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

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

The Government’s $30 billion of cuts to schools hurting Australian children.

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—

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

You really do not have to look further than the line-up on the government's frontbench to know why it is so very important that this country invests in literacy and numeracy. Those geniuses opposite are very happy to give themselves an A+ for managing the economy, but they have added $100 million to net debt; they have tripled the deficit. 'Tripling the deficit', incidentally, for those opposite, means it is one times, two times, three times bigger than it was under Labor. They have tripled the deficit. They have blown out net debt. And, at the very same time, they are cutting funding for our schools in favour of a big-business tax cut.

Properly investing in our schools is vital for every Australian child. At every school I visit, the principals, the teachers, the teachers aides, the parents are telling me the huge difference that the early years of extra funding have made in their schools. My colleagues the members for Lalor, for Moreton, for Bendigo, for Solomon do not need convincing. They are going to tell you about the benefits for their schools. So I am going to focus on a few benefits for the schools of those opposite. Let us take member for Gilmore, for example. Ulladulla high school: $450,000 extra funding; more tutoring for senior students, meaning much better literacy numeracy results meaning—guess what?—much better HSC results. Or let us take the member for Capricornia—Berserker Street State School: $600,000 extra funding in the early years alone, meaning a speech pathologist is employed. We know that kids who start school from a disadvantaged background often need extra help to catch up to their peers. In fact, there is research that shows that by the age of three children who have professional parents have heard 30 million more words than children from disadvantaged backgrounds. So this extra help makes all the difference for a lifetime of learning.

You know, it is not just individual children who benefit. It is our whole Australian economy. We cannot be a high-wealth, high-productivity nation without investing in our schools. In fact, any economist will tell you, the OECD will tell you, the Australia Institute will tell you that when we invest in education we lift living standards for all Australians.

What is the Liberal's plan for school funding? Well, it is a mystery. Early in 2013, the then shadow education minister said that Labor's plan to properly fund schools was a 'conski'. Then, in August 2013, just before the election, he realised, didn't he, that parents, teachers, principals and kids loved the idea that their schools would get extra funding. So then the Liberals said that you could vote Labor, you could vote liberal and there would be not a dollar difference to your school because they were on a unity ticket with Labor on school funding. They had the posters. They had the bunting. When you went out to those election booths on polling day, there it was on a unity ticket with Labor. What did they do at the first opportunity, the 2014 budget? They slashed $30 billion from school funding. And then, again, before the most recent election, we had the Prime Minister, with this extraordinary thought bubble, saying, 'Perhaps the federal government should give up funding public schools altogether.' Do you remember that one?

At the moment, we do not know what their plan is, but we know one thing for certain because it is in black and white: the Liberals still want to cut $30 billion from schools. If you look at page 7 of the budget overview for 2014-15, there is the gap. For those opposite who find it difficult to read graphs, I will tell you: there is a line that goes higher, which is Labor funding, and there is a line that goes lower, which is Liberal funding, and the difference between the high line and the low line is the $30 billion cut—and it is there in black and white.

What worry me most are the cuts to the most disadvantaged schools, because we know those children are struggling, and they do not deserve a lifetime of educational disadvantage because of the $30 billion of cuts from those opposite. Parents are working hard. They are fundraising in their school communities. They are out there on weekends doing the sausage sizzle. They are there on election day selling the homemade cakes. I will tell you, you cannot fundraise $30 billion through sausage sizzles. This is a cut of, on average, $3 million for every school community across Australia. Do people know how many sausage sizzles that is? That is thousands of sausages sizzled to try to make up for the cuts from those opposite. The Liberal's cuts hurt every child in every school right across Australia, because it means fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention, less help with the basics, less of a focus on literacy and numeracy, and less support catching up. They hurt every child.

But while the Liberals are making this $30 billion raid on the future of Australian children, they are prepared to give $50 billion to their big-business mates. That is despite economists telling us that investing in schools gives a better economic return than this tax cut, which ends up, in 20 years, still being a rounding error when it comes to national growth. When I travel around the country, I have not met one parent, one teacher, one principal who has said to me, 'You know what this country really needs? It's a big-business tax giveaway.' This tax giveaway is the equivalent of every man, woman and child in this country giving $2,000 to big business—most of which goes to overseas shareholders and the big banks. If you walked down any street in any electorate in this country and you stopped a random stranger and said, 'Here's $2,000. You can invest it here, giving the banks a tax cut, or you can invested here in your local school,' what would parents say? This is not a mystery.

