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

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

The Government failing Australian schools.

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

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

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to see the member for Kooyong, the

Turning to a much more serious issue today: we here on the opposition benches, the Labor Party, when we were in government took a very serious look at our school system. We did that because we could see that our results in Australia—a country that had, 10 to 15 years ago, been one of the top performing countries in the world when it came to maths, reading, science and so on—were slipping. So we asked David Gonski and a panel of distinguished, eminent Australians to have a really good look at our school system. They came up with a proposal for a schooling resource standard and loadings for kids with particular needs that those on those benches opposite at first ridiculed and then denied. They pretended they could not support it. They finally realised that it was politically popular, so we saw the gazelle, the Leader of the House, the fixer, finally say at five minutes to midnight that they were on a unity ticket on it with us. What have we seen when it comes to schools since those opposite have come into government? We have seen $30 billion worth of funding cut from our schools—an average cut of $3 million from every school across Australia.

I think members on both sides are regular visitors to their schools, and many of them have seen the enormous need for extra resources in classrooms and in school communities. Frankly, the idea that they can go into those schools and face those children, principals, teachers, parents, school aides and teacher aides, and say, 'This school doesn't need any extra resources,' shocks me. We know that even the modest amount of extra funding that has started to flow in the early years of the needs based funding system has made an incredible difference in our schools. When we visit our schools, they tell us the difference it has made. Our Lady of Mount Carmel is a fantastic school in my electorate. When I visited Our Lady of Mount Carmel the most recent time—I have been there many times—their fantastic principal told me that with the early Gonski funding they had been employing speech therapists and occupational therapists, particularly to work with their kindergarten children so that those kids start their education with a love of learning. It has been such a success. How can those opposite genuinely say to the parents and teachers at Our Lady of Mount Carmel that money does not matter?

What did Eagleby South State School in Logan—I am sorry that the member for Forde has left—do with their extra funding? They hired and trained extra reading aides, and the percentage of their year six and seven students reading at age level went from 50 to 70 in a very short time. Can those opposite genuinely say to those children, teachers and parents and that school community that money does not matter? They cannot pretend that it does not. Merrylands High School in the shadow Treasurer's electorate, which is a school with 80 per cent low-SES background kids and 70 per cent non-English-speaking background kids, lifted their HSC results and in just three years actually doubled the number of students receiving an invitation to attend university. This is the difference that needs based funding, properly applied, can make. Those opposite cannot say to those students at Merrylands High School in Western Sydney that money does not matter.

The truth is that these arguments—and the more recent attempt to set state fighting against state, school system against school system, Catholic schools against public schools—are simply a cover for the fact that those opposite have ripped out $30 billion from our schools over the next decade. I think everybody in this place remembers their best teacher. Teachers change lives. Teachers are the inspiration for so many young people to pursue their dreams. We know that one of the most important things we can do as a government is actually make sure that every child in every school in every school system in every state has the opportunity to experience that great teaching. That is why we wanted to invest this extra money in our schools. But those opposite also say: 'You can't just pour in money. Because money doesn't matter, if you just pour in money, nothing will change.' That has never been the proposition from this side. The only person who has ever said extra funding should be with no strings attached was the former Minister for Education.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fixer!

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fixer, the gazelle, is the only one who has said that Labor's transparency and accountability measures are all just red tape, and that schools should be freed from the responsibility of reporting on their students' results—how their kids are doing. We have said that with extra funding we expect Australia should get back to the top five in the world for maths, reading and science. That is where we should be. Ninety-five per cent of students should complete year 12. Students should get more individual attention so that talented kids get the opportunity to extend themselves and make the most of their gifts, and kids who are falling behind get the support they need to catch up. We have said extra money should come with greater investment in selecting, training and supporting the best possible teachers—and more of them—so that we have better resources and better equipment in our classrooms, and more support for students with special learning needs. Extra investment, yes, comes with big changes in our school system. It means that teachers and school communities can do what they desperately want to do, which is treat every child as an individual and meet their needs.

Those opposite will say, predictably—and let us just see what the next speaker says—'Australia can't afford this at this time. Australia can't afford it.' These are the people who are right now arguing for a $50 billion tax cut for the biggest businesses in Australia. The majority of this cut will flow overseas and benefit overseas shareholders. I am sure they will be very grateful. This is about choices and priorities. We choose our children—the individual kids who benefit from this in the classroom—but we also choose investing in our productivity as a nation. We know that the $50 billion tax cut makes—I am struggling not to use a rude word here—very little difference to our economic growth over time: one per cent once it is fully implemented in 20 years' time. We know that where investment in education funding is higher, living standards are higher; the Australia Institute has told us that.

