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

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

The Turnbull Government's failure to properly invest in education to ensure Australians are ready for the jobs of the 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—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of all the areas where the Prime Minister's rhetoric falls short of the reality of his delivery, education is surely foremost amongst them. This Prime Minister, there is no doubt, talks the good talk. This Prime Minister is good at the rhetoric. This Prime Minister is good at the spin. He waxes about the importance of innovation and about the importance of education for our future. He says nice things. He tells us—he even lectures us—that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. But the reality is that this Prime Minister, who has the responsibility for preparing for the future of our economy, is more than happy to send Australian young people into this rapidly changing world without the skills they deserve, without the investment they need. This Prime Minister is more than happy to keep the education funding policies he inherited from his predecessor. This Prime Minister is more than happy to say to Australia's young people, 'We will not invest more in you in this rapidly changing world.'

He tells us 'there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian'. That was his quote. I want to share with the House a couple of other quotes. They are not from him. They are a touch longer, I apologise to the House. They are longer, but they are not glib; they are important. One is from a very good recent book called The Second Machine Age by two authors, Brynjolfsson and McAfee. They say this:

Technological progress is going to leave behind some people … as it races ahead. … there's never been a better time to be a worker with special skills or the right education, because these people can use technology to create and capture value. However, there's never been a worse time to be a worker with 'ordinary' skills and abilities to offer, because computers, robots and other digital technologies are acquiring these skills and abilities at an extraordinary rate.

There has never been a worse time not to have the investment in the education you need. The Prime Minister might want to consider that point. It is not about glib words. It is not about slogans. It is about investment in the future, and the Prime Minister is more than happy to let it happen.

Nouriel Roubini, one of the world's finest economists, said this, putting it slightly more concisely:

Software innovation, together with 3D printing technologies, will open the door to those workers who are educated enough to participate; for everyone else, however, it may feel as though the revolution is happening elsewhere.

In this world there will be winners and losers, and this Prime Minister is prepared—he is more than happy—to see so many young Australians be the losers, because he is not prepared to take the decision to invest in them. He inherited an education policy which he now presides over—it is his policy—which sees $3.2 million cut from every Australian school, the equivalent of sacking one in seven teachers, less individual support for students, fewer subject choices and literacy and numeracy projects cut. I know I have had school principals from my electorate come to see me to talk about the good things they have started to do with their improved funding already. Every honourable member will have had the same. But those programs will be cut unless the money flows. Those early stage projects that are just making a difference—bringing technology into schools, lifting up people who are the most disadvantaged—will be cut on this Prime Minister's watch, and no amount of words, no rhetoric from him will change that. No slogans from him will help those people who will have their projects cut. This is the policy which he personally presides over.

Let us be very clear: this is a matter of fairness, this is a matter of social justice. Better and fairer education funding is what drives all of us on this side of the House, and it is what brought many of us into politics. It is not just about fairness though; it is about very important economic policy preparing Australia for the future, because we know we are not doing well enough. We know that, in Australia, disadvantaged students are up to 3 years behind other students in educational outcomes. That is not good enough. We know that, in Australia, rural and regional students are up to 12 months behind students in metropolitan areas. That is not fair. That is not good enough, and we are prepared to do something about it, even if those members opposite who represent rural and regional areas are not. We know that the range between the lowest and highest mathematical literacy scores in Australia is higher than the OECD average, and that is not good enough. That is not acceptable to us, it should not be acceptable to any member of this House, and it should certainly not be acceptable to this Prime Minister who talks the talk but is not prepared to do anything about it.

We know that, in Australia, the difference in educational outcomes between those in the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status and the highest is 2½ years. That is just not on in Australia. It is not fair, it is not right and it is not acceptable, and it is very poor for our future, because those people who do not come from the richest families, who do not have the wealthiest backgrounds have a lot to contribute to this nation. They are no less intelligent than any other Australian. They do not have one bit less to offer Australia. They can play just as much of a role in our economic future as any other Australian. But all they need is a bit of investment—the same investment that every other Australian gets. They deserve nothing less.

There is a great myth, a great fallacy—we heard it from this Prime Minister yet again today. His education minister has been saying it right across the country: more money into education does not make a difference and investment does not make a difference. That is a fallacy. That is just not right, and we are not going to cop that for a second. Tell that to the Australian mums and dads who are scrimping and scraping to put more money into their kids' education. Tell them that more money does not make a difference. You tell that to the teachers in rural Australia, in Western Sydney, in Western Melbourne and right across the country who are trying to find more resources for their classrooms, who are holding fetes and cake stalls. You tell them that more money does not make a difference to the education they can provide to their students. That is an insult from this Prime Minister and this education minister, and it is a convenient mistruth that they peddle to justify their callous disregard for better education funding in Australia.