Of course this $50 billion tax giveaway is welcomed by the CEOs. There is no surprise in that. But I will tell you what the parents of this country want. They want extra teachers in their schools. They want more one-on-one attention for their children. They want more focus on the basics. They want extra support with literacy, numeracy. They want science and coding in their schools. They want more help for children who are struggling. They want more extension activities for kids who are gifted and talented. They want better schools for their children. I ask the mums and dads of Australia: if you had that $2,000, what would you do with it? I know what their answer would be. Our children should not miss out on a decently funded school system—a decently funded school system that those opposite promised. 'Not a dollar difference' is what they said. They said they were on a unity ticket with Labor. Children should not be punished for the mendacity of those opposite and for their desire to help their big-business mates with a tax giveaway.

I was very disappointed to see the New South Wales education minister move along, because there was one conservative voice in this country that was standing up for kids in disadvantaged schools, particularly in regional and rural communities—the communities that the then NSW education minister represented. He was the one who said that the Deputy Prime Minister was out of touch with rural communities because the big problem in rural and regional communities is the educational gap between country and city kids and not whether you could buy another gun. That is what the previous New South Wales education minister said.

Labor will continue to stand up for proper investment in our schools. We will continue to stand up for schools being able to offer coding in the classroom. I cannot tell you how many of the schools I visited have actually had kids from primary school onwards sitting on the floor with their iPads coding a program to make a robot move around the room. Who can tell me that that skill will not be valuable in this century?

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Crucial.

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

And it will be not just valuable but crucial, as my colleague says. In the classrooms I have seen groups of four or five children who were missing out before and who would have drifted through their schooling without ever properly learning to read or write being taken out of class and intensively taught so that they could catch up and go back into the classroom at the same level as their peers and have the confidence of achieving with all of their peers. I can tell you, too, about schools that I have visited where the principal has said to me, 'This extra money has allowed me to help the kids who were not turning up, to go out and make sure that they come to school in the first place, so that they get the birthright of every Australian child, which is a decent education.'

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

I have a message for the mums and dads of Australia, and that very simple message is that your kids will get a better quality education under a coalition government than you will ever get for your kids under a Labor government. The reason for that is that the coalition government is the government of quality education. We know on this side of the House that funding is important, but what you do with that funding is just as, if not more, important than the quantum of the funding. There are numerous examples. Those opposite, if they had read the reports that are available about the standards of our education here in Australia and the comparison with education standards overseas, would know that here in Australia we have a lot of work to do to ensure that our kids can compete internationally and globally—because, despite the record funding that is being injected into education, our standards are, unfortunately, slipping. The time has come when we need to face up to the fact that significant work has to be done focusing on the quality of education here in Australia.

On this side we all know that funding of schools is a responsibility of the state and territory governments and the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth provides about one-third of government funding to schools, with the state and territory governments providing the remainder. I have already said that school funding under this government is at record levels over the forward estimates. We can also demonstrate very clearly that the Commonwealth contribution is outpacing the contributions of the states and the territories. But I am not necessarily here today to have a debate about the quantum of the funding; I am actually here because I am interested in a good-quality outcome in education for our students. As I have indicated before, we know that there is not necessarily a direct link between the quantum of funding and the outcome. That has been demonstrated in a number of studies, particularly when we compare ourselves with many of the overseas countries that have a much lower per capita gross domestic product than Australia and yet are outperforming us. So we know that there are other things that you need—

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

Order! I was waiting for the interjections to settle down. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. I would expect the same respect to be given to the member for McPherson, if we could have a bit of silence, thank you.

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

I maintain that we are the government of quality education and we are going to proceed down that path. We have a plan, which we have already started implementing, to make sure that we regain the rightful position that we should have in international education standards and that we provide the students of Australia with the quality education that they so desperately need but was unable to be delivered under the previous government. We have released the Quality schools, quality outcomes paper, which has five key areas that we are focused on into the future. The first one is boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. We are not just talking about it; we are actually out there doing it because we recognise that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that we are graduating students with high-level STEM skills. At the moment, unfortunately, that is not happening, but, when we released the National Innovation and Science Agenda last year, we made a $64 million contribution to initiatives that will improve the teaching and learning of STEM in the early learning and schools programs. That is going to be of enormous benefit because we know that, whilst we cannot actually define what the jobs of the future will be, 75 per cent of those jobs will require skills in mathematics, engineering, technology and science, and we need to make sure that we are equipping our kids for those jobs of the future.

The second pillar of the Quality schools, quality outcomes paper is improving the quality of teaching and school leadership—doing the things that make a difference. The third one is preparing our students for a globalised world, where they can get a job and compete with other students who are at this stage ahead of them globally. The fourth one is focusing on what matters most and those who need it the most. This means genuine attention to needs. The fifth one is increasing public accountability through improved transparency. So we have a plan, we are well on the way to implementing that plan and it is focused on quality. But we on this side of the House have a holistic approach to education. We do not necessarily compartmentalise education. We look at education as a highway which starts with early childhood education and goes through school, vocational education and higher education.