We know that, if, by 2030, we can equip all our high school graduates with the right kinds of basic skills, we could add $44 billion to the Australian economy, in today's terms. That is the OECD. We know that most economists say that Labor's plan to invest in education is much better for the Australian economy than the $50 billion big business tax giveaway. That is the Economics Society of Australia survey. We know that the quality of schooling in a country is a powerful predictor of the wealth that the country will produce in the long term. That is not us saying that; this is the predominant view of the smartest economists in the world. But it does not convince those opposite, because they want to prioritise giving a multinational company a tax cut over our children's future.

To be a nation with a strong economy, Australia must be an education nation. To be a nation prepared for the jobs of the future, we need to be an education nation. To be an 'innovation nation', as the Prime Minister says, we need to be an education nation. That is what Labor backs. That is what needs based funding delivers. That is what those opposite are trying to kill.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak on today's MPI for a number of reasons. Firstly, I am recently appointed to the role of Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, and I have to say that I am delighted to be in this role because there are so many opportunities for us as a government to do good work in the education sector.

It is important to note that education is like a highway, and we have the opportunity as we go along that education highway to exit at many different points, including at the vocational education destination. But schooling and school education is a critical part of that education highway, and it is very important that we get that right not just for ourselves but also for our generations yet to come. As a member of the government, what I want is a quality education outcome for the dollars that we are spending on education. As a taxpayer, I want value for money, value for the dollars that are spent on education. And, as a parent, I want a quality education for my children and for other children, so that they have the best opportunity to achieve their life goals.

There is outstanding research and a considerable amount of work that has been done on funding. It is important to note that we have record funding going forward in education—$73.6 billion over the forward estimates to 2020. But there is significant research that says that there is no automatic link between high per student funding and student outcomes but that improved outcomes are driven by policies and reforms both in the school and in the wider education system.

I note that the member for Sydney talked briefly today about Gonski, and it has been a recurrent theme. It is important to make it very clear that, contrary to popular opinion the current arrangements are not Gonski; they are a corruption of Gonski, as has been clearly put by Mr Boston. Ken Boston, one of the panel members on Gonski, said:

In the run-up to the 2013 election, prime minister Kevin Rudd and education minister Bill Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies … and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.

I do not particularly want to go down the Labor-bashing approach, but I think it is important to put in some sort of context here. There was an opportunity to come up with a national model that met students' needs, but what we got was a hotchpotch of some 27 different agreements.

Having said that, I think it is important to actually move forward, because what we need to be talking about is the quality education outcomes that are needed. We released a document back in May, Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes, which I would encourage everyone to have a good look at. It talks about how important funding is, but it says that what we do with the funding matters more.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what we all think.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that we are all agreeing on that, because what we do with the funding is very important. It may well be that there are differences of opinion, but perhaps what the debate needs to turn to is what we can do with the money that we have available and how we can ensure that that is used wisely and provides the outcome that our students need into the future. Despite significant funding growth in the past decade, NAPLAN results and our international rankings show that there have not been sufficient improvements in student outcomes. So, whilst we are spending record amounts of money, we are not achieving the outcomes that we need into the future.

As I said, it is time that we focus on quality education, and that is exactly what this government is doing. Through our Quality Schools, Quality Outcomespaper we are focusing on five key areas. The first one is 'Boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance'. We are not just talking about it; we are actually doing it—and I will come back and talk a little bit more about STEM. The second one is 'Improving the quality of teaching and school leadership'—doing the things that actually make a difference. The third one is 'Preparing our students for a globalised world'—where they have to get a job and compete with students who are ahead of them globally. The fourth one is 'Focusing on what matters most and those who need it most'—genuine attention to needs. The fifth one is 'Increasing public accountability through improved transparency'—not the corruption that Ken Boston so accurately describes.

I will start by talking about STEM education—science, technology, engineering and maths. As many in this place would know, my background is as a mechanical engineer. So science, technology, engineering and maths are subjects that are very near and dear to my heart. I was actually trained as a problem-solver, as most engineers are. What we know about STEM and particularly the jobs of the future is that, whilst it is not possible to predict exactly what those jobs are going to be, we do know that 75 per cent of the jobs of the future are going to require skills in science, technology, engineering and maths. But our record in producing students with those skills and expertise is actually quite poor.

If we compare the number of students studying maths and science from 1992 to 2012—a 20-year period—there were 30,800 more students in year 12 in 2012 than in 1992 but there was a significant decrease in the number of students who were studying maths and science subjects. There were 8,000 fewer physics students, 4,000 fewer chemistry students and 12,000 fewer biology students. Action needs to be taken to make sure that we can increase the number of students who are studying science, technology, engineering and maths, particularly science and mathematics at school.