Our 'Your Child. Our Future' policy is very important economic policy for our future. We know that, according to the OECD, in 2000 only one country outperformed Australia in reading and maths, and in 2006 only two countries outperformed us in science. Today 16 countries are outperforming us in maths, nine in reading and seven in science. We are falling behind! We are going backwards. This government is presiding over a decline in investment which will see us do worse—and they tell us money does not matter! Money is not the only thing that matters—other things matter as well—but the Prime Minister should dare not pretend that money does not matter when it comes to investment in education.

We know that 75 per cent of the fastest-growing occupations in Australia today require science, technology, engineering and maths. We have policies to deal with that; the Leader of the Opposition announced them last year. We were talking about this when the now Prime Minister was still defending his predecessor's callous lack of regard for science, technology, engineering and maths. The Prime Minister should acknowledge that this is a necessary investment. He should not lecture Australians about how there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, but acknowledge that the policies he is presiding over will see us get this wrong. He should acknowledge that the policies he is presiding over will continue to see us go backwards.

Again, the OECD has said this:

… the quality of schooling in a country is a powerful predictor of the wealth that countries will produce in the long run.

It is pretty obvious: if you invest in education now, you create wealth into the future. They have also said that, if we equip all Australian high school students with the basic skills they need, by 2030 we could add $44 billion to the size of our economy. The government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer say we cannot afford this. But we say we cannot afford not to invest in education. They see cost; we see investment.

We have had to make difficult decisions to make room in the budget to fund this. We have developed $70 billion worth of savings over the decade to fund this and other measures,. But so we should, because this has to be an urgent national priority. We will not accept the myth that the Prime Minister perpetuates: that money does not count in education. I wanted to see what the Prime Minister thought of education. I read the recent biography on him; I thought that maybe he would said something about education in it. I found one quote. It said this: 'Most federal politicians are incredibly uneducated. The ALP is much better educated these days than the Liberals.'

He said that before he joined the Liberal Party. We accept the compliment. His people skills are gathering votes in the Liberal party room! But I will tell you what we do know: we do know that investment counts in education. We do know that, if you take money out of our education system, Australia's young people will be the losers. We do know that this is happening under this Prime Minister's watch, and we do know that we will not stand for it. We will fix it on coming to office, even if this Prime Minister refuses to.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the shadow Treasurer for today's MPI on education. I am looking forward to the opposition reshuffle when it comes; he is getting his credentials on education early! But I do think it is an indication that the shadow Treasurer has completely abandoned the economic argument that needs to underpin the national conversation we are having at the moment. Last year we had several MPIs on tax and on the economy. But the first MPI the shadow Treasurer has chosen to lead this year is completely outside of his portfolio.

There is a reason for that. If you think about the presentation of the shadow Treasurer calmly, there are a number of points you might want to note. The shadow Treasurer sets up a construct in terms of education funding in Australia that is completely a false dichotomy. He tries to make a case that this government will not fund education at all, and that his government—if they are ever elected to office—will somehow endlessly fund education in a way that they do not have to explain or make credible or sustainable. It is completely not the case. As the Prime Minister outlined in question time today, this government is investing record levels of funding in Australia. Anybody who has looked at the budget papers and this situation objectively would acknowledge that Commonwealth spending on education is at record levels. It is higher than ever before and is set to increase, year on year, over the forward estimates. It was spelt out many times in question time. So why would an opposition party suggest that somehow a government is cutting funding when funding is increasing? Why would they suggest there are chronic education shortfalls when there is actually a record level of spending?

It is because it is a hard business to tell the Australian people that the Commonwealth borrows money every single day to fund the ordinary expenditure of government. We do not have any money. We borrow money every single day to fund the ordinary expenditure of government. The Labor Party does not want to be honest with the Australian people and say that there are serious matters in education that need to be tackled. We did not hear one word cross the shadow Treasurer's lips about the serious issues that need tackling in education. We did not hear about teacher quality—not once. We did not hear about giving school principals autonomy to make decisions to improve educational outcomes. We did not hear about engaging parents in education, and we certainly did not hear anything about strengthening the curriculum.

What is the opposition's approach in relation to education? It is the same as their approach in every other area—spend, spend, spend. If I can paraphrase the shadow Treasurer, today he said, 'Let the spending flow. Let the money flow'. It is an ALP policy. It is a new idea in the year of ideas—let the money flow! What an election slogan—you could put that on a corflute! Here is Chris Bowen—and I can see it down in Blaxland now: 'Let the money flow. Double or nothing!' But where is it going to come from?

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Well, not Blaxland. I apologise. In McMahon, or wherever you are going to land after the New South Wales redistribution.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our preselections are sorted.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put that on a brochure as well. Tell the member for Shortland, shadow Treasurer!

In the serious stakes, of course, the shadow Treasurer says, 'We're fully funded'—just like we had former Treasurer the member for Lilley hit the airwaves last week telling us that the NDIS is fully funded. It completely misleads the Australian people. The NDIS is not fully funded.

It is important when we discuss vital areas of service provision for people with disabilities that we have a real and frank conversation with the Australian people, that we engage them and say that we are borrowing money every single day to fund the ordinary services of government, that we do have to address expenditure. This is not a radical Liberal view. This is not a radical view of right-wing economists.

