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

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

The need to properly fund Australian schools.

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

I have a favourite quote from John Dewey and it is:

What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children.

I have loved this quote for a long time and I think it is a good motto to take with the shadow ministerial responsibilities that I have at the moment. While I am not the best and wisest parent, I certainly have a very clear idea of the sort of education I want for my own children. I want excellence. I want high expectations of achievement. I want recognition of their individuality. I want teachers who know my children, like them and push them to achieve their best. I want my children to be happy learners who follow their curiosity. I want them to be prepared for the world. I want to futureproof my children. I want them to be prepared for the jobs of the future and for the lifelong learning that those jobs will require. I want them to be prepared for life itself—to know how to collaborate, to communicate, to innovate and to get along with others. I want schools that are well-resourced. I want teachers who are well-trained and who have the time and the support to continuously update their knowledge and their skills. I want principals who are excellent school leaders—who engage the community outside the school and make every teacher, every child, every person working in the school and every parent proud to be part of that school community. I know what I want for my children, and it is what I want for every Australian child no matter where they live and no matter their family background. I want the best for my kids, and I want the best for every Australian child—but that takes extra resources.

We have, right before us at the moment, a choice to make. We have a government that says they want to give a $50 billion tax cut to big business while, at the same time, saying that they have to cut $30 billion from our schools. On average, that is $3 million from every school across Australia. I ask my colleagues: which is a better investment? If you took any person at random, stopped them in the street and said, 'Here's $2,000—you can give it to your local school or you can pass it on as a tax cut to big business knowing that a fair proportion will go to overseas shareholders and knowing that $7.6 billion of the $50 billion is going to the big banks,' what do you think they would say to that? That is the choice that is before us right now. We are making that choice in this parliament.

This week we have heard a lot about rights. We have heard about the right to racist hate speech, the right to be a bigot and why it is important to have that right. But I ask you: what is the more important right? The right of every child to a decent education, the right of children with a disability to be included in their school and get the learning support they need to be active learners and prepared for the world after school, the right of children who are struggling with their reading to be allowed to learn to read, the right of children to learn basic mathematical concepts, the right to learn to write and the right for gifted and talented children to be challenged so they are able to make the most of their gifts—they are the rights that we should be talking about in this parliament. The right of children in remote communities to get the same opportunities as children in the middle of the biggest city in the country, the right of Indigenous kids, kids who are from a non-English-speaking background and kids from small schools to get a decent education as Australian citizens are the rights that this parliament should be focused on this week.

We are joined here today, in the gallery, by a group of very dedicated principals, teachers, parents and advocates for schools. They are Shelby Papadopoulos from Colac Public School; Rebecca Hack and Billie-Jean Ryals from Berserker Street State School; Cathie Dendle, who is a parent and teacher at Biloela State School, and Matt Sahlqvist, the principal; Peter Clifton from Magpie Public School in Ballarat; Kate Mitchell from Box Hill; Rob Shepherd from LeFevre High School; Rae Taggart from Glenelg Primary School; Jenny-Marie Gorman from Darlington Primary School in South Australia—not in New South Wales, I have one of those too;Peter Skinner from George Bass School; Jill Biddington from Rivendell School; Peter Rouse from Canley Vale High School; Phil Seymour and Erin Sinnott, co-principals from Hayes Park Primary School; Chris Presland, the principal from St Clair High School; David Lee, the principal from Atwell Primary School; Scott Mosey, a parent from Roleystone Community College; and representatives from their unions too. They are here because they are determined to fight for decent funding for the children who attend their schools and children like them all over Australia. I heard from these people today. I heard from Jeff Ward from Sanctuary Point Public School in New South Wales who talked about the huge difference Gonski needs based funding had made in his school. He said, 'Before this extra needs based funding, my school was a heads down, hoodies up community.' But the surge in school pride meant that their whole community now has a hoodies off, heads up attitude.