We in the government understand that we have to be producing a pipeline to make sure that graduates are coming through with the high-level science and mathematics skills that we need. Already we have taken some considerable action to make sure that we are introducing science and maths at almost the earliest possible level by funding two programs, including the Let's Count program at the kindergarten level and the Little Scientists program, which will look at supporting our youngest learners to develop a love for science and a love for maths. That is critical and is important as we take those students through school.

We also know that there are some other critical points to be focusing on as the students go through their education, certainly at year 5 but also further up, at years 8, 9 and 10, where we will be needing to focus on STEM skills for students. Year 10 is a critical year for our skill students. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of Australian Apprenticeships Ambassadors this morning, and they talked about their experiences at school. I think it is probably fair to say that they felt they were a little bit let down by their schooling system, because the support that was given by their career advisers was really aimed at getting students into university without focusing on the vocational educational needs of the future. That means we have a significant skills gap that we need to be filling in vocational education. This is one of the key areas that have been identified to us as what we should be doing in schools, which is providing additional support to the career advisers so they are in a better position to support students in the very important decisions that they are making about what their future should actually be. When talking to these students it is very clear that they have been let down by the current school system and that serious action needs to be taken in a number of areas.

There is very little time remaining, but I am sure that my colleagues will continue the debate along similar lines. One of the things that we need to focus on quite clearly is quality teaching and supporting our teachers to make sure that they are in the best possible position to impart the knowledge that our students will need into the future. There are a number of key areas, as I have identified, in which the government continues to take significant steps forward to improve education in our schools. I would encourage those opposite to take a proactive and positive approach and to work together with the government.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull government is failing Australian schools. The Turnbull government is failing Australian students. Even more fundamentally than either of these two failings, it is failing our future. The poverty of this government's vision is shown when it comes to the debate over schools funding and education, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made clear. They say that we cannot afford to invest in our children, yet we can afford massive tax breaks for the big banks and multinational companies.

Today I have had the misfortune to be sitting in this parliament and hearing contributions from government members on the plebiscite bill. Throughout these contributions they have advanced an argument that we should have confidence in the Australian people. This is a powerful statement. There are 29 billion reasons the conservatives have no confidence in the Australian people. We choose the pathway to prosperity that is built on investing in education and on encouraging every child to fill his or her potential. We do so because it is the right thing to do. We do so on the basis of advice—expert advice here and expert advice around the world. It is so disappointing that government members are walking away from Gonski and are heedless of the advice from bodies like the IMF. Our pathway to the future, for getting individuals into jobs of the future and for all of us collectively, is through investing in education. We have a road map to do that, and I am so proud that the Gillard government ended more than 50 years of Commonwealth funding uncertainty and inequities when it came to schools.

That is why it is so disappointing to hear the assistant shadow minister. She has offered a very effective tribute to her minister, because what she did for 10 minutes is what he does all the time: talk around the issues, offer up platitudes while not engaging with his responsibilities or government members' responsibilities more generally. We have, in the Gonski recommendations, a pathway for every child to fill their potential. Gonski recognised, as we recognised, that talent is distributed evenly. Our challenge is to overcome the barriers that prevent some people's talents from being fully revealed through the schooling system. I am so proud that in opposition we have continued, through the great work of the member for Adelaide and the member for Kingston, to stand true to the principles of needs-based funding. I am proud today to stand here as part of Labor's education team to give voice to the concerns of students, teachers and parents and to bear witness—as the member for Sydney has just done—to the transformative effects of needs-based funding even in these early days.

On the other hand, what do we have from government members? Schools funding really is the Turnbull government writ small. The conservatives have gone so quickly from a unity ticket to—who knows? The minister cannot explain; he is more interested in offering misleading, dissembling drops to the media than in engaging with his state and territory colleagues. He is treating them with contempt, and he is treating our kids with contempt. He deflects, distracts and dissembles. Why? It is actually pretty easy to see why. He knows, because I presume he has actually read the Gonski report and the mountain of evidence that sits alongside it, that he cannot defend nearly $30 billion of cuts. He cannot argue with the evidence that is before him and before us, so he does not. It is disappointing that the assistant minister talks about large investments and falling standards because those investments are not needs based funding. They reveal the importance of moving to needs based funding—the critical importance of it, if we are serious about our future.

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the minister's failings go to our failure, under this government, to support students with disabilities. The Gonski report recommended that the loading to support students with disabilities be founded in more evidence. The evidence was not satisfactory in 2013.