I think it is that time of day when we could play a little quiz game. Who said this, today—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alex Hawke!

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it was not me, sadly enough. Who said: 'We cannot pretend we can go on spending as though nothing has happened. The world has trimmed us down. We now have to trim ourselves down'? Was that Adam Smith? It sounds like something he might have said. No, it would not have been him.

An honourable member interjecting—

He is dead. Good point. He is no longer around. He would not have said it.

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

Was it Kevin Rudd?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was not Kevin Rudd.

An honourable member: Was it Swannie?

Was it the Treasurer who delivered just three surpluses in the last term of government, Wayne Swan? No, it was not four years of surpluses he delivered. It was someone who is very close to your heart, shadow Treasurer. If I can give you another clue, it is someone you might regard as a mentor in your political career. Are we getting warmer, here, in the chamber?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is someone you are stalking! Who is it?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was former Prime Minister Paul Keating. It was his view that we cannot pretend we can go on spending as though nothing has happened. Even Paul Keating suggests that the world has trimmed us down and we have to make cuts. We have to be honest with the Australian people about our budgetary challenge. Let us be honest, shadow Treasurer, about the budgetary challenge facing us today. Let us talk about the taxation of tobacco, the principal savings measure you are using to fund your education programs.

Let us go to some of the best economists, the brightest minds, and ask them about their views on using increased tobacco taxes to fund $37 billion of recurrent funding in education. Let's ask economists. Let's ask people out there. Here are some quotes for you of the Labor Party, including the shadow Treasurer's use of increasing the tobacco excise to fund ongoing expenditure on education. The Grattan Institute's John Daley said:

Tobacco excise is a structurally declining tax base.

I do not think that should be a news flash to anyone over there.

It is not going to keep pace with inflation because tobacco use is falling.

The Grattan Institute would have it right, that it is structural and falling. But it gets a little better than this.

Stephen Koukoulas, someone you might know of, over there—another true believer, in the model of Keating—is a former adviser to Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He is not a right-wing economist. He said:

If the number of packets sold falls at a faster rate than the price increases, you won't quite get the revenue effect you were hoping for.

He is a mate of yours. You cannot have it both ways, shadow Treasurer. This cannot be a health measure that is designed to bring down the rates of smoking and a recurrent funding measure for your education policies. You know that.

Everyone on your crossbench knows that. Everyone I am looking at, right now, knows that using tobacco excise is lazy, is not going to work and will not fund the massive increase in expenditure that you are putting forward to the Australian people. It goes further. RMIT University economics professor Sinclair Davidson, who has researched the impacts of this, said:

At some point it's going to reduce and not fund a growing area like education.

It does not really matter who you go to. Budget expert Stephen Anthony, an economist at Industry Super Australia, questioned the mix of policy objectives behind the move:

We want to tax tobacco so heavily that its consumption in this country will fall," he said. "Therefore this revenue should not then be relied upon to fund longer-term spending commitments."

It does not matter who you go to, on what side of the economic fence they fall. They are all united in saying that this is not a way to fund recurrent education funding of the future. It will not work. It will not meet the amounts that the shadow Treasurer is talking about.

The shadow Treasurer has the hide to come in here and say, simply, 'Spend more money. Let the money flow,' to paraphrase him. Let whose money flow, shadow Treasurer? You are talking about the Australian people's money. You are talking about money the Commonwealth does not have. If you do not have a plan to fund your education for the future, you have nothing. You have come to the Australian people and said, 'We want to reduce smoking in Australia. We want to eliminate smoking in Australia. We want it to fall. We want the revenue to fall. But we are going to use it to fund our children's future.' That is the whole basis of your education policy.

If you believe that is sustainable, let's go doorknocking and explain it to the Australian people in your electorate, McMahon, or anywhere else you decide to run after this redistribution. Let's go down and tell them that you are funding our kids' futures on an increase in the tobacco excise, which you hope will fall. It is completely unsustainable—like every Labor policy proposal put forward. It certainly is not the year of big ideas. It is not a big idea to increase the tobacco excise. It is not a sustainable way to fund our children's futures. It is, simply, another thought bubble from the shadow Treasurer.

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

You know the government is going bad when they bring him out and he cannot even use his full 10 minutes to explain the government's position! Now that the initial first-day jitters are over for parents and the kids are back at school, I want to let families in my electorate know just how Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan will help prepare their kids for the jobs of the future. The 'Your Child. Our Future' plan recommits funding to ensure the Gonski reforms are fully implemented.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stick to the script, Rob!

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

Please, potato head, be quiet. Every time you speak you just make things worse. It means that $4.5 billion will be invested into the education system over the 2018 and 2019 school years and a total of $37.3 billion for the package over the decade. The 'Your Child. Our Future' plan focuses on children's needs by ensuring there is more individual attention and support for students with special learning needs. It means targeted resources and better equipped classrooms. It means our teachers will have greater support with access to quality resources and training. The Liberals will argue that we cannot afford to invest in education and only cuts will do. But I argue that we cannot afford not to invest in education, in our kids and in our future.