Let me tell you, if we want to talk about cuts, the biggest cuts that caused the most damage—the ones that brought vocational education to its knees—were those that were made by those on the other side of the House. When Bill Shorten was in the education portfolio, there were nine successive cuts to employer incentives in vocational education of $1.2 billion. Labor has brought vocational education in this country to its knees. What those on the other side did to apprentices we have been unable to recover. I understand that you had the great initiative of holding a summit, and that was going to resolve all of the issues. Well, you are too late, Ethel, because we have already been out there consulting.

We have spent months out there, on the ground, talking to the people that understand and know about vocational education, so that we are informed about the policies of the future that are going to go a long way to fix the problems that Labor created in vocational education when they ripped $1.2 billion out of vocational education and brought it to its knees.

We have been undertaking a program of talking to school students, students who are looking to move into vocational education and mature-age workers. We have been talking to businesses. We have been talking to training providers. We have been talking to the private providers. We have been talking to the TAFE colleges. We have been making sure that we are fully informed about what the issues are in vocational education, because it is important that we understand that vocational education is very much based on the successes the students have as they go through school and go into vocational education—which is, in fact, a destination on its own but is a pathway into higher education. We know that we need to improve and increase the number of commencements in apprenticeships, and we know we need to improve the completion.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They dropped dramatically under you!

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

They dropped dramatically when Labor cut $1.2 billion and brought it to its knees. I do not know why the people on the opposite side fail to recognise the damage they have done to vocational education in this country. They hold themselves up as the gurus, the ones who understand vocational education. Well, start taking a little bit of responsibility for what you actually did, because you have come so close to destroying what could have been a world-class system. You brought it to its knees, and there is so much work that needs to be done now to try to bring the level up, to restore some confidence in the community and to restore some confidence to the employers that we are not going to cut the rug out from underneath them yet again. That is the damage Labor has done, and they did it consistently with nine successive cuts—$1.2 billion from 2011 to 2013. Time and time again—you did not know when to stop. Unfortunately, by the time you had finished with vocational education, it was damaged almost beyond repair. So, those on the other side, face up to a little bit of responsibility, understand what you have done and, if you cannot be productive and if you cannot be part of the solution, then get out of the way and let those that can fix it actually do it—and that is us.

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

I would like to thank the member for MacPherson for that wonderful tirade. It is nice to see, first, that somebody is now in a portfolio who can say the word 'education' without blushing—that would be a start—and, second, that after four years in government, they are actually looking at the issue and talking to people in the TAFE sector—that would be terrific. What a good idea.

There is no more important a topic than school education, and I would just like to bring the House back to the fact that this is an MPI about a $30 billion cut to school education. The distraction from the last speaker might have made the speaker feel better—the speaker, who was speaking, not the Deputy Speaker of course—but I do not think that it quite hit the mark. It is not a surprise that they want to distract away from the $30 billion cuts to school because, when you look at it electorate by electorate, the member for MacPherson's electorate will lose $22 million across the next two years, because of the policies of the government that she represents.

I notice that the member for Deakin has made himself scarce when he saw that I had a list, because the member for Deakin's electorate will lose $21 million across the next two years. I am not surprised they want to dash out of this chamber. In my electorate of Lalor, there are 58 schools, and these cuts will mean $35 million will be cut from our schools across the next two years.

We talk a lot about numbers in this place, and I am going to talk a bit about numbers, but I am going to talk specifically about the schools in my electorate that currently are getting equity funding and are doing fabulous work in improving student outcomes. The state schools in my electorate all have a target that every child will make more than one year's progress in that one year. These are aspirational schools working hard and being supported through needs-based funding by our state government. At Iramoo Primary School, there are 775 kids with $1.1 million extra this year in equity funding to support the great work of that school. At Laverton prep to 12, there are 653 kids with $1.6 million.

If you listen to these numbers, you also get some understanding about the level of disadvantage and why this funding is needed. If I look at a school like Manor Lakes prep to 12—1,800 children on its books with $1.3 million this year to support every child in that school from prep to 12. This is what equity funding looks like, and these schools are getting the outcomes that we want them to get. They are making aspirational targets and they are trying to reach them. They are working together collaboratively. The teachers are working together, experts in their field, building their craft together as they teach and learn, as they work together on the ground with those students, becoming better and better teachers, because they are feeling supported because they have the resources they need.

Then you look across the chamber and think about the things we know they want to do. We have Minister Birmingham—what a joke! He has been running around and has found a cheap option—went to the UK; someone did—a three-minute test for six-year-olds; a reject-shop option. Don't worry about professional teachers doing their work and learning together, just take a cheap three-minute test, wheel out some cheap program and that will fix it. Do you know where he figured this out? In the UK. Why would you go to a country that is below us on the PISA, in every measure, to figure out how to improve education? Why would you go somewhere where we are performing better than they are?

