of these cuts. Even the Prime Minister's mate, Premier Baird, in New South Wales, came out and said that their education policy was a 'kick in the guts'.

Once again, it has fallen to Labor to do the important work on education. That is a challenge that we on this side are absolutely up for. We know just how important it is to our nation's future that we get our school system right. We know it is important for equity in our community, that it is important for closing the gap in opportunity that different children have and that it is important for this nation's future economic growth. We know that it is absolutely vital, if we are going to ensure that Australians have the skills they need for the jobs of the future, that we get school reform right. That is why, last week, Bill Shorten announced the 'Your Child. Our Future' policy. Our schools policy will start with undoing the damage caused by this Turnbull Liberal government. We will honour the six-year needs based school funding agreements that have been signed with the states. We will go beyond that. We will provide long-term certainty for schools by reversing the government's school cuts across the next decade. This policy will invest targeted resources in the students of today so that we can have the growth, the jobs and the strong economy of the future. I should of course say that this is fully costed and fully offset by sensible savings which have already been announced.

This investment will be targeted to the needs of individual students, no matter what community they live in, no matter what school they go to. This is not just about completing the Gonski reforms; this is about bringing about permanent change to our school and education system. We know that needs based funding will make sure that the students who will benefit the most get the support they need: students from low-SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, students with disability, students with limited English, and students in small schools in regional, rural and remote areas. For every single child, it will mean a strong focus on their needs. It will mean more individual attention for every single student. It will mean better trained teachers, more targeted resources, better equipped classrooms, and more support for students with disability and special learning needs.

This is not just about money. This policy is based on evidence, transparency and accountability. It is remarkable that we have heard in recent days those opposite having the gall to shriek that this is about throwing around money. We know that, actually, it was the government who, when they came to power, stripped out all accountability mechanisms within the federal school funding system. We know that it was the previous minister for education, the member for Sturt, who declared that federal schools funding to the states and territories would, from now on, be 'no strings attached'. What that meant is that the government did absolutely nothing to ensure that federal investment reached our classrooms and was not just hived off to prop up state budgets, let alone reached our classrooms and was directed towards the programs that we know get results. The former minister dismissed concerns about this and about the proper use of federal school funding by stating, 'At the end of the day, that is a matter for those sovereign jurisdictions.' That is a federal minister entirely wiping his hands of any responsibility for what federal school funding would actually be used for. They dumped the requirement on the states to show how money was being used to improve results. They walked away from all accountability, all transparency. We say that we will bring it back. We will make sure we have the resources and the support we need in our schools and in our school system, but we will also make sure that those resources go towards evidence based policies which we know make a difference to every child's learning.

The truth is that money does matter. The government can throw around lines about money not mattering, in a desperate attempt to distract from their $30 billion worth of cuts, but we know that targeted resources mean extra learning programs, that targeted resources mean new opportunities and a real difference to results. They mean certainty so that schools can plan. They mean improved literacy and numeracy through early intervention and targeted support. They mean better quality teaching and professional development for educators. And they mean real engagement with parents—not just slogans thrown around by those opposite—about their children's learning. They mean better support for students with disability, which is absolutely vital not just to those students and their families but to those classrooms, those teachers, those principals and those school communities. And targeted resources will mean better skilled and more capable principals.

We know that Labor's needs based funding is already making a real difference. I have been to schools around the country and seen the impact that this additional support is having. Whether it be in speech pathologists, in new programs to support literacy, in more English coaching, in homework and lunchtime tutors, this makes a real difference. This government has no vision for the future of our country, no plan for the future of our classrooms and nothing to offer our schools except the biggest cuts in Australian history that they are proposing in ripping out $30 billion.

I was proud to stand alongside the Leader of the Opposition to outline that we have a real alternative and a real vision for ensuring that every child in every school in every state and in every territory will get the education that they need and deserve and that our country needs and deserves for them to have. Ultimately, we are wasting our time in this parliament if all we do is talk like those opposite and do not get real about school funding.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance. All members of this House would agree as to the importance of education, as we all want our kids to do well at and beyond school. We realise that education is vital if we are going to generate the jobs of the future, have the skilled workforce to fill the jobs of the future and remain an internationally competitive economy.