I heard from Kambrya College—a fantastic school where I met the principal and Michelle, a parent, who talked about the difference that individualised learning had made for her daughter with learning difficulties at school, the confidence that it gave her and the fact that she lost her anxiety about school. This is a school that has done such great work. I heard from their school captain as well. He was a kid who was at risk of dropping out and disengaging from school altogether. He was expelled from another school. At this school, because of the specialised help he got, not only did he pass his first maths test but also he became the school captain. That is the difference that extra resourcing, extra one-on-one attention, more teachers and more help with the basics can make.

Today we heard from the Australian Education Union, and their State of Our Schools Survey indicates that principals are saying that, if these $30 billion of cuts proposed by the government proceed, their kids will miss out. Students with a disability or learning difficulties will miss out. Principals are saying that that help with the basics—with reading, writing and maths—will be cut because they cannot afford to give those children the individual support they will need.

The government says that it is all about reform and it is not about money. We agree there should be reform. That is why we put these reforms into our agreements with the states. It was Christopher Pyne, when he was the Minister for Education, who cut the reform agenda. Our reform agenda said we needed to focus on quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, meeting student needs and transparency and accountability. We had those reforms in place. It was those opposite who said: 'We should give up on the reform agenda. It doesn't matter what the states do. They can do whatever they like.' We said that we should have comprehensive literacy and numeracy support for the first four years of school, have school readiness assessments, have ongoing implementation of professional standards for teachers, introduce better improvements for initial teacher education and induction into the classroom, have a new principal performance and development framework and be giving principals greater autonomy in schools. These are just a few of the reforms that we demanded from states in return for extra funding. This is not a question of extra resources versus reforms. This is a question of: can you do these reforms without extra resources? And the answer is, no, you cannot.

A couple of weeks ago I got a message from a fantastic teacher. I have three children in three great schools. They all have great teachers. In my youngest child's year 1 classroom we are using this great app that keeps the parents in touch with what the kids are doing all day. So I get photos and updates of what my son is doing in school. His teacher sent through a note which is a quote from Valerie Welk:

I promise you every day your child will learn something.

Some days they will bring it home in their hands,

some days they will bring it home in their heads,

and some days they will bring it home in their hearts.

That is the sort of education that I want for my children. I want my child to be extended, challenged, loved, treated as an individual and given the support he needs to achieve his best. But it is not just what I want for my child; it is what I want for every child. That is why on this side we will always stand up for needs based funding and we will never accept $30 billion of cuts to our schools.

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

What I would like to do at the start is put some context around this debate and to make a few things abundantly clear. Labor made unfunded, unbudgeted promises in the lead-up to the 2013 election. Those promises remain unfunded under Labor's current policies. The Labor government lost the 2013 election, which was a somewhat predictable outcome given what was happening in the lead-up to the 2013 election. As everyone would recall, Labor actually installed Mr Rudd as the Prime Minister in an effort to save the furniture—that is, to lessen the losses at the 2013 election. In the lead-up to that election when the Labor Party were facing the very real prospect of not being re-elected, they made a series of promises in education that were unfunded. They did that knowing that there was a limited prospect that they would ever have to deliver on those funding promises.

Funding is important. I do not walk away from that at all. But it is important to put some sort of context around what is happening with funding. The Commonwealth overall provides one-third of all school funding. The Commonwealth recurrent funding for schools will continue to grow, year on year, from an estimated $16.1 billion in 2016 to more than $20.2 billion in 2020. Over the last decade, Australian government per-student funding for government schools has been growing faster than state and territory government funding. State governments are actually responsible for 82 per cent of school funding for public schools and the Commonwealth provides the remaining 18 per cent of funding through to public schools. So Commonwealth funding to government schools has been growing faster than state funding to government schools.

I would like to go through the stats for my home state of Queensland. Under the coalition government, from 2014 to 2017, total funding to government schools in Queensland has been $5.2 billion. That is an increase of 47.9 per cent over that period. In fact, Queensland has had the biggest funding increase to government schools in Australia. Funding is important. I think we on this side of the House can demonstrate very clearly that, under the coalition government, funding has increased year on year.