I do not want to trivialise the importance of education in this country—economically and socially. I do not want to suggest that I would support not taking action when our schools are slipping down in those measures. Our schools need support and our families need support. To back up the member for Sydney, I will finish on this: when I was a principal in a primary school in the inner city we could raise $30,000 at a fete—$30,000, not $35 million. (Time expired)

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

This is a matter of public importance debate. This is the time when we throw mud at them and they throw mud at us. I like how it does not take long for the reflex action to kick in, with the shake of the head to say 'Shame, shame'. But there is not shame in this, because we are all concerned about the education of our children, which is a matter of public importance. I noticed when I was handing out how-to-vote cards last year that the Labor Party were saying, 'Health and education; health and education,' and it was interesting to see the look on their faces when we said, 'Health, education, border integrity and lower taxes.' It just pointed out that there is actually a holistic purpose to government.

I have learnt a word today—and I guess we are always learning. Education is about lifelong learning. I learnt the word 'mendacity'. That is a word that I had never heard before.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I stand corrected. I must say that, when it comes to literacy, the Labor Party are better. They are good with their words. So I learnt a word today. But, when it comes to numeracy, I think the coalition probably has one up on you. I have been running a business for a long time, and I know what is a cut and what is a balloon payment that was never funded. I guess what we are talking about today is a balloon payment that was put forward in the forward estimates that was never accounted for and never had allocated funds put against it. What we have done is we have been responsible with our numeracy: in 2016, $16 billion; in 2017, $17 billion; and then $18 billion and $19 billion; and, by 2020, we will be funding $20.2 billion to our state governments for education. We are better at numeracy.

But just because you say something long enough does not make it true. I just want to make the point that money does not always equal outcomes. This is the challenge that a responsible government has to tackle. It has to be: how do we deliver the outcome we want to achieve? The thing that differentiates people on this side of the parliament as opposed to those on the other side is that we realise that throwing money at something does not always fix it. I just want to make that clear. We have focused on how we can deliver that service. We are strengthening the teaching and school leadership. We are developing the essential knowledge and the skills. We are focusing on phonics—the sounding of words.

Opposition members interjecting—

You think it is revolutionary, but this is about delivering an outcome instead of just shovelling money at it. I also might point out that the federal contribution towards education funding is growing faster than the state contribution. And I might also point out that, when you look at the schools that I have, in a third of the state of Victoria, you see that they are largely forgotten by the administration of the state Labor government. They do not even know they are there. Some of the schools are white-ant eaten. This is because the state administration are very poorly administered.

We talked about sausage sizzles. Some of my very, very poor but private funded schools that can get direct funds from the federal government—

Ms Husar interjecting—

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

The member for Lindsay is warned.

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

What they can do with their money is just phenomenal. They manage to stretch it. They manage to get local tradesmen to expand their works. I have to say that there is a lot to be said for better administration of our funds.

There are three things that make a good, educated student. One of those is their home life. If they are not getting fed breakfast and they do not have a good home life, they are not going to be a good student. The second is the culture of the schools. When I go to the schools across my patch I see very dedicated teachers who are doing their best but are largely passed over by the administration of the state Labor government. The third is the quality of the facilities. We must produce citizens, not just graduates. I am impressed with our young Australians. We are committed to them. We are the party that understands numeracy and can deliver the best education system for the future.

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

Before I call the member for Moreton, I remind the member for Deakin and the member for Franklin that there should be only one person speaking at a time—and please show respect.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that protection, Deputy Speaker. Education is the great enabler in our society. In fact, it is the antithesis of those snobs who peddle the 'know your place' sort of line, because education lets you move through society by being given greater opportunity. I do not say that as poor white trash from the bush raised by a single mum; I am actually going to back it up with a quote from some author called Andrew Leigh. In his book Battlers & billionairesa great book—he quotes some Harvard academics who say:

… we should think of inequality as a race between technology and education. In eras when technological advances outpace schooling attainment, the gap between rich and poor widens. But in times when the quantity and quality of education increases, so too does equality.

This very skilled author called Andrew Leigh gives us some examples and says:

Someone who completes 12 years of high school is nearly 20 per cent more likely to have a job than someone who drops out in year 9 … a diploma boosts earnings by nearly 20 per cent, while a bachelor's degree boosts earnings by around 50 per cent.

Education gives people opportunities in life. We saw through that whole Gonski process and all the research that that is the case. In electorates like mine, there are schools that are using this Gonski money incredibly wisely, with school boards, principals and parents coming together to say, 'What will be the greatest good from this money?'