But Labor's approach to school funding is all backwards. Their policy—probably more rightly called 'Your Child. Your Debt'—is to just commit to borrowing and spending huge amounts of money without worrying about how the money is going to be spent. They do not worry about the way in which it is spent. They just borrow and spend and borrow and spend and hope for the best. The reality is that Labor have no idea how they are going to pay for their latest promises. They left the budget deep in the red. They have blocked our attempts to return the budget to surplus and now they are proposing to add another $37 billion to the debt mountain that they created—spending that will only drive the budget further and further into deficit.

The matter for debate today is about properly investing in education for Australia's future. But how about balancing the budget for Australia's future? Without a strong economy and a budget that is under control it will be impossible to make the long-term investments in services such as education that will be needed to set us up for the future. Funding for education does matter, but what you do with that funding matters even more.

Labor's approach ignores the need for school autonomy. Labor's approach ignores the need for better teachers and ignores the fact that restrictive industrial relations arrangements in schools are not delivering optimum outcomes. It ignores so many of the key factors that contribute to educational outcomes. These factors are not addressed in Labor's policy. Australian parents want to know that the funding that is spent on education delivers the best possible educational outcomes for students, whether they be high-performing students or those students who are struggling in the classroom.

The government is investing record levels of funding in Australian schools. Commonwealth funding for schools is some $69.4 billion over the four years to 2018-19. This is an increase of some 27.3 per cent since 2014-15. It is important to remember that the Commonwealth is not the primary funder of Australian schools. This responsibility sits with the states and territories. Regardless, the federal government is committing record funding, which is growing each year.

But despite the total funding for schools across Australia continuing to increase each year, regrettably educational outcomes continue to decline. We have been increasing funding. From 1987-88 to 2011-12 Commonwealth, state and territory spending on education increased by 100 per cent in real terms. While student enrolment has only grown by 18 per cent over that period, outcomes have been declining. Australia is not a low education spending country. The OECD has examined results across countries around the world and found that where there are comparable funding levels education outcomes are not necessarily comparable. Those results are sending a clear message. They are sending a message that the way you spend the money is vitally important.

This government understands the importance of teacher quality, school autonomy, parent engagement and having a rigorous curriculum and it understands that these factors are vitally important and making a real difference to student outcomes. That is why the government has focussed on this under its Students First program. We are also spending record amounts of money on assisting students with a disability to ensure that they can maximise their performance within the school system and achieve their potential.

The government's record spending on education in schools is also spread across other education sectors. We are providing more than $16 billion in annual funding for tertiary education. We are seeing record numbers of students enrolling in Australia's universities. We are investing $6 billion in vocational education each year. These are major investments in the future of Australia to ensure we have the workforce we need and that our young people can maximise their potential.

We are investing in early learning so that families are supported in ensuring that their young children get the early childhood education, and we are investing in child care so that families can access the child care that they need in order to participate in the workforce. We are investing almost $40 billion over the next four years in early learning and child care. That is an increase in funding of some $3 billion. A significant investment in early learning is a significant investment in the future of our nation.

While the coalition government is making record investments in education, Labor's record on education is not so good. On school funding, Labor took the well-intentioned ideas of David Gonski and turned them into a dog's breakfast of side deals and one-off arrangements. The previous government's negotiations with education authorities around Australia resulted in special deals with an indefinite and complex transition, which compromised what was intended to be a fair, consistent and needs-based model.

Only five jurisdictions signed up to the National Education Reform Agreement and only three have bilateral agreements—and even these have different implementation arrangements to the Commonwealth in providing their corresponding contributions. Current funding is based on historic levels and inequities between states, which is impacted and compounded by different transition paths. Some states were significantly disadvantaged because they had historically invested more than other states and territories.

It is vitally important that we have quality policy development in this country, but what we have seen from Labor's latest policy, or excuse for a policy, is basically three pages that fail to define how this is going to be paid for and fail to define where this money is going to come from. It is some sort of nirvana of taxing overseas companies and some sort of nirvana of placing the burden of future education spending on the smokers of this country. They are funding a very expensive program with a very indefinite income stream. It is a plan with little detail; it is a plan with no information about how it will be funded and paid for. The people of Australia want better schools and they want better education outcomes, but they want it done in a way that is credible. This is not a credible policy; this is a policy created by an opposition leader who is absolutely desperate to take the attention off his foray in the lettuce aisle and his poor performance. Who could forget the performance of the opposition leader discussing grocery spending in the lettuce aisle?