In the 2014-15 budget the Abbott-Turnbull government revealed a $30 billion cut to all Australian schools over the next decade by abandoning the needs based funding model beyond 2017. For schools in the electorate of McEwen, these cuts are equivalent to sacking one in seven teachers, cutting the average school budget by $3.2 million and providing about $1, 000 less support per student per year. The impact of these cuts is real. They would be enough to employ 221 extra teachers every year over the next 10 years in the seat of McEwen alone. The Turnbull government's school funding policy not only means that our schools will not be resourced to improve standards but also means that schools will actually go backwards. Without investment in our schools, TAFEs and universities, the Prime Minister's waffle about innovation and the future economy is just all fluff. The Turnbull government has no plan to fix the crisis it has created in schools.

Improving Australia's education system is the most important prerequisite to building innovation and preparing Australians for the jobs of the future. Already 75 per cent of the fastest-growing occupations today require skills in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM. And employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow at almost twice the pace of other occupations. Modernising our education system is essential so that our kids can be empowered and can be productive and active participants in the global economy, which is facing rapid technological change; 3-D printers, automation and robotics are advancing at an ever-increasing pace, creating enormous opportunities for economies that make the right policy choices.

But this environment of rapid technological change also presents significant risk for countries and economies that do not make the right choices, that do not understand the challenges and that do not invest in the right things for the future. Labor has accepted the risk and has released its plan to ensure that we are in a position to meet those future workforce challenges head-on. That is because Labor understands that, without comprehensive investment in education, advances in technology will see a further hollowing out of middle- and low-level jobs, further increasing inequality. And that is unacceptable to Labor. We are committing to fund a permanent and ongoing shift to needs based funding in our schools because every child in every school should be equipped with the basic skills to secure the jobs of the future. It is what parents want, it is what teachers want and it is what students need.

Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan will drive opportunity, innovation and the economy through education. The 'Your Child. Our Future' reforms will ensure that all children, no matter what their socioeconomic background is, will get the best start in life and the opportunity to succeed in the rapidly changing global economy. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' plan gives families a clear choice, because only Labor will invest in our children's futures to ensure that they have the opportunities going forward as we move further into the 21st century. What we have is a clear choice: an opposition that is prepared to stand up for kids, stand up for families and stand up for education, or a government that is consistent in only one thing: saying one thing before an election and doing something completely opposite after.

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

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on this MPI on education funding. I think we all recognise that education is critically important for the future of our country, and certainly on this side of the House we well recognise that. We have listened to the contribution from the member for McMahon and the member for McEwen, wanting to lecture us on a failure to invest in education when it was the previous, Labor, government—many of whom are still sitting on those opposition benches in this House—that failed Australian schools with an unfair and inconsistent funding model.

Now, some of them I know are a bit newer in this place, so I might give them a bit of a history lesson. The previous, Labor, government's negotiation with education authorities resulted in special deals and indefinite and complex transitions that compromised what was intended to be a fair, consistent and needs based national funding model. In Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, Labor removed more than $1.2 billion in funding from government schools. Why are the students of these states worth less to Labor than those in the other states? How can Labor say it cares about the future of our children when it has left an epic budget deficit and wants to add more to it? Labor promises $37 billion in spending with no legitimate plan to fund it. Our country is in deep deficit thanks to the previous, Labor, government spending like drunken sailors: months out from an election and Labor has already racked up a $50 billion black hole thanks to unfunded promises.

The students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, and they will not be thanking uncle Bill for a budget deficit that they will be paying off for generations to come. That is a little bit of information that those opposite fail to tell the Australian people, but at some point in the future the bill will need to be paid, and it will be the students being educated today who are going to pay the bill in the future. Labor is bound to continue to make all sorts of promises and repeat mistakes from the past in relation to education policy.

The coalition government has matched and exceeded the former government's funding over four years from 2014 to 2017. It is false and misleading to suggest that this government is not investing in education when we have provided record funding of some $69.5 billion over the forward estimates, including $5 billion in record funding for students with disabilities. From 2014 to 2015 education funding increased by some $4.1 billion, or 27.9 per cent. Under the coalition, funding to government schools has increased by 36.1 per cent and to non-government schools by 23.4 per cent.

As I stated earlier, Labor failed the students of Australia with their poor negotiations and funding complexities with educational authorities when they were last in government. As usual, the reason we get outcomes on this side of the House when we are in government is that we are actually prepared to sit down and talk to people and come up with sensible solutions for the problems we face both in the long term and in the short term. Prior to 2018, this government—provided we are still in government after the next election—will sit down with the states, territories and the non-government school sector to talk about how we can improve student outcomes and what needs to change to ensure that when students leave school they will be well equipped to get a job, undertake vocational education, attend university or other studies. We want schools to be able to plan for the longer term. The government's negotiations will be about the next full funding period from 2018 to 2021. This government is focused on four key areas that will make a real difference to students: teacher quality, school autonomy, engaging parents in education and strengthening the curriculum. These are areas that we know will actually make difference to student outcomes. As usual, it is this government that is providing solutions to these long-term problems.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to participate in this debate of public importance because since I first came to this joint, many years ago now, I have advocated the interests of the education community across this country. I came here as a former teacher—someone with an ongoing interest in education. Having worked in remote communities, I have observed and understood what education means to people who live in the bush. What we know is that if you live in the bush, if you live in remote parts of Australia, your educational outcomes are going to be poorer than those who live in the city. Your health outcomes are going to be poorer. Your job opportunities are going to be poorer.