I know that in my electorate of Moreton in the next few years alone the Turnbull government will cut $12 million. I am from country Queensland. I grew up in the electorate of Maranoa. Somewhere like Maranoa would actually lose $33 million. Hinkler, whose member was at the dispatch box before, would lose $23 million. Mallee would lose $33 million.

Why is this of relevance for the National Party? Because the National Party seats benefited the most from Gonski. It was an investment in the bush and in the opportunities that flow from that. 'Why would the Labor Party invest in the bush?' you might hear. Because the Labor Party believes in doing something for the national interest. That is what the Labor Party believes in doing, irrespective of political expediency of rewarding the wealthier schools. That is how the Labor Party invests in education.

Look at the way that that money is being used in Moreton. We see at Sunnybank State High School they have created a dynamic learning environment that is future-focused on students. Corinda State School employs a maths coach to partner with teachers. Kuraby State School is doing Mother's Day and Father's Day stalls, trying to raise money so that they can invest in education. But we can never do enough fundraising. As the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party said, we cannot cook enough sausages or make enough lamingtons.

We must make a wise investment in education. Why? Not just because it makes teachers feel good but because it will boost productivity. It will make the economy hum. It will make us competitive with our Asian neighbours who are not sitting idly by and saying, 'Gee, education is not worth investing in.' We know that our neighbours—those that we compete with—are investing strongly in education.

Schools in Moreton benefited from Gonski. Children in Moreton benefited from that boost in productivity. It is a solid investment in egalitarianism. That is what it is. That is the sort of Australia the Labor Party believes in. By investing in education we let our best and brightest come forward. We cannot afford to let down that poor kid in the bush, that Indigenous kid, that kid whose second language is English or that bright kid who, but for a little bit of help and support, could be our next leader or our next CEO of Apple or whatever.

We must be investing in our brightest people, and we can only do that by investing in our schools appropriately—not by going back on election promises, flip-flopping on election promises and breaking election promises to the Australian people. It was supposed to be a unity ticket. Why was it a unity ticket? Because it made sense. Remember, Gonski was a banker that looked at economic advantage; not at what the teachers' unions wanted. (Time expired)

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that the big issue in education was education quality. When we are being beaten as a nation by Kazakhstan and Slovenia, I would have thought that we need to focus on what we can do to improve performance. If we were being beaten at the cricket by Swaziland and Lesotho, we would not be asking how much funding we were giving to the AIS or to Cricket Australia, we would be asking what we were doing to improve batting performance. Yet what we have heard from my friends opposite is the usual: throw money at the problem, like Jackson Pollock throwing paint at a canvas, just messing things up left, right and centre. We heard so little from members opposite about improving performance. We heard so little from members opposite about improving teaching and school leadership. We heard nothing about developing knowledge and skills. We heard nothing about better evidence and transparency. We heard nothing about parental engagement.

My friend the member for Moreton made a very good point when he said that education is the great enabler. But the truth of what Labor did with the Gonski funding is that they did not actually make it the great enabler funding. Do not trust me on this; trust Labor's own expert that they appointed to the Gonski panel, Ken Boston. He said of Labor's deal, which was implemented by the Leader of the Opposition when he was education minister:

Now, this was not what the Gonski review recommended. It was not sector-blind, needs-based funding. It continued to discriminate between government and non-government schools.

Indeed, under Labor's implemented Gonski funding program some of the arrangements for schools will not attract their theoretical needs-based funding entitlement for more than 100 years. That is hardly needs-based funding and that is hardly an improvement in the quality of our education system at all. That is what we have heard from the Labor Party.

In fact, what we have heard from those opposite today have been a series of scares and class envy. The first great scare we heard from them was that there were these massive cuts to education. The truth is that there are no cuts. School funding under the coalition over the 2014-17 period has been at record levels. Recurrent funding is going from $16 billion in 2016 to $20 billion in 2020. Between 2016 and 2020, total government funding for government schools is growing at 33½ per cent faster than non-government schools. This is one of Labor's great lies.

We also heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the usual class war and class envy stuff about tax cuts for businesses. Can I say that this demonstrates how little Labor knows about dealing with business. Labor would like to say that any business that has a turnover—not a profit—of more than $2 million is a big business. I have to say that we on this side of the House who know something about business—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am addressing a question and a point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this debate—a debate that she raised and an issue that she chose to bring up. Let me say that there is a big difference between turnover and profit. That is what we know. We do not understand why Labor wants to put the small business families who sends their kids to schools in more difficulty, not being able to invest more money in their own school choices, by not giving them a tax cut. People who run small businesses want their kids to go to schools and they want them to have good schools, but they want the performance of those schools to be better quality.