Our policies will work. They are being implemented. Our contribution to school funding will continue to be based on strong evidence to ensure quality education outcomes. Our future policy with the states and territories will be based around sensible negotiations to maximise the outcomes for students. It will not be a policy of bludgeoning the states and territories into agreeing to deals, as the Rudd and Gillard governments did. Labor's policies are policies of the past—just more spending without understanding what really works: the borrow-and-hope approach.

The shadow minister wants to talk about the importance of properly investing in education. It is unfortunate that her party has no idea how to achieve that goal. Just splashing money around will not lead to better results. We need sensible investment, we need improvements in the quality of teachers, we need the engagement of the school community, we want parents engaged in the education process and we want autonomy for schools. These are the sorts of measures that can make a very real difference; these are the sorts of measures that can improve the outcomes for students. The coalition is all about ensuring that we have a strong economy that can provide the services of the future. The coalition is all about ensuring we have good education outcomes into the future. Our policies are policies for the future. The Labor Party has policies of the past.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very glad to have heard from the minister representing the minister for education. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister forgot him in question time, but it is good to give him a go. It is really important that we are talking about schools, but it takes more than just talk to deliver good outcomes in schools. We need good policy that has accountability and, importantly, invests in every child. That is what Labor has put up. Unfortunately, we hear a lot of talk from the other side, but no plan whatsoever. Indeed, we had some illusion today when the minister representing the minister said, 'There will be future policies.' How about the Liberal Party just stick to the policy they went to last election with? For members' interest, this poster was at the polling booth: 'We will match every dollar for dollar.' So, if it is not about money, why were these put up? I could table this because it would be of use to other members, but I will leave that for the end and will see if they accept tabling. That was their policy.

We have heard a lot from the minister representing the minister for education about how much the agreements were not of interest to the Liberal Party. Why then did the opposition leader before the last election—the Prime Minister who is now the former Prime Minister—say, 'We will honour the agreements that Labor entered into.' If they were such bad agreements, why did the Liberal Party commit to entering into the agreements? Of course, what they wanted to do was say that there was no difference between Labor's great policy on schools and the Liberal Party's policy, but they came into government and they quickly cut $30 billion from our schools.

There was a lot of hope around the place when there was a new Prime Minister. He was friends with David Gonski, so maybe he would actually enact the recommendations of the Gonski agreement. Indeed, the Prime Minister boasted about how they were great friends, so it was very confusing and disappointing to school communities around Australia when the education minister came out at Christmas and said, 'No, no, we are sticking to our old policy. We will continue to cut $30 billion out of schools and ensure that students around Australia are not properly funded.' What we have seen is the Prime Minister being absolutely wedded to the cuts made by the Liberal Party, despite going to the last election with an alternative plan.

We heard about future policies. My challenge to the Liberal Party is: once again commit to Labor's policy because it is good policy. It is policy that will invest in a needs based funding model, it will deliver to every student in this country, it will ensure that we have better teachers and it will invest in our teachers in our classrooms. Importantly, it will need accountability from the states and accountability from the school systems. We know that the former Minister for Education let the states off the hook when it came to accountability with education. We have vision and we have plans for good outcomes as a result of our education policy. We want to see 95 per cent of year 12 students complete year 12. Year 12 is the passport to their future and we will work to deliver that. We want to lift our international standards and get into the top five countries around the world. This is what we want to see. Labor has a clear plan for the future of schools in this country. Instead, we hear from those on the other side, the government, a whole lot of talk and absolutely no action—no action to improve our schools, no action to improve our teachers and no action to invest in the future. The Prime Minister might want to talk about innovation, but unless he invests in the students of this country we will see no improvement and we will continue to slide backwards. So my challenge to the Liberal Party is: invest in schools. Keep to your promise at the last election and maybe make that promise at this election. I doubt the Australian people will trust you.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be speaking on today's MPI because I, along with my coalition colleagues, understand the importance of education for the jobs of the future. That is particularly what I would like to speak about today. We have heard from the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, who spoke broadly about education and the funding commitments of this government. I would like to speak about education in the context of the jobs of the future—our need to increase STEM skills and the action that the government is taking to address the significant skills shortage that we have in the STEM areas.