We had the Prime Minister here this afternoon in question time talking about a high wage economy, higher quality jobs and how we have to be at the forefront of innovation. These are his words. Let me remind the Prime Minister: you will not be at the forefront of innovation if you cannot ensure that every child in this country has equal access to a good educational outcome—you cannot. People will not get good jobs, higher quality jobs, unless every child in this country has access to a good and sound education. You will not have people becoming entrepreneurs and setting up small businesses, unless you can guarantee that every child in this country has equal access to a good educational outcome. The fact is that the Gonski reforms provided that opportunity for Australian students across the country, regardless of where they lived, regardless of their postcode—whether they lived in the eastern suburbs of Sydney or in 0870 in the Northern Territory. That is important.

But what is most important to me is what will happen when this funding is withdrawn, after the $30 billion cuts are made post 2017. It will have a dramatic, negative effect upon the outcomes of Aboriginal students in remote parts of the Northern Territory, who suffer the worst educational outcomes in this country. What we know is that education is not only good for getting jobs; education is not only good for getting access to higher education, a good school education; but education also guarantees a better health outcome. We see people living longer. People do not often make this connection, but it is very clear.

We know that in remote parts of Australia there are high numbers of students with FASD and other mental health issues. The funding cuts which are being made by this government will effectively mean that the support services that these kids require, that their families require, to get a better educational outcome will be gone. So let's forget the bluff and bluster. Let's forget the overbearing rhetoric of the Prime Minister. The facts are very different. They are interested in teacher quality. They are interested in school autonomy. These sorts of things are important but not as important as making sure that every kid, every school, has the resources it needs to get the educational outcomes that we would expect for every family in this country. What this government is doing is guaranteeing that needs based funding will not apply after 2017. We know the significant importance of having additional resources in schools. Money does make a difference.

The capital that the former Labor government put into schools—the building infrastructure in schools around this country—had a very significant impact on educational outcomes and educational opportunities for people living in remote and rural Australia. I know this. People who live in the bush know this. Yet we have got this government saying money is not an issue. Money is an issue. Money is a significant issue. We have now got the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory coming out in an article in today's NT News: 'Education: epic fail fears', because of cuts in funding. He is right. Of course, what he is driven to do as a result of the pernicious attitude of this government is to say: 'How do we raise the additional income we require?'

The Northern Territory is a mendicant community. Around 80 per cent of their budget revenue is derived from the Commonwealth. What they are being forced to do now is consider a GST increase. This is the poorest part of Australia, who can least afford a GST increase. They already pay more tax than anyone else because of the GST on goods and services that already applies: they pay higher costs. So now there is a double whammy. You either accept the government's requirement and the government's attitude or you lose the support—and that is what is happening in this case. The government should be condemned.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do take my role as a federal member as being very important. One thing that I will always fight for is the schools in my area. I go into many of my schools and I have built a very good working relationship with them. One thing I do support is needs based funding. Going into the schools in my area—and we have a lot of low socioeconomic areas—and seeing these kids, I want to make sure that they have the same opportunity as kids on the North Shore, which is only an hour away from my electorate.

One thing that is really concerning is the union lies that are currently going around about 'Gonski, Gonski, Gonski'—and seeing the signs outside the schools with 'Gonski'. Misleading information is being given to families. Tell the truth. The truth is that we have not cut funding to schools—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

We have not cut funding to schools. Obviously, the member for Perth was not listening in question time. There is a record $69.4 billion in total Commonwealth funding over the forward estimates, representing an increase of 27.3 per cent in funding from 2014-15. We have not cut funding. It is very important that we do provide that support to the teachers. In Dobell, I have amazing teachers and they do a fantastic job. But the reality is that a lot of them are not interested in the rhetoric from the Teachers Federation. They roll their eyes when they mention to me a particular union organiser who comes through the schools. They are interested in their kids—and that is what I am interested in too. They are interested in seeing these kids have a fair go and get an education, not listening to the rhetoric and lies of the unions—your union masters. On the Central Coast, they are already putting out flyers about what they are going to be campaigning on at the next election—and, surprise surprise, it is penalty rates, GST and Gonski. These are the same people who have wasted thousands of dollars on a debate over the China free trade agreement that never happened. These are the same people who do a photo shoot outside my office; they take their photos and then they run around the corner and have coffee—and they put it on their credit card. I am not going to talk about credit cards, I am going to talk about education and giving schools a fair go. So stop your lies. All it is is lies. Tell the truth to the families. Tell the truth to the kids.