That is where the focus of this government's education policy has been. That is why in our focus we have looked at developing a diagnostic test for year 1 students to ensure that if there are literacy and numeracy problems early on we can address them and do something about them. That is the time to actually engage kids who are having really great difficulties in literacy and numeracy. We have put together initiatives to get and ensure that we maintain the best teachers in the classroom. We are reforming literacy and numeracy through improvements in STEM teaching. We know that the best jobs in the future will be jobs that require students to have stronger STEM knowledge.

Increased funding, as we know, does not mean increased performance. We have had increased funding in the education space for decades and yet the performance is slipping. That is why we need to ensure that the focus is on quality. A quality focused education policy will get us the outcomes we need to improve our performance against other countries. The Leader of the Opposition's corruption of the Gonski process demonstrates he is not fit to run the country. This notion is typical of Labor's approach to public policy. Labor is to public policy what Bernie Madoff is to financial management.

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

Perhaps a bit of a history lesson is required for the new members of the House who were not here in the last parliament when a former education minister, Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt, said, 'No strings attached,' signed a deal with the Liberal government in WA and the Liberal government in the Northern Territory. No strings attached. He took away any accountability for those states to deliver dollar-for-dollar to the schools. We know what the Northern Territorians did to their government which did not invest in schools, and perhaps it is about to happen in WA as well. But it is your side of politics that took away the conditions that the previous government set to ensure that the funding went into the schools and into the programs that would deliver better outcomes.

It is such a coalition-Liberal thing to say that, after you have cut funding, increased funding does not improve standards and increased funding does not improve outcomes. Go to any primary school in Mallee or any primary school in Bendigo and ask those teachers what the needs based equity funding is doing to help those schools and what it is doing to improve numeracy and literacy outcomes in those states. I am not surprised that this government is denying what is going on when you look at the level of cuts. Perhaps some of those opposite need to return to school to understand how to read their own budget. In the member for Mallee's electorate, which he did not address, $33 million was cut from schools in 2017, 2018 and 2019. That kicks in next year. The member for Goldstein is in the chamber. Fifteen million dollars has been cut from his schools next year and the year after. In the member for Higgins' electorate, $12 million was cut from the schools.

The other reason I raise those issues is that there is also something going on in our country between the inner-city wealthy seats and the outer-metropolitan seats and the regional seats. The reason why we need a needs based funding model is to ensure that schools in the most disadvantaged areas, where there is very low household income, get the extra resources that they need. We all know that the seats of Higgins and Goldstein are some of the most wealthy seats we have. Those families have done well. Their capacity and ability to fundraise is higher. But it is a lot harder for a school in my electorate of Bendigo to make up the money that this government has cut.

I have a few examples. Just last week the principal of Bendigo Senior Secondary College spoke out about how the funding cuts this government has made will affect his school. This is not just any secondary school. This is Bendigo Senior Secondary College which has the largest VCE program in the state of Victoria. They also have the largest VET in Schools and apprenticeship and VCAL program in the state of Victoria. Next year, because of this government's cuts, they will lose $1.6 million and the year after $1.9 million. The principal, Dale Pearce, said:

It puts a lot of our programs and a lot of our students at risk ...

For us, we have introduced a study schools program, we run a netschool program to re-engage young people, we would like to be doing more in terms of literacy programs and some enrichment opportunities for our really gifted students.

It creates uncertainty for parents as well, they need to know what we are able to deliver ...

They are not able to deliver the programs they were hoping to. They need to develop their programs in advance and are looking at May. So the government has an opportunity to do the right thing by these students. The NETschool program that I mentioned helps young mums get an education. The badge that I am wearing was made by their arts students as part of their art competition.

It is not just our public schools in Bendigo that will miss out. There are our Catholic schools. We have a large Catholic network within Sandhurst, and those schools will be hit just as hard as our public schools. Our Catholic school system also runs an engagement program, the Doxa program, which helps young people back into education. Four million dollars was cut from our secondary schools and $1.6 million was cut from our senior secondary schools, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dollars from regional schools—schools with fewer than 100 students. The government has a chance to admit their mistake and restore this funding. Give the students a chance.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney had the audacity to mention the word 'mendacity' in this MPI. This MPI, which the opposition titled, 'The government's failure to properly fund schools,' and their repeated statement that the government is cutting funding from schools—and I am sorry to say this word in the chamber—is a lie. The whole basis of Labor's argument on education is fundamentally based on a mistruth. They think that if they can tell a lie over and over and over again it will hopefully somehow resonate with the public. I say: shame on every one of you. At least come into this chamber and tell the truth about what is happening to school funding. The truth is that, under this government, we are at record levels. We are now spending $20 billion more than the previous, Labor government. Funding for education under this coalition government is 25 per cent higher. So do not come into this chamber or run around your electorates and spread the lie that the coalition is cutting funding to education. It is completely and utterly untruthful. It is a lie. I am sorry to say that word in this chamber. What we need to concentrate on is that funding is important, and that is why this coalition government has education funding at record levels. But it is not just about the funding. We have to make sure that we are teaching our kids skills and talents that will do them well once they leave school.