I would like to start with a few statistics. It is always good to set the scene so that we understand what the problem is and what we need to do to at least start addressing some of these significant issues. We do not know exactly what the jobs of future are going to be—that is well recognised—but we do know that three in every four jobs of the future are going to require STEM skills. We know that jobs requiring STEM skills grew 50 per cent faster than other jobs between 2006 and 2011. This is certainly going to continue in future. We also know that, despite this, employers are having great difficulty in employing people with the skills that they need to undertake these jobs. We know that demand for workers in information and communications technology doubled between 1999 and 2012, but during that period applications for tertiary ICT courses declined. At the same time there were fewer students studying science and maths subjects at school than there had been before.

There are some interesting statistics to support the point that I have just made. If we compare the number of students studying maths and science in 1992 and 2012—effectively, over a 20-year period—we know that there were 30,800 more students in year 12 in 2012 than in 1992, but there was a significant decrease in the number of those students who were studying science and maths. There were 8,000 fewer physics students, 4,000 fewer chemistry students and 12,000 fewer biology students. So, at a time when the number of students in total increased, there was a significant decrease in the number of students studying those science subjects.

We also know that there was a drop in the number of students taking intermediate and advanced maths, but there was an increase in the number taking the less advanced levels of maths. Whilst that is a positive, it indicates that we do have a problem with students not taking the higher level maths but going for the less advanced. It becomes a real problem if those students are going to go on and study science and maths at university, because they do not have the core skills that they need to be able to undertake those courses. They are immediately in a position where they have to undertake bridging courses or courses in maths just to bring their skills up to the level they need to do courses such as engineering.

We know that there is an issue. I am conscious that I have only a five-minute speaking spot on this MPI. There is so much that I could say on this subject. I want to move to the actions that this government is taking to address the significant skills shortage. In December last year the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science launched the National Innovation and Science Agenda. For those who have not read it, I do encourage you to look in depth at this agenda, and to look specifically at what we are doing to meet the skill needs of the future. We have committed a total of slightly over $112 million to preparing our workforce for the jobs of the future. That comprises some new initiatives—time is running away from me at the moment, so I will need to be brief—including $51 million to equip our young Australians to create and use digital technologies, over $13 million to expand opportunities for women in STEM and $48 million to inspire STEM literacy.

So it is not correct to say that we are not taking action. We are taking action. We are focusing on the skills of the future and making sure that we are putting money into addressing the skills shortage that we have now, so that over time we will have a skilled workforce here in this country.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of important things happened in January while some of us were out of phone and television range. I want to talk about three in particular today. The first was the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where a number of world leaders and some of the best thinkers in the world explored the impact of what is known as the fourth industrial revolution—a period of extraordinary change. The main theme of the meeting over that week or so was rising inequality caused by this massive change and the rapid increase in technology—how some would move with it but many would be left behind. It is a major problem around the world and a major problem for this country, because we know that for several years now our school system has not been keeping up with what we need to do to prepare our children to live in the world which is developing around us as we speak.

Two other things happened. When you talk about the future and about innovation, you have to talk about education. Between Christmas and New Year our Prime Minister recommitted to cutting the Gonski funding and committed to reducing funding for education by $30 billion—a $30 billion cut to education. In contrast, towards the end of the month, the Labor opposition recommitted to the Gonski funding in full, reinstating that $30 billion and ensuring that our children are prepared for the future.

The debate that we are having today is quite instructive in terms of what the government's policy is. They said before the election they were committed to Gonski. They said, 'No change—you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school under Liberal as you would under Labor.' They adopted Labor policy before the last election but they scrapped it immediately after. They recommitted that scrapping again just after Christmas. Today, in this House, after 2½ years in government, we get the minister representing the minister for education saying they will be announcing some education policies soon, and they will be good ones. Two and a half years in government! Children do not wait for you. Children grow older every day. And the skills they learn today are the basis of their life. They do not wait. Two and a half years—when you knew the education system needed improving! They do not wait 2½ years while you sit on your hands. To have a minister representing the minister for education walk into this House and say, after 2½ years, 'We will have good policies soon,' is an absolute disgrace.