Ms Collins interjecting—

We needed better data from the states, as the member for Franklin reminds me. Three years have gone by. Last year, the minister claimed, 'State and territory education ministers have indicated that they will be able to provide the data this year so it can apply next year'—that is, 2016. I will be holding them to that so that every child in Australia with a disability will be able to receive the correct loading. He made another promise that he has broken. His failure to support students with disabilities is emblematic of this government's failure to support every child having every chance to achieve their potential in schools and education. (Time expired)

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two figures that give a big story that you would not believe if you were listening to the other side of politics. The amount of federal funding going to education in 2013—we all remember the year 2013; it was the year we took over government—was $13 billion a year. In 2013, it was $13 billion. We are currently spending $16 billion a year on education, and we are projected to be spending $20 billion a year by 2020. They are the facts. We will be going from $13 billion a year in 2013 to $20 billion a year by 2020. These are real increases in spending. You can take out inflation; you can take out all sorts of things. This is record spending by the federal government in education.

There were lots of good things in the Gonski report, and the needs based funding model is what we have moved to. Where there is more need for funding and education—for the areas, the regions and the schools that need more funding because of special needs or the demographics of that population—that is happening. The needs based formula is what we are following. We also need to go broader than this. Money is important, and we are increasing funding, but there is more to it than spending money. The Labor Party's solution is to just spend more money because that is the solution they have for everything. This is an important subject. For many years—this has not been happening just since 2013; this has been happening over a longer period—we have been slipping down on most measurements, the measurements you would like to get, in our education system. This is something that we certainly need to look at. This is of concern to everyone. In fact, given that we are spending more money than we ever have, it shows that money alone is certainly not going to solve this. We are looking at evidence based reforms. In just about any area of our economy or our community, evidence based studies are providing some great insights into how we can get better bang for our buck.

The minister previously mentioned some of these. Our goals in the reform and in the study that we have done are to boost literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. We are going to improve the quality of teaching and school leadership. We are going to prepare our students for a globalised world, focus on what matters most in those who need it and increase public accountability through improved transparency. The education system has to transform, not just on money; it has to transform what it does.

We all remember what it was like when we are at school. I know I am probably older than you, Deputy Speaker Coulton. It was all content based. It was all memory. It was all: 'Read this and regurgitate this in an exam.' We know now is that knowledge itself is one thing, but it is problem-solving skills and a lot of other things that we need to teach our students. I was a schoolteacher for about five or six years, 10 or 15 years ago. I think the education system has made inroads since then, but it needs to make many more. I found there was far too much focus on what they taught. There was far too much focus on the content of what is taught in the classroom and not enough on how children learn. We all know there are different styles of learning, whether it be visual, whether it be auditory or whether it be kinaesthetic. The system was not catering for that. There was too much focus, both within teacher training and everything else, on the content. We have to move on from that.

We have also done some great infrastructure spending in education. In my electorate alone, we have spent nearly $6 million building five trade training centres. At Alstonville High School, there is a new agriculture trade training centre. I was out there the other day. I was envious of their cattle yards. You would have probably liked some of the equipment they had there as well, Deputy Speaker Coulton. Evans River is getting a new food tech trade training centre. Acmena is getting a new hospitality trade training centre. South Grafton High School is getting a new industrial tech trade training school. These are trade training centres funded by this government. There is also Trinity Catholic College. Not only are we providing record spending in our schools; we are delivering in lots of other areas as well.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As someone with a background in science and evidence based training, I was really curious to listen to the last speaker! Labor have, for a very long time, backed our schools. We know that, to properly resource our schools so every child in every school has every opportunity, it must be based on need. It is a simple fact that students in some regions face more barriers to success than in others. In my region on the Central Coast of New South Wales, local schools, teachers and teacher aides do an amazing job—teachers like Carinne at Toukley Public School and her passionate commitment to STEM in primary schools. But they do it in spite of the challenges they face from funding cuts, changing socio-economics and a growing community.

Recently I visited the YMCA at Lake Haven Recreation Centre, where their breakfast club currently serves 70 to 90 students four days a week, students who may otherwise start their day at the nearby school without a meal. Those children, some of whom are from families that struggle to meet day-to-day cost-of-living expenses, have just as much right to a great education as any other. There are still too many children missing out due to a lack of resources—money matters, as is how it is spent—and this needs to change. But for so long as this government fails do the right thing by our schools and continues to cut the funding they so desperately need, addressing the inequality in the system will continue to be a seemingly insurmountable task.