I would like to highlight one thing that is being taught in our schools at the moment, called 'Building Respectful Relationships'. I would like to let the House know that this is being taught in our schools and, if we wonder why we are behind countries like Kazakhstan, could I put to you that this is one of the reasons. This is a role-playing game that girls in year 9 are doing—

Mr Hill interjecting—

They've dropped it. They are given the character parts. For example, they could play the character of Megan. This is a description of what they are told to learn about Megan, the character they play:

Megan is 17, lives in the city and works in a local cafe. She has had 15 sexual partners and describes herself as bisexual. She has casual sex and some short-term partners, including two women. She rarely practises safe sex. She forgets to protect herself because she is often drunk when she has sex.

That is what our children are being taught to role play. Another character they could play is a girl called Grace:

Grace is 16 and in year 10—

And remember, this is a year 9 girl playing this—

She has been sexually active since she was 13.

Mr Hill interjecting—

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

The member for Bruce is warned!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or there is another one called Kelly—this is what a year 9 girl is asked to role play in our schools today, and you wonder why our education is going backwards.

Kelly is 14, in year 9 and is very interested in girls. She is not sure but thinks she might be a lesbian.

Kelly quotes:

I think I'm a lesbian, but I'm not sure because I've also been attracted to a boy. I guess this gives me more options than most.

Members of the opposition laugh at this, and this may very well be funny for blokes drinking down at the pub. But this is what is being taught to year 9 girls in our schools today, and we wonder why we are going backwards. We would like to have as much funding for education as we can.

In this debate the deputy opposition leader talked about the so-called cuts or the changes that we are making to the company tax rate, so I would like to quote a passage from a book written by the shadow Treasurer: Hearts & minds. He actually has a separate chapter here under the heading 'Promoting growth through cutting the company tax', and I will quote exactly from his book. I am sure the other members would like to know what the shadow Treasurer thinks about cutting company tax. He says:

One of the more controversial reforms by Paul Keating as Treasurer was slashing the corporate tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent in 1989 … I was a fresh-faced—

this is the shadow Treasurer—

Labor Party branch member at the time, and I recall the party as a whole being incredulous that a Labor government would cut the tax rate for 'fat-cat companies'. I remember a motion by the Young Labor conference calling for the corporate tax rate to be lifted to 60 per cent to pay for a program for social reform.

Opposition members interjecting—

What actually happened when Keating cut the company tax rate? We know that when he cut the company tax rate from 49 per cent down to 39 per cent, we did not lose one cent of corporate tax. We actually, within four years, were getting 60 per cent more revenue at 39 per cent than we had been at 49 per cent, and that has happened every time throughout our history. (Time expired)

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

I might remind the members on my left that several of them are out of place; they are disorderly. We nearly got through this MPI without anyone leaving. I hope we can keep it that way. The member for Lindsay has already been warned, and I am showing her a lot of leniency.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the member for Hughes is still here, I just want to let you know, mate, that your electorate is going to miss out on $29 million of funding for your schools.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

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

The member for Hughes!

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Boothby, $25 million for your electorate over 2018-19—the schools in your electorate; you could have had for the kids in your school. I do not know why you mob don't just go, 'We don't really care much about education.' I do not know why you do not just tell the truth and just say: 'We don't really prioritise it. We don't really think it's that important.' That would be honest. The fact that you have felt the need during this debate to talk about all other unrelated aspects of policy just shows that you are not serious about it, and you know you are not. It is a disgrace, because you are failing the children of this country and the families of this country. If it is not cuts to family benefits, it is cuts to our schools, which are cuts to our kids' futures, but you guys are probably all right. Your kids—

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

I remind the member for Solomon to address through the chair.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair—the member for Hughes, just remember when you go back to your school that your children might be okay, but there might be other kids from families that are not doing too well, and maybe they could do with a little bit more assistance in the classroom. But you are not particularly worried about that; you are more worried about these other little niche side issues.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

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

The member for Hughes is warned!

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Hughes: you have stood up here and just talked crap, because you obviously do not care about the funding of the kids in your schools.

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

The member for Hughes on a point of order.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Solomon to withdraw his unparliamentary language and I would like to ask him to reflect on his conduct during this debate.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is absolutely shameful that you can come into this House—

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

The member for Solomon did use an unparliamentary term, and I ask him to withdraw.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I missed that one.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know what it is!