Then we had the minister for science get up immediately after and say, 'We know education's important.' Well, of course! Great. Of course it is important—we all know that. Every parent knows that. Every child knows that. They know education is important. Then she said, 'We know we need to address the skills needs of the future.' After 2½ years in government, that is the best she can do—they know they need to do something!

They came to government on a lie: that they were going to match Labor's funding on Gonski. They came to government on a lie. They recommitted to that lie in December, and now, 2½ years into their term, we have the minister representing the minister for education and the minister for science, two incredibly important areas if we are going to build Australia's future—if you want to talk about innovation and jobs for the future, these are two of the most important portfolios—and what do they say? 'We'll get around to it soon. And it'll be good—when we get to it, it'll be good.' This is after 2½ years.

Labor is in opposition, and we have done the work. We did the work before the last election, through an extraordinary consultation process known as Gonski that went for several years of serious community consultation, so that that program is owned by our schools and our parents and our teachers; it is owned by them. And we have, without any doubt, recommitted to funding it in full—to reinstating that $30 billion that this shambolic government has withdrawn from our education system, and to ensuring that our children get the future that they need.

I say this to the people opposite—and I know that many of you have small people, children, in your lives: you cannot sit on your hands for 2½ years when it comes to education. It is not acceptable to say before an election, 'We commit to this great program,' and then to say afterwards, 'Oh, actually, no, we don't, and for 2½ years we're just going to sit on our hands and do nothing.' It is not good enough. The children who were born when you were elected are already 2½ years older. Children who started in grade 1 when you were elected are about to enter grade 3. You cannot wait. Do something! It is not good enough to say you will, after 2½ years— (Time expired)

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Lyons wants the call, perhaps he shouldn't interject before he seeks it! The member for Lyons has the call.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. I do not pretend to be an educationalist, but, having been a student over many years, and now the father of two boys—one who is going into year 11 this year, who started his school year on Monday, and a younger son going into year 8—I have a particular interest in this area.

If I think back to my own experience, I think of course of those great teachers who I had during my education, whether it was in high school or in primary school. I can still remember the name of, for example, Mrs Plaisted, who was my grade 1 teacher at East Launceston Primary School—she was a fantastic educationalist—as I can remember those people who taught me at college.

It goes to the very point that the Labor Party is missing in this debate: that we have been putting more money into this sector—into education. And that is right and it is proper. In fact, over the last four years, funding for education under this government has increased by nearly 30 per cent to the states—remembering that the Commonwealth funds about a third of schools in this country; it is the responsibility of the states. But what has not changed are the outcomes. If they are not changing, we must go back to first principles and look at what we are doing that is not right. There has been more money than ever before going into education. They claim that money has been cut. It was never there. You cannot cut something if it was not there. Over the forward estimates, we matched—in fact, we increased—what were the commitments of those opposite when they were in government.

I have been in this place a short time, but the ability of the Labor Party to rewrite history has been a staggering revelation to me since I have come to this place. There never was a magic pudding. There never was a commitment beyond the forward estimates from those opposite. I note now, though, after the 'year of ideas', that there is a plan by those opposite to fund education. How they are going to fund that was highlighted today in the Australian Financial Review by Economics Correspondent Jacob Greber. He says:

Leading budget experts say Labor's plan to use higher tobacco taxes to pay for fast-growing social programs is misguided and potentially unsustainable.

The Labor opposition expects to raise $47.7 billion over 10 years …

And he calls into question the veracity of those numbers. I would also ask: who is going to pay for it? Well, it will be the poorest. It will be the most vulnerable people in our communities who will be paying the tobacco tax; not to mention that tobacco—though we know the evils of tobacco well and truly—is a legal substance.

Yet, by the policy that has been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, we will be driving more people to look at illegal alternatives. And I think there will be no taxation raised from that. So I think that the numbers that have been highlighted in the Financial Review as being very, very dodgy are probably even more dodgy, because we are driving people into illegal substances, that have who-knows-what in them, that will have no ability to fund the health services, undoubtedly, that smoking makes us pay.

With respect to the plain paper packaging that was so lauded by those opposite: it has made it easier for those criminals, those people who are involved in supplying these, sometimes under duress—and this is the fact. These are problems with public policy.