Let us not forget the Labor legacy. A lot of these kids spent six years of their formative education under Labor. We know that there is an issue with a lot of kids leaving school these days in regard to literacy and numeracy. I talk to a lot of employers in Dobell about the barriers to employing young people, and the common theme is their literacy and numeracy. So we ask the question, 'What is going on?' And I know that both sides are saying, 'What is going on with our kids when they are leaving school with poor literacy and numeracy?' The teachers out there are doing a great job—they really are. You cannot say it is due to a lack of funding because they have been given the funding.

Many of the schools in Dobell, like those at Brook Avenue and The Entrance, have received a lot of money, which they are putting to use to give their kids an opportunity. They are great schools. Schools like Wyong Creek, Narara, Wyong High School and Wyong Public School, schools that had been written off by the Labor government, now have a member who is actually in the schools talking to them. The ALP hate that. They hate coalition members who are actually interested in education and interested in their local schools. Nothing gets Twitter or Facebook going like the ALP trolls when they see a coalition member in the schools doing a great job. They absolutely cannot stand it and they cannot cope with it.

But I come back to the truth—and the truth is in our actions. I repeat that we support needs based funding and better educational outcomes for our students. We do not politicise our children's future—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

We do not. We do not go through the schools telling lies; we tell the truth—

Opposition members interjecting—

We have not decreased the funding. We get complete denial by the ALP, by those opposite, and your union hacks who do all your dirty work for you and your union masters. You just cannot stand the truth and you are out there with all your lies.

At the end of the day, I have a commitment to the schools in Dobell. I will continue to work for them and ensure that they get the right funding they need to provide quality education for our future, for our children and for the kids in Dobell.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull Liberal-National government has failed to properly invest in education and it has failed to ensure that Australians are ready for the jobs of the future. On this side of the House, we know that education makes a real difference to people's lives. For individuals, it opens the door to jobs and opportunity, and for our country it builds prosperity and a secure economy. We all know that education is the key to preparing our children for those jobs of the future, and the Turnbull government has failed over and over to provide those opportunities.

At all levels of education—whether its schools, universities or TAFE—this government has repeatedly cut and repeatedly failed. Rural and regional students are hardest hit by these cuts. In regional Australia we blame the National Party for these cuts because National Party choices hurt, and cutting funding has hurt the regions.

Before we look at the cuts, let's remember back to the last election, with all those Liberal Party and National Party candidates running around promising there would be no cuts to education. During the campaign they were all out there saying they were on an 'absolute unity ticket when it comes to school funding'. That was their pre-election promise. In my area, all the National Party candidates were out there saying that. As soon as they got into government, what did they do? They cut that funding. So it turned out to be another broken promise, another lie, in the lead-up to the election. It shows that they just cannot be trusted.

The fact is that this government has only one policy when it comes to schools, and that is to rip $30 billion of funding out of our schools. I said that National Party choices hurt—$30 billion really hurts, especially in the country. Let's have a look at the history of the Abbott-Turnbull government's failure to properly invest in education. In the 2014-15 budget, they had that $30 billion funding cut to all Australian schools over the next decade. This not only destroys the needs based funding model; it also fails to even keep up with historic trends in the cost of education. Let's look at exactly what these cuts mean. They mean an average cut of $3.2 million per school, which is the same as sacking one in seven teachers; less individual support; fewer subject choices; less support for students with a disability; cuts to literacy and numeracy programs; and less training and support for teachers.

Yet at the same time as we have these cuts we are also seeing Australia's educational rankings falling backwards. According to OECD data, in the year 2000, only one country outperformed Australia in reading and maths, and in 2006 only two countries outperformed Australia in science. But today 16 countries outperformed Australia in maths, nine countries outperformed Australia in reading and seven countries outperformed Australia in science.

The fact is that education is not just a policy about equity and fairness; it is also a policy for economic growth. Only Labor has a plan to properly invest in education. Our plan, 'Your Child. Our Future', represents the most significant improvement and investment in education in Australia for two generations. We believe that every child should have the same chance of succeeding at school no matter their background, no matter where they live and no matter what type of school they go to—government, independent or Catholic. 'Your Child. Our Future' means the Gonski funding and reforms will be delivered on time and in full, and this reverses the Turnbull government's harsh cuts. 'Your Child. Our Future' will see an additional investment in our education system of $4.5 billion over years 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms and $37.3 billion over the decade, a massive investment.

This investment will see every child in every school funded on the basis of need, and a permanent improvement in the schools system. The plan ensures a strong focus on every child's needs; more individual attention for students; better trained teachers; more targeted resources and better equipped classrooms; and more support for students with special learning needs. When I look at my electorate of Richmond, every student in every school will get the support they need to reach their full potential under our plan. That is important right across the country, but especially in regional and rural seats. They desperately need to have funding such as this.