The government's failure to match Labor's commitment to fully fund the final two years of the Gonski needs-based funding, which is having a real impact on schools in my community right now, has resulted in: schools in New South Wales are now $9.3 billion worse off, over $79 million will not make its way to the classrooms of the Central Coast and $44 million that should be provided to the 44 schools in my electorate of Dobell will not be provided because of this government. Our region will suffer more than most. In the electorate of Dobell, around 62 per cent of working people did not complete high school. Of those, the number of people who left school to pursue a trade is significantly higher than in other areas: 58.6 per cent of people in my community have vocational education qualifications compared to the national average, which sits at just under 46.7 per cent.

But, for a young person on the Central Coast who finds themselves without the support they need to finish school, what does the future now hold? Where once the pathway of leaving school, learning a trade and getting a job was commonplace, we know this is no longer the case. For so many people who live and work on the Central Coast, this traditional pathway to employment will no longer be an option. Yes, times have changed. Yes, technology has changed the way we learn and we work. Some traditional industries are being replaced and job opportunities are changing.

Currently, on the Central Coast, only one in two students in high school goes on to finish high school. In an area with chronically high youth unemployment rates, this is a real concern. Where once a TAFE education was a real prospect for young school leavers, the failure of conservative governments at a state and federal level to protect TAFE education's status and the public provider in the sector has gutted what was, for many families on the Central Coast, a vital provider of vocational education.

In this same context, those families now see their local schools at risk of being left with an alarming lack of resources. Why should students in Toukley, Warnervale, Berkeley Vale or Wamberal be left with under-resourced schools and be denied the support and opportunities they need to reach their potential? Why should teachers in local schools be forced to work in larger class sizes or not have access to assistance and support for students with disabilities or behavioural problems? Why should teachers not have the support they need to be the best they can and receive increased training throughout their careers?

Before the 2013 election, the Liberals talked about their unity ticket with Labor on school funding. They went to great lengths to endorse our policy and they pledged to match our funding commitments. In government, they have done nothing but cut funding for schools. Everything this government says about schools must be taken in the context of their $30 billion of cuts to schools and their failure to commit to the full Gonski funding levels. It does not matter whether it is a public school, like Killarney Vale, who visited yesterday; a Catholic school, like St Mary's Toukley, who are here in parliament today; or an independent school—every school and every student will be worse off.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provision of education is one of the most important functions of a government. Education is the silver bullet in our society: it gives children hope, life lessons and skills to equip them for the rest of their years. It can shape their futures. Our innovation boom would not be possible without intelligent, well-schooled young people to drive it and ensure our country remains at the cutting edge in many innovative industries. This is why this government is putting so much effort into schools.

The Australian government is providing a record $73.6 billion for school education over the budget forward estimates. This is a growth of $4.1 billion, or 26.5 per cent, between 2015-16 and 2019-20. Current estimates show funding for government schools will increase by 33 per cent and funding for non-government schools will increase by 22.7 per cent over this period. However, achieving better outcomes for our children is not just about money. The funding must be focused on the places it can do the most good. As a result, our policies build on a strong evidence base. This will ensure effort is directed towards the strategies that ensure improved learning outcomes for all Australian students, regardless of their school or background.

This is all detailed in the government's policy paper Quality schools, quality outcomes. This plan continues to focus reform on areas with clear linkages to improved outcomes, including teacher quality and teacher autonomy, engaging parents in education and strengthening the curriculum. Our goals for future reform include: boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance;    improving the quality of teaching and school leadership; preparing our students for a globalised world;    focusing on what matters most and those who need it most; and increasing public accountability through improved transparency.

Anybody who says that we are putting less money into schools is simply wrong and probably should go back to school and study a little math. Any figures that suggest this is a comparison of apples with pears. However, this deception from those opposite does demonstrate the importance of a good education and, as our school systems continue to improve through the policies of this government, fewer people will be fooled by such misleading statements.

In my electorate of Bennelong we have some of the best schools in the country and, alongside the impressive Macquarie University, this has allowed Bennelong to rightly call itself the innovation capital of Australia. Over the 2014-17 calendar years, the Australian government is making available a quarter of a billion dollars for all schools in Bennelong, which is a 28 per cent increase in funding. In 2015 alone, each of the 28 government schools will receive an average increase of $351,227, which equates to a rise of over $700 per student. In the early learning sector, the funding provided to families was similarly upped by 19.8 per cent over the same period.

We also have seven higher education providers in the electorate, spearheaded by the mighty Macquarie University, which alone received $412 million last year, which it put towards its world-changing projects. These include the lifesaving Gamma Knife and the world-leading Hearing Hub.