When I last spoke on an MPI on a very similar subject matter I gave a message to the parents here in Australia. My message was very simple—that their kids would get a much better quality education under a coalition government than they would ever get under a Labor government. It was true when I made that statement several weeks ago; it is true now. It will be true next week, next month and next year. In 10 years time, it will be true. I am very confident of what I am saying because we on this side of the House are very focused on achieving a quality outcome in education based on evidence, not knee-jerk responses, and taking on board many, many of the comments from stakeholders that we have heard from not just in the last six months but over a period of years.

We have released a report—the Quality schools, quality outcomes paper. It actually goes through very clearly the five key areas that we are focused on into the future. I will run through those very quickly and then I will come back and talk about them. These are the five key areas that we as a government are focused on.

The first area is boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. The second area is teaching and school leadership.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Mr Littleproud interjecting—

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

We will just have one speaker at a time, thank you. This is very unedifying.

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

I might just start that bit again. As I have said, we released some time ago our report Quality schools, quality outcomes. I am very happy to make available to those opposite a copy of that report so that they can understand what the future of education looks like and what the five key areas are that we as a coalition government are focused on delivering.

The first area is boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance. The second one is teaching and school leadership. The third one is preparing our students for a globalised world. The fourth is focusing on what matters most and those who need it most. And the fifth point is accountability through transparency. I think it would be very hard for anyone who was at all interested in education to dispute that those are, in fact, the five key priority areas that we as a government and a nation should all be focusing on delivering. We want to make sure that we are delivering to our students a quality education today and into the future.

I have explained at length the errors in the assertions that the opposition are making in regards to funding in the future. I do want to take the opportunity today to point out that Labor did not actually just limit its damage in the education sector to schools. It did almost irreparable damage to vocational education in this nation. It is an area in which I have worked for a number of years in various capacities. It is soul destroying for me and for many of those around me—my colleagues on this side of the House—to reflect on the damage that was done to vocational education in the period 2011-12 when there were nine successive cuts to employer incentives totalling $1.2 billion. One point two billion dollars was ripped out of vocational education in 2011-12 when Labor was in government.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have been in government for four years.

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

The member for Bruce!

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

And the Labor Party brought vocational education in this country to its knees, and it is still trying hard to get back up from where the Labor government put it. There was $1.2 billion in cuts—almost irreparable damage to the vocational education sector—and those opposite sit there smugly, thinking that they have the authority to speak about a sector that they brought to its knees. So there was $1.2 billion in cuts to vocational education.

On this side of the House, we understand that vocational education is very important to this country. We train about 4½ million people in vocational education in Australia. We have a significant issue in this country, courtesy of the cuts that Labor made to employer incentives. That is particularly in relation to apprenticeships, where we are still fighting against the downturn that was inflicted on that sector by those cuts to employer incentives—$1.2 billion in cuts.

On this side of the House, we do not see education as isolated areas, whether that is child care, schools, vocational education or higher education. We look at education in its totality, all the way through from early childhood education to schools, vocational education and into higher education. The commitment from this side of the House is to make sure that we work with all of the key stakeholders and that we deliver a quality outcome. We understand that there is not a direct link between the amount of funding and the results that our students are getting at school. We are working hard to target the funding to make sure that our kids get the best education and perform at the highest possible level.

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

When it comes to schools and when it comes to doing his job more generally, Minister Birmingham, who claims to be the Minister for Education in Australia, keeps telling Australians and, in particular, Australian students and their families that the dog ate his homework—not once, not twice, but three times. He has become the past master at dissembling and distracting from his real obligations. But there is some serious competition, and we saw that in the last 10 minutes. It was a long 10 minutes, but I think it could have been had a longer 10 minutes from the assistant minister. She spoke for 10 minutes but did not say a word about needs-based school funding—not a word. But more than that: she did not say a word about the government's plans for schools funding at all, because there is not a plan.

We will come to that in a minute. But we heard a different contribution from the Prime Minister. His expansive sophistry comes short when it comes to schools. He answered a question from the deputy leader on schools funding and the priorities of his government for Australia's future, and he barely got to a minute. That symbolises this government's contempt for: funding education; your obligations to our future; sustaining economic growth; fighting inequality; giving every kid every chance of fulfilling their potential in school; and putting us on a path to stay a high-wage, high-skill economy—something that just does not matter to members opposite.