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

You know what it is. I am not going to repeat it. I ask you to withdraw.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The education of our kids is important to us. That is why we prioritise it. That is why we do not lie to people about education funding. That is why, in the 2013 election, your leadership said: 'No cuts to education' and 'We're on a unity ticket'. But was that true?—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was not true. It was not true at all.

In my electorate, when I dropped my daughter to start preschool the other day, there were so many kids there and so many parents who just want to make sure that their children get the best education they possibly can, but that takes prioritising. It takes a government to prioritise it, and the leader of the government is showing his lack of leadership on the issue of the education of our kids. He is failing to help families in this country to lift up the horizons of the children of our families. Not only is he cutting their family benefits; he is cutting funding from their schools, and it is nothing other than an absolute disgrace. I am sorry, it is. If you do not like it, change your policy. If you do not like it, put funding back into schools because there are kids who are struggling at school and they need a hand and that extra funding that you are denying them, because you will not prioritise the education of our kids.

You could be helping them with more individual attention, more time with the teacher, so they do not go the wrong way, so they can get a good education, so they can go on to VET, TAFE and university—those opportunities that you have had that some of these kids will not have, particularly kids from lower socioeconomic areas. That is what needs based funding is about. It is simple: you help the kids in the schools who need a hand. You are letting down the children of Australia. I am sorry, there is no other way to say it. You are not prioritising the education of our kids. They are our future. Please, think about it. Think about the education of the children of Australia. It is really important. Our future depends on it. A high-technology future depends on it. It should not just be the GS schools or whatever that get those opportunities; every Australian child should have them.

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

I remind the member for Solomon on how to address members in a debate. Every time he says 'you', he is reflecting on my opinion of things as the person occupying the chair. He might want to understand that.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not my intention.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I address this ridiculous allegation that the government has failed to properly fund public schools, as a proud South Australian I want to start by talking about the most serious failures of government in this nation at the moment in time, which of course are the serious and costly failures of the incompetent South Australian Weatherill Labor government. It is really hard to know where to start on this topic when I am talking about the Weatherill Labor government in South Australia, but let us start with the obvious: Labor cannot keep the lights on in South Australia. They cannot keep our air conditioners on in South Australia. People in South Australia cannot trust Labor to keep the lights on. If you want to talk about failure, let us start right there. It is a huge failure of government.

The South Australian Labor government has also failed to open one of the world's most expensive buildings. We have a $2-plus billion hospital sitting there that has not opened its doors. If you want to talk about failure of government, let us talk about that. We have a $2-plus billion desalination plant that does not produce water for South Australia. It is sitting there virtually mothballed. If you want to talk about failures of government, let us talk about that as well. Locally, in my electorate an issue that is very dear to my heart and to my residents is the failure of the state Labor government to put one dollar of new funding into the Oaklands Crossing. That is yet another Labor government failure.

It is Labor governments not the Turnbull government that have failed schools in South Australia. I am very interested that none of those opposite seem to have read The Advertiser from last Friday. I want to read a few quotes from The Advertiser. On page 3, Friday, 3 February:

The state spending—

The South Australian state Labor government spending—

on public schools fell from $2.450 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014-15 when adjusted for inflation, while federal money increased—

Oh my goodness—

$12 million to $385.5 million.

State funding per public school student dropped from $14,682 to $14,312, while federal funding rose from $2237 to $2307.

So do not talk to us, especially me as a South Australian, about failures in education funding for public schools. It is Labor that have failed in this area. The kicker in this issue in South Australia is this, again from The Advertiser:

The figures come just days after it was revealed the state government gave a $757,500 grant to the group of community organisations to run a campaign against the federal education funding policies.

They should have been running it against themselves. It is absolutely ridiculous. This matter of public importance is a sham, particularly in relation to the state of South Australia but also in relation to overall education funding by the Turnbull coalition government. I would like to congratulate my South Australian colleague the Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, on the work he is doing. We know that funding for Australian schools matters, that is why we are making a record overall investment of $73.9 billion in recurrent funding for schools over the next four years. I notice all of the Labor members opposite have disappeared. They have left the chamber. They cannot handle the truth. Those sitting in the backbench cannot handle the truth.

I want to recap: we are making a record overall investment of $73.9 billion in recurrent funding for schools over the next four years from 2016-17 to 2019-20. Indeed, our funding will grow each and every year from $16.1 billion—that is $16.1 billion, for the Labor members left in the chamber; there are only two of them, the rest have gone—to $20.2 billion by 2020. That is an increase of more than 25 per cent in just four years.

This is a ridiculous allegation that the Labor Party have made. We have not failed to properly fund schools. We have invested record funding in schools. I reiterate: if you want to look at a government that have failed to invest in public schools, you need look no further than your state colleagues in the South Australian Labor Party and ask them what they are planning to do to increase funding for public schools.

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

The time for the debate has expired.