But as with the national figures, the money is in many regards secondary to the quality of the programs which we run and support. For example, the government's Stronger Community Partnership grants have provided facilities in many local schools which have helped to open them up to the community and improve community cohesiveness. Similarly, the Bennelong Cup table tennis tournament is a wonderful initiative which brings together the many disparate communities that live in my electorate. Large diasporas from all over the world call Bennelong home, and the commonality of playing table tennis together brings down the cultural barriers between our children. I remember a moment from the competition a few years ago watching a particularly timid child grow in front of me when his table tennis ability was shown off in front of his school. With his sudden celebrity and popularity came confidence, acceptance, and a renewed zest for school life. If this program can bring this sense of fulfilment to more children it will continue to grow into a roaring success, and I look forward to inviting all members, my parliamentary colleagues, to see eight countries compete in the Bennelong Cup right here in Parliament House on 10 November. (Time expired)

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to the Bennelong Cup. Table tennis, or ping-pong, has always been a favourite of mine.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this very significant matter of public importance—namely that this government is failing Australian schools. Some here might have heard my first speech in this place yesterday, where I expressed my great concern for education and the whole education system of this country. I know the benefits that can be had from a great state school education. I attended three great state schools in Western Australia in the seat of Brand: Safety Bay Primary, Rockingham Beach Primary and Safety Bay Senior High School. I know how committed our teachers are in delivering the best education they can to our children and young people. But they cannot do this alone. The best education comes from investment—investment in our teachers, our schools and our children.

But this government today, this Prime Minister's Liberal government, is failing to invest in our schools and in our children and young people. It is with disbelief that I look at how this Liberal government is failing to invest in our schools and in our children's futures. With the Liberals it does not matter whether it is a public, Catholic or independent school—under this government every school and every student will be worse off. In fact, education and schools will all be worse off thanks to the Liberal's $30 billion in cuts.

Labor does not believe in slashing education funding—we believe in increasing it. Labor believes in education and the future choices a good education will give Australian students. Labor believes in giving every school child the education they deserve.

The Prime Minister's failure to implement the needs-based funding model for school children—you know, that unity ticket—has denied every student the individual support needed to ensure they achieve their best. Walking away from Gonski school funding reforms, the Prime Minister has walked away from every special needs child who requires individual attention in order to reach their best educational achievement. The Prime Minister has walked away from every disadvantaged child who, through no fault of their own, needs extra help to benefit from a good education. And the Prime Minister has also walked away from every talented student who dreams of being given the opportunities to make the most of their abilities.

The failure by this government, this neglect of schools, has a longer term impact. Youth unemployment in the Kwinana/Rockingham/Mandurah/Peel region has been identified as around 25 per cent. It is a staggering figure. It is a disgrace. Instead of walking away from young people, the government should be investing in them. This investment needs to begin early. It needs to begin at school so that, when they leave school, young people have choices.

As I mentioned in my first speech, in the 25 years since I left Safety Bay Senior High School not much has changed. The government is failing that school and lots of others across my electorate. When I finished school, out of about a hundred-odd students only a handful gained university entry. In 2015, only 33 of 126 year 12 students at Safety Bay Senior High School left with ATAR university entry. Something clearly needs to change. Only 12 per cent of year 12 students at Gilmore College in Kwinana have ATARs in 2015. Again, something clearly needs to change.

Investments need to be made—investment in schools so they are at the forefront of innovation in delivering education; investment in technology, so that our school children graduate well-versed in the tools of the 21st Century: the tools of a clever country, including a first-world internet service. Labor's fibre optic NBN would have given every school the opportunity of creatively and innovatively delivering classes and courses to engage with students. Labor's fibre optic NBN would give every Australian student the ability to connect to such classes and courses.

Unfortunately, in my electorate, in the suburb of Baldivis alone, students have no access to the internet, thanks to substandard, outdated and ignored communications infrastructure that leaves residents scratching about for ADSL ports to connect to. Never mind the NBN—where is the internet? And this beggars belief: across Baldivis, where is the mobile phone coverage?

This government is failing the people of Baldivis. This government is failing these hardworking, aspirational young people living in one of Australia's fastest-growing suburbs. And this government is failing their children. These students are being left behind when it comes to researching and doing their homework. If they cannot complete their research and work, what does this government expect their school results to look like?

The failure of the Prime Minister's government is entrenching inequality. It is serving to hold aspiring young people back. It is sabotaging the young people in my electorate and their access to education. It is a shocking waste and a shocking shame.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was appreciating that this was a matter of public importance and that people on different sides of the chamber were having that debate quite respectfully, until the member for Brand made overstatements such as that every student in every school would be worse off. I would encourage the member for Brand—it is probably one of her first MPIs—to try and approach these things with a level of detailed discussion rather than just trying to throw mud.

he government, of course, is not the Liberal government; it is the coalition government. I might just point out that they would not be here without the National Party. It is a point worth making and worth making well.