All of this is in incredibly stark contrast to the Liberal-National cuts to education, which have had a very severe impact in the regions. I will just talk about my electorate for a minute. The school cuts in my electorate of Richmond will rip $176 million out of the electorate over the next 10 years—a huge amount—meaning children in regional areas like mine will not get the opportunities to meet their full potential. When it comes to regional Australia, only Labor will invest in schools. The Prime Minister, his Liberals and his Nationals will just cut.

At the next election, once again there will be a very clear choice when it comes to education: invest in our children and our nation's future with Labor—we understand the importance of investing in education—or you will just get more of the same cuts to education under the Liberals and Nationals. The fact is that National Party choices hurt, particularly National Party cuts to education.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. My wife is an early childhood teacher and my younger brother is a high school teacher and now primary school principal, and he has been a principal in secondary schools as well. My thoughts on education and my work with the education committee have been assisted by both of those people with their varying views on education, but also by being involved in school communities over 10 years with my kids going through the school system. I say for the record that there is no way in the world that I could ever become a teacher. I lasted one day as a brickie's labourer; I lasted half a day as a builder's labourer; I would not last until little lunch as a teacher.

We have stated that teacher quality is a key thing that we want to drive toward, and I believe that is so. Having a wife who is a teacher, I see the hours that teachers put in. The notion that teachers have all these holidays is a complete furphy. They work during most of the holidays. Every Sunday, my wife and her co-teacher were going through individual plans for their children. What drives them most is not the pay or anything like that; what drives them most is love for the children. That is what we have in this country, by and large: we have teachers in our system who actually love children. As I said before, I would not last 15 minutes as a teacher.

What we want to do is make sure that, when we are graduating teachers, the right sorts of people are coming through. The last time I checked the numbers was in about 2014, so they may have varied. In those days, the dropout rate of teachers in the first two or three years, for whatever reason, was about 27 per cent. There are a lot of reasons for that, but that is over a quarter of the teachers who could graduate from university. There is the amount of money that all levels of government have provided to produce those teachers and the investment to get teachers out there. To have a quarter of your cohort completely disengage from the education system tells you how stressful being a teacher is. When I was in primary school was a long time ago and school was different. Today's teachers have to be social workers, they have to be surrogate parents, they have to feed kids, they have to clothe kids and they have to take kids to the toilet. We have very serious issues here.

This is the central point I want to make: we have two theories. One is Labor's theory: if you just throw more money at needs based education, you will drive better outcomes. Money has been thrown at education without any concern for outcomes since 1972 when Gough Whitlam got to power, and including all governments. It has been shown that throwing money at education without demanding things from a federal level and without demanding some sort of return is not the way to go. We need to focus on making sure that teachers in classrooms are properly prepared so they can get things done. We have to make sure that parents are engaged and that, when something goes wrong in the classroom, the teacher is not the one they blame and the school is not blamed; that they look to what their children is doing and they participate in bringing their children to school. We have to make sure that principals are able to make decisions around their school with their school community. If you engage with those things and you make the decision as close to the coalface as you possibly can, you will get a better decision. That is the basis of what we are trying to do. Freeing up the curriculum is my personal pledge. I just do not see the point in trying to teach a preschooler geography when they cannot read, write or grip a pencil. There are so many things that we could do in this space.

There is failure at all levels of government in letting our education standards slip: allowing kids to get to high school when they cannot read or write; refusing to fail kids because it might hurt their feelings; and being attacked by parents. This says to us that it is not going to be cured by just throwing money at it. We are investing a lot of money. We are all investing a lot of money. We have a different approach, but that is all it is: a different approach. I think we all care about education and we should all care about education.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since September last year when the member for Warringah was blindsided by his loyal deputies, the Australian public learnt two lessons about the Prime Minister. First, we learnt he is good at talking. He does his shtick with the media and the common people while gesticulating with his glasses in one hand. He is an antipodean; a patrician; a Francis Urquhart, or a Francis Underwood if you watch Netflix. Second, we have also learnt that Mr Turnbull does not follow through that about which he blathers. He likes to talk, but it is all hot air. He is all pop and no corn. In Melbourne we say: new show bag; same contents.

On the point of policy consistency, the Prime Minister was vociferously in favour of marriage equality—so much so that he pooh-poohed the previous Prime Minister's plebiscite plan. Now he insists to the parliament that he supports a plebiscite. He informs Paul Kelly today that there is no chance he will stand up to the social conservatives in his party and save the budget $160 million and a day at the polls. He will press ahead, even while his rebel backbenchers pledge to vote against the plebiscite whatever the result. Much like Prime Minister Abbott, Prime Minister Turnbull's government will not let public opinion get in the way of its policies.

Likewise with tackling climate change; likewise with the republic. I was there when the republic committee saw Malcolm Turnbull, then a private citizen, leading the charge in 1999. As I asked on Sky recently, when are we going to see the real Malcolm? Now the member for Wentworth is faced with a dilemma. He leads a party that he does not represent and whose faithful do not back his stance on social issues, issues which we on this side of the House came to terms with long years ago. So the Prime Minister's preferred option is to talk, and, like all good barristers, he is good at that.