Labor's approach to education seems to be one of command and control. They want more control in Canberra, taking it away from school principals, who know best, from parents having an input into their children's education—that parental engagement—and, of course, from having a robust curriculum that is relevant and appropriate for the needs of a modern Australia.

Over 12 months ago I was very pleased to announce that a primary school in my electorate, the Evandale Primary School, just outside of Launceston, was the only school in Tasmania that had participated in the Early Learning Languages Australia application. I know that the prep and grade 1 students at Evandale Primary School benefited enormously from the additional money that is going into STEM funding, as was highlighted by the previous speaker from our side. (Time expired)

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor greatly appreciates being acknowledged. I stand here today as the member for Lalor to speak about education, something that is very close to my heart, as most people in this chamber understand. I spent many years—27 years—in state schools in the western suburbs of Victoria, so I stand here not as someone who once went to school and had a favourite teacher, but as someone who actually understands education, the transformative nature of education, and what schools need in order to support them in their work to make our schools the best schools internationally.

There is no doubt about the importance of this matter of public importance. There is no doubt, because we have slipped down in those rankings. Those opposite would like to say that we have slipped down in those rankings despite an enormous amount of money being thrown at education. Well, I have some news for you: health care costs more and my house costs more—everything costs more. Giving raw figures in this debate is disingenuous. At least go to a percentage of GDP, folks, if you want to have an argument about economics, because this is an argument about economics. Educating our children to the best of their ability, to extend their capacities, is an economic policy. It is about the future of our economy. It is about ensuring that all our children have access to the economy. That is what we are talking about here. This is not airy-fairy. This is real. It is about the future of this country. It is about our capacity to compete in the international economy. This is about the global economy, and we are slipping behind because other countries are taking this issue seriously.

My predecessor, the former member for Lalor, our former Prime Minister, understood that. She understood it because she represented an electorate where many of the children are from disadvantaged backgrounds, where disadvantage is compounded in our schools by the number of students from a disadvantaged background who appear in a classroom at preps. She understood that. She understood that we needed to make that investment, that we needed to invest to ensure that we were building the best schools and had the best teachers. These are not just teachers who can pick up a program and deliver it, but teachers engaged in their profession who could grow their skills and their knowledge about their subjects and about the way kids learn, and make that a continually improving cycle. That is what this debate is about.

This debate is about returning Australia to the forefront as educational leaders internationally. This debate is about taking what we know works, giving the funding to ensure that every child, in a needs-based, sector-blind model, gets what they need in the classroom. This is about equity for prosperity. This is about ensuring that our system meets the definition of an equitable system, because the equitable systems in the world have the best student outcomes. In that sense this is simple: high equity, high outcomes; low equity, poor outcomes. That is how this works. The people who work in our schools understand that. They know this.

In Victoria they have been working on improving these things since the national partnerships funding came through, many years ago. Last week I stood beside the shadow minister for education, Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, and I stood beside Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, and it was the proudest day of my life as I stood beside a former colleague, Principal Moira Findlay, of Iramoo Primary School, which is one of the most disadvantaged schools in the state of Victoria and in the country. Over the years the school has improved its students' outcomes, because investments were made in the school. They made a concerted effort and brought the whole school community together with an improvement focus, with the money to support it.

They have coaches for their primary school teachers—coaches in literacy and in numeracy, coaches to ensure that every teacher in the school is supported in their professional development, and coaches who help them to monitor every child's standard, and where that child can get to. Then they get busy and make it happen. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with a lot of what the member for Lalor has just said. I think we all want to empower teachers, have better teacher quality, have teachers actually engaging with students rather than just running off lesson plans, and ensuring that young children who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are raised up in prosperity. They are all things that everyone in this House can agree with. The issue is one of how we get there. Unfortunately, the knee-jerk reaction from the Labor Party is always just to throw more money at it—and a lot more money at it. What they do not do is budget where the money is coming from. We have heard that it is going to come from $40-a-packet cigarettes, but I do not know that that is ever going to go down with the electorate, and that we are somehow going to reap a whole heap of money from companies like Google and Apple, even though there is absolutely no plan as to how we are going to get that funding. So it is pie-in-the-sky stuff that is going to be unfunded and is going to require us going further and further into debt.