One of the roles of government, of course, is the education of our children. It is something we take with a level of gravity and seriousness. There are two systems in place across Australia. There is, of course, federal money that goes directly to private schools and federal GST money that goes to state governments, and those state governments deliver our state school system.

I was educated through the state school system. I am a product of Bridgewater Primary School and Kangaroo Flat Tech, thank you very much. I did not know how to tie a tie until I was 30 so I did not go to one of those schools. The electorate of Mallee, which I represent, has a lot of those state schools, and we have some very good schools. But I just want to bring to the attention of the House that there are three things, in my opinion, that are very important if we are going to give our children a good education.

School facilities are one of those things. It is important that we have good school facilities, and the federal government, as we have heard, has been substantially increasing funding for better facilities from $13 billion in 2013 to $20 billion in 2020. That is not the only thing that is important. The school's culture is also important. I am very pleased that one of the things that members of parliament get to do is deliver flags into our schools, because it gives me a chance to talk to teachers and get a feel for the school's culture. The third thing is the home life of those students.

On school culture, we have a couple of schools in my patch that are stand-out schools. Robinvale Secondary College has 415 students and 54 first languages. Just think about that for a moment. It is one of the most multicultural schools in Australia. We have a strong Indigenous community and the Clontarf Foundation, which originated in Western Australia, are running things with young Aboriginal students using AFL football to bring people into school. Tyrrell College is another one. It is in a farming community and the students can do very good subjects that are relevant to people's future career choices in a farming community.

I want to touch on the issue of home life, and this comes from my personal experiences of being a foster parent and of having a child who missed out on breakfast and had to deal with eating issues. I think that there is a legitimate argument, when we think about how we fund schools, that we had better fund an ongoing breakfast program. Now, anyone who works with children will know that if a child has not had breakfast then they will not be able to learn.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one thing to say, 'You treat the cause,' but in a lot of cases in my electorate the parents are probably not out of bed; the home life is broken.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education fixes that.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say that education fixes that, but it does not fix it when you are dealing with significant ice issues and you are dealing with significant family breakdowns. It is a lot more complex than saying, 'Education fixes that.' I am making the point that there is a strong argument for the federal government and state governments to bring in permanent breakfast programs in our schools.

An opposition member interjecting—

You can laugh about that if you like, but I have seen this in the children we have been involved with as foster parents. There is no argument that our children need to be fed and need to have access to good food so that they can attend and stay at school.

I want to use the last 40 seconds of my speech to talk about the volunteers in our lower socio-economic schools, the schools in my electorate, and commend them for their volunteerism. Most days each week they deliver breakfast programs.

Opposition members interjecting—

I am very surprised that I am getting pushback from the opposition about our children getting fed. The lowbrow level of discussion surprises me. We need good education. Home life is part of good education and school culture is part of good of education, as are school facilities. Our government will continue to deliver $20 billion towards our educational program in 2020.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the previous speaker: the school breakfast programs are very good and volunteers are very important. But they are not the answer in themselves. We need to fund schools. Government is about priorities. Today, the Minister for Social Services talked about intergenerational welfare. Well, key to addressing social inequality is better education, not cuts to education. Labour went to the 2 July 2016 election with a pledge to invest $37.3 billion in education over a decade. 'Unaffordable', 'ruination' and 'debt and deficit disaster' were the cries from those opposite. So, what was their priority? IT was to hand $50 billion to corporations, multinationals and some of the wealthiest people in Australia but cut $30 billion to schools. That is the difference between us.

Investing in our kids and investing in their futures is the choice that Labor makes. Those opposite derided Labor's Building the Education Revolution but, by golly, they love to get their names on those plaques. The kiddies had to practically jump out of the way as Liberal MPs stampeded for the photo opportunity at the openings. In Lyons the former member, who I have replaced, officially opened the Sorrell East Trade Training Centre, in my neck of the woods—which I found a bit ironic given that it was a centre built by Labor and it was part of a program that his government abolished.

Labor knows that Australian schooling is falling behind internationally. The OECD reports that in 2000 only one country outperformed Australia in reading and maths and in 2006 only two outperformed Australia in science. We were global leaders, but today 16 countries outperform Australia in maths, nine outperform Australia in reading and seven outperform Australia in science. We are falling behind. If we fell this far behind in the Olympics there would be a national outcry. Labor knows that key to improving education is investing in education. Unbelievably, not only is the Turnbull government not investing properly in education but it is cutting funding for schools. Millionaires get a tax cut; schools get a funding cut. It would be funny if it were not so tragic. The Prime Minister's cuts will result in an average cut of $3.2 million per school across the country. My electorate of Lyons has 30 primary schools, two high schools and 18 district schools. That is $160 million to be torn out of the education capacity of my electorate alone. That is equal to one in seven teachers. That is a cut that my constituents and their children do not deserve. There would be less individual support, fewer subject choices, less support for students with disability, literacy and numeracy programs cut, music and sport programs cut, and less training and support for teachers.