In my view and the view of the opposition, the myriad challenges that Australia faces, challenges made worse by the environmental policies of those opposite, will only be surmounted by an educated Australian public and a well-funded quality education system. Unlike those opposite, all on this side of the House believe that every Australian has the right to and should have the benefit of a properly funded quality education system. What does Wentworth think? He tells us he thinks innovation is of vital importance but then pulls the rug from under the education system that will produce the next generation of innovators. The Prime Minister supported and now leads a government which has effectively removed $30 billion from the education system. This short-sighted saving to the budget bottom line leaves an education budget that will fail even to keep up with the historical trend of education costs. Education is an investment, not a cost. Mr Turnbull's education budget cuts mean an average cut of $3.2 million per school—the same as sacking 14 per cent of the teachers. Of course, that is why the Catholic education system has been so vociferous in The Sydney Morning Herald today, protesting the government's policies.

This is the same mob, by the way, who said at the last election that they would not make any change to spending on education. Outside all schools there were posters—I well remember them—that said the Liberals would match Labor dollar for dollar on education spending. This is while OECD statistics show Australia is falling behind its peers. As others have noted, we were No. 2 in maths; now we are No. 10. As my colleagues have noted, not only are the Liberal cuts doing damage to Australia's education system today; by ignoring the changing dynamics of education and the global economy, we are hobbling our children and our country for tomorrow.

Under Labor's alternative 'Your Child. Our Future' plan, the funding and reforms recommended by the expert panel led by Gonski will be delivered in full under a Labor government. These reforms will drive opportunity, innovation and the economy through education. They will help all Australian kids, no matter what their background, to get a better start in life and leave school with the tools needed to succeed in our rapidly-changing economy. Of course these changes are expensive. They are specifically funded by additions to the budget from multinational tax avoidance, from unsustainable superannuation tax concessions and from best-practice taxation in the tobacco area.

In my view, the difference is clear, particularly on this issue of education. Labor's policy is an example of conviction. We have demonstrated where it will be funded from. Labor talks and Labor acts; the Prime Minister just talks. New show bag; same contents.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on today's MPI on the issue of education, an issue which is undoubtedly important to all members of the public. An effective education system is vital to ensure that we have a capable and intelligent workforce to fill the jobs of the future. It is critical to maintaining an internationally competitive economy. Above all else, we must provide a first-class education to our children. I am sure that all members of this House would agree on that.

The Labor Party's attempts to discredit the coalition's commitment to education are based purely on fiction. The suggestion that the coalition government has failed to properly invest in education is baseless and untrue. This is clearly demonstrated by the record increases in Commonwealth funding over the forward estimates. The Turnbull government is committed to providing the highest level of need-based school funding—a record $69.5 billion over four years to 2018-19. This is an increase of $4 billion, or 27.3 per cent, from 2014-15 to 2018-19. This is pure scaremongering by the Labor Party. In my electorate alone, one school, Trinity College—I have been out there in the last 12 months—has benefited from two different funding programs amounting to about $1 million for the one school. Only last weekend, in Gladstone, the Queensland government, in their wisdom, announced a new high school for Calliope. So they do not see the threat of government cutbacks—otherwise, why would they be building more schools? It is not the case that there have been cutbacks.

The state governments tried to work with the Labor federal government when they were in power, but that all ended up in disaster too. Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory suffered unfair treatment by the then Gillard-Rudd government. This is the story we have; yet the Labor Party will not admit that we are doing a good job. They just hate the fact that we are succeeding. They hate the fact that you cannot just throw money at a problem to fix it. It will not fix it. It is naive to think that funding alone is the answer, but this is what they think. Past analysis has proven that increased funding does not necessarily lead to quality education and better outcomes. From 1987 to 2012, education spending increased 100 per cent, yet students' outcomes have consistently declined. The current school funding model, which Labor advocates to extend, was complex and contained serious inequities between the states, and I have already mentioned that Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory suffered under the Gillard-Rudd government. The previous government took the fair and well-intentioned recommendations of David Gonski and turned them into a quagmire of side-deals and one-off arrangements with the states, which failed to rectify historical funding imbalances between the states. So we had a situation where the states ran the schools and they could not even get their funding right to make sure that all states were equal in the handouts. The extension of this model is merely entrenching those inequities and results in some states being severely and unfairly disadvantaged, and I believe they are still suffering from those policies of the Gillard-Rudd regime.

The Turnbull government has already increased funding to some states that was removed by the previous Labor government. So we have tried to rectify that in our last 2½ years of government.

The Labor scare proposal follows the classic Labor logic: if you have a problem, throw a bucket of money at it and hope it goes away. The proposal completely ignores the need for schools' autonomy and a needs based approach. Labor's addiction to spending at all costs is clearly evident in their latest school policy, which commits them to spending $37 billion on replicating their past mistakes. (Time expired)

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is concluded.