If you want to see a great example of how the Labor Party last threw money at the education sector, without any significant outcome in terms of learning, have a look at the Building the Education Revolution plan. It was basically about schools having money thrown at them to build school halls and tuckshops, which in some cases they did not need, at the expense of other things they did need. It turned out that these were very high-cost projects which were a massive waste of public money, and that was found out through reports by the Auditor-General and numerous reports about the epic fail of the program.

I went to one school in my electorate, where I was shown by the principal the new BER stage they had gotten built, and then they showed me a building right beside it, which was about three times as big as the BER one. The difference was that they had built it themselves with their own raised money, but, as soon as the BER government one came along, the one that they built through the BER was actually double the cost of the one that they had funded themselves. It just showed how throwing money at a problem does not fix it; in fact, it created more problems because the cost of the construction of those buildings went up. I can go through the figures in Queensland. Labor's own task force found that, in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, state schools overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent on average compared to Catholic schools.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not in Queensland.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was in Queensland. BER projects in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria overpaid for buildings by more than 25 per cent on average compared to Catholic schools and by 55 per cent compared to independent schools. The Australian, reporting on the subject back in 2011, reported:

The third and final report into the BER, conducted by former investment banker Brad Orgill, has found Victorian and NSW have not delivered value for money for public schools under the program with public schools charged an average of up to 60 per cent more for school buildings, despite no differences in quality.

I could go on and on about this waste of taxpayers' money that the Labor Party has engaged in when it comes to the education sector. Another article from The Australian, from August 2013, notes:

… in the 935 days between becoming prime minister on December 3, 2007, and Julia Gillard's coup of June 24, 2010, Rudd left Australians with at least $153 billion in unfunded fiscal burdens while wasting $100bn of the community's resources.

Let's move onto Labor's plan. It has already been panned by experts. Megan O'Connell, policy program director from the Mitchell Institute at Victoria University, one of our premier education policy institutes, wrote just the other day:

The plan has sound aims of creating a high-quality, high-equity education system. However, by treading the safe path, Labor's plan will not produce the learners we need for our future prosperity.

We know that the old Labor pattern of just throwing money at it has not worked in the past because, as education expenditure has increased, our academic results have fallen. We can see that because, from 1987-88 to 2011-12, Commonwealth and state and territory spending on education increased by 100 per cent but student enrolment only grew by 18 per cent and student outcomes declined. (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it just a classic example of a party who are so out of touch with people in Australia sending their children to independent schools, public schools and Catholic schools. How out of touch they are with the schools that are doing it tough. This is going to be a funding issue, yes, but it is a funding priority issue, and that is what those opposite have failed to acknowledge. Throughout this debate, they have just said, 'Our government cannot afford it. This is too expensive and we cannot afford it.' That is just rubbish. The government have decided not to prioritise education and put it at the top of the list.

Let's talk about some of the things they have prioritised since they have come to government. Let's talk about the $45,000 that has been spent by the foreign affairs minister's office to replace IT equipment lost. Meanwhile, schools in my electorate struggle to scrape together $5,000 to buy the IT equipment they need so that their students can get a decent education. We are talking about primary schools like Maldon and Dunolly—our small public primary schools that would have benefited from the Gonski reforms if they were implemented in full, not just for the first year after the election but as per your promise on election day: 'We will match Labor dollar for dollar.' That does not mean for the first year or for the second year; it means every single year. In electorates like my electorate of Bendigo, that is an extra $200 million for our schools—our independent schools, our Catholic schools and our public schools. As Labor said, your postcode should not determine your educational outcome. Labor said every single school student, regardless of their parents' income and regardless of their postcode, should get the resources they need to ensure they get a great education. The government have decided not to prioritise this. The government are saying they cannot afford it, but they can. They have just decided not to prioritise education funding and they have dropped it down the list.

Another standout example—and this one is a cracker: the government will prioritise buying books for themselves. They will prioritise building their own libraries within their own offices. Let's just take the Attorney-General as an example. He spent $15,000 to custom build his own shelving in this place to house his $13,000 taxpayer-funded collection of books. I cannot find a school in my electorate—and I have called them—that has $13,000 allocated this year to be able to buy library books. They do not. They are scraping together every dollar they can to stretch their funding for teacher aids and for sporting resources. They say, 'If only I had a cheque for $13,000 to spend on my library books or $15,000 to maintain my library space.' The government will prioritise their own personal libraries but not the libraries of our primary schools, particularly those in regional areas and in low-SES areas.