Tasmania needs more investment in schools, not less. My state and my electorate lag behind on just about every educational index. It will not improve by cutting funds and teachers. How on earth could anyone think that giving $50 billion in tax cuts to wealthy corporations is more important than investing in schools? Those opposite will say that the tax cut will help businesses invest and grow the economy, but they should have stayed in school longer and learned how to read because their own budget papers admit that the cuts will add, at best, one per cent to GDP over the decade.

So what is Labor's plan? Ninety-five per cent year 12 completion; STEM teachers; students to have maths or science to year 12; digital technologies; returning Australia to the top five countries in reading, maths and science; and Asian language and culture. Labor knows that real investment transforms the lives and aspirations of Australian children and that real investment has national dividends that far exceed any initial cost. Labor knows that kids who get a good school education do better in life. We have a responsibility to every Australian kid in every Australian school to give them the best shot in life. That is a responsibility that this Turnbull government is failing every single day.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sometimes wonder just what the opposition go on about with their education cuts. I can say the following with a high level of relevance because I was a secondary science teacher for 10 years. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd successive governments we saw huge investment in education—well, at least that was the public perception. The halls, especially in state funded schools, were built according to a formula by an urban-based construction company that had no ability to leverage local subcontractors. They had much higher contract prices anyway. They were beaten hands-down by the private school sector because they could do both parts to gain a much better bang for their buck. Then there was the universal distribution of the class sets of laptops for a school. There was no budget for repairs, replacements or stolen items. The result was a storeroom filled with outmoded and unrepaired laptops. But, worse still, in order to change the youth unemployment level back in 2010-11 any child up to the age of 17 had to remain at school. I was a teacher trainer at the time and I can tell you the devastating effect that that had in the classes to the teachers, the students who wanted to learn and the students who hated to be there.

Today this so-called matter of importance is trying to present that the Australian government is failing schools. I really feel sad when education is used as a political football, and so do the parents and the teachers. Much has been made of the Gonski model of funding, even to the point of giving the term the status of being a noun—like 'I give a Gonski'. But when you ask them what that actually means you rarely get an answer. The most important element of Australian education is not this word 'Gonski'; it is the concept of needs-based funding where local schools with specific needs gain sufficient funding to give the best opportunities to the greatest number of students—those with a disability, those with cultural disadvantage and those with an economic disadvantage. This is not a system designed for an equal outcome for every child. While in utopia that would be brilliant, we on this side of the House live in the real world.

While we are referring to the real world, I wish the opposition would stop talking about mythical money being taken from education. Labor in its amazing marketing—and I wish I had had that when I was a fudge manufacturer—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were cuts coming out of it. But I only marketed honestly. The Gonski funding model was a proposal of funding for six years. It was not even published in the forward estimates. When Labor was in government the first four years of the plan were well funded, and we have matched it dollar for dollar—in fact, we have actually added to that funding. We all know this. This is a bit like the story of the goose and the golden egg. It is time for us to realise that all we have is the goose—actually we have got lots of them and they are sitting over there.

The funding dollars have so far made incredible differences in our local schools and not a single dollar is to be cut from those allocations that are currently with our schools. There have been programs of literacy, numeracy, coding, robotics and one-on-one teaching. This has made a huge difference and—I must keep repeating this—the current investment will continue, with an extra $73.6 billion in the forward estimates over the next four years. That is a 26.5 per cent increase. It is time to make sure the funding formula place it exactly where it is needed, and it is happening. Kiama Public School, Berry Public School, Terara, Sanctuary Point, Ulladulla and Milton, just to name a few, all have developed a program of improvements for their students and they will continue under the current model. Chucking undirected dollars into a school is not going to change the outcomes. Mentoring, teacher training and respecting the profession of education are the essential first ingredients.

Just stop pushing as many students as possible to university. It is not the panacea for our future. Our tradies and skills are the missing link in our school-to-work system. Support those students who wish to enter a trade. It is no less important than a degree and for some students it is a far better choice. My local teachers are talking about other related issues that affect education. We need to listen to them because their views are straight from the children around them—like the breakfast programs, after-school care and growing their own food in the garden for the canteen. That is what we need to listen to.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has now concluded.