The Gonski funding was critical because it was needs based. It ensured our schools in towns in low-SES areas, where parents can least afford the extra costs, got the dollars that they needed. I am not sure if many members went to a primary or secondary public school and asked them what the cost of books was this year. Schools are doing it tough. Bendigo Senior Secondary College has asked parents to pay $1,000 for its book list. That is before the voluntary contributions. One thousand dollars—imagine that with a 15 per cent GST on top of it. This is a government that just does not care about our public school system or our Catholic school system. This is a government that puts its own priorities first and not the priorities of our schools.

The Gonski funding also would have helped students with a disability—loadings to make sure that every student with a learning difficulty or a disability got the funding that they needed. This government seems to think that the current system is fair. It is not. Too many students who are on the autism spectrum miss out on critical funding to help them get the education they need. This government said one thing before the election to get elected; now, after the election, it is doing another. If it was serious about prioritising education funding, it would put the dollars back and put education on the top of the list. It would not be ranting that it cannot afford it. It cannot afford not to do it.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality with this debate on the matter of public importance—and I have listened to the contributions of people on both sides—is that the Labor Party have no meaningful way of funding their promises. The Australian people understand that the announcement made last week was the first salvo in a series of promises that this reckless opposition will make this year with no meaningful way of paying for them. When the Australian public see an opposition pledge of additional funding of $37.3 billion over 10 years with no meaningful way of paying for it, they completely discount it. We have seen from the Labor Party that they are completely unreconstructed. They do not believe that they did anything wrong in those six years of government when they took $20 billion surpluses to $50 billion deficits and when they took $70 billion in net assets to over $300 billion in net debt. The Labor Party have not learned their lessons. You cannot constantly put these pledges on the credit card, because who pays for it?

Who will be the people responsible for the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt racked up by the former Labor government? It will be our children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, we are now in a position where this generation will not be the one asked to repay this debt; it will be our children and grandchildren. How reckless it is for the Labor opposition to be making these pledges when they know that there is no meaningful way of paying for them out of current revenue. Putting it on the credit card is not an answer. Putting it on the credit card will be the mantra of the Labor Party this year, whether it is in education, in health or in any number of funding pledges this year. I am telling you such pledges will be completely discounted because the average Australian understands that you cannot borrow from tomorrow's generation to pay for today's.

Those on the other side arrogantly lecture us as though we have never walked into a school before. Not a week goes past that I do not spend time in my schools. I have wonderful relationships with all of my schools. Of course every single organisation in the country, whether it be a school, a not-for-profit organisation, a business or a government department, has a budget to manage, and budgets are difficult to manage. But a government cannot constantly put these sorts of funding pledges on the credit card—on the never-never—because you will ultimately be discounted and people will not take you seriously. This pledge has not been taken seriously because there is no way to pay for it.

I say to those opposite: we know that there are many, many ways that we can improve schools around Australia. We know that greater principal autonomy and higher teacher standards deliver a bottom-line result for our students. So let us engage constructively in what we can do to help our principals run their schools, because who knows their schools best? The principals, the teachers, the local community, the school boards know what their community needs the most. I know that does not work for many of you who are beholden to the education unions, who want a command and control-style approach. But for once in this debate let us look at what is best for individual schools. That local control by principals and school boards is one wonderful way of doing that.

Also, teacher standards are something that we must constantly engage in. We must support our principals and our education departments in lifting those standards. I remember in my time at school—and I know everybody thinks they are an expert on schools because they went to school—the people who had the greatest influence on my life were the wonderful teachers who saw teaching as an absolute vocation. They were not teachers because they had to be; they were teachers because they wanted to be. They could have been anything. They could have earnt a lot more money doing other things. That is the hallmark of wonderful teachers today. But I am telling the Labor Party: I am sorry, this pledge has failed, because you have been completely discounted by the Australian public. No-one believes you can fund it; no-one believes you can pay for it. And that will be the hallmark of all of these salvos over the year—$4½ billion for this, $16 billion for foreign aid. I congratulate the education minister on his work. (Time expired)

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.