Minister Birmingham, let us count the ways, and how far, we have fallen since the member for Sturt promised a unity ticket and 'dollar for dollar.' There were three times the dog ate his homework. In September last year, there were breathless drops to the media on needs-based school funding, but was there a bit of paper for the state and territory ministers to consider?

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

No.

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

There was not a bit of paper. He talked to journalists and undermined schools, students and school systems but did not do the courtesy of sharing his agenda with state and territory ministers. So that was September. There was a second time in December, when there was another ministers' meeting and another failure to put anything on the agenda. He asked for an extension of time—perhaps he had not been feeling very well—to April of this year, and now what do we find out? COAG in April, which was going to see this grand vision for our schools funding unveiled, has been put back, too—put back until June.

Before we even get to the substance of this government's agenda when it comes to schools, we see our schools put in an invidious position. They will not be able to plan for next year. Whatever the numbers are, they will not form the basis for schools, school communities, teachers or parents to make informed decisions. This is a fundamental abrogation of responsibility. It is simply unacceptable. It is beyond a joke.

Fundamentally, we know the minister has not handed in his homework work for one reason and one reason alone. It is because he has not done —or maybe he cannot do—this work. The Liberal government, whether under the member for Warringah or under—today—the member for Wentworth, has no plan to fund education and it has no commitment to needs based funding, just a plan for the $30 billion cut. Let's be clear: Labor, on this side of the House, remains committed to supporting Gonski and building on it, delivering on our commitment to make sure that every Australian counts when it comes to education by doing the work to support students with disabilities. This is another shocking broken promise by Minister Birmingham.

Today I was proud to stand with Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition; Tanya Plibersek, the deputy leader and education spokesperson; and with students, teachers and the Australian Education Union down the front of parliament and listen to them talk about their experience of needs based funding in the jurisdictions where needs based funding has flowed. I was so excited to hear the stories because we know it is working. We have got the evidence. The same evidence that David Gonski and his panel worked on, we are now seeing transforming lives.

I see the member for Grey is leaving. We are talking about $52 million going into schools in your electorate, helping very disadvantaged communities. Listen to the stories, members opposite, and do us the decency of talking about needs based funding today.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a frightening exhibition we just witnessed from the member for Sydney and those opposite. It was frightening because they simply cannot add up. The alternative education minister cannot understand that, over the next four years, we will actually increase funding from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion. I am not sure we want to have our next Deputy Prime Minister being unable to actually do the basic maths. How can she lead an education department when she cannot even do the math? What an embarrassment to the people of Australia that the alternative education minister cannot even add up.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a new boy.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I may be new but do you know what? I still learnt to add up when I was out in the real world where I had a job. I employed people and I made a contribution to this country and to the tax income of this country that actually pays for the education in this country, not been part of a union system that actually denigrates business that actually generates the income that goes into our education system.

More frightening are the lies coming from a desperate opposition. We saw it in the election campaign around 'Mediscare'. We now see the desperation to become the next government extends to education. Labor are simply hiding behind a $30 billion cut that they never had the funding for anyway—it was all on the never-never; it was all on the credit card. It was never actually planned for anyway, as you would expect from the Labor Party. Their idea is to simply put money on the table, walk away, dust their hands and say: 'That is how we are going to fix it.' Unfortunately, that is not how you fix education. That is not how you fix health. That is not how you fix the problems of this country. It is about outcomes; it is not just throwing money blindly at problems. It is actually making sure that you target it in a proper and systemic way to ensure that we get the outcomes that we are looking for.

What an emotive speech we got from the member for Sydney—nearly tears. But the reality is those opposite do not pay the bills and they do not make sure that we get the outcomes. It is quite easy to sit there and have an emotive response to all this and think that we are going to change it but, in reality, the member for Sydney will not change a damn thing because she cannot add up. The reality is: if member for Sydney wants to talk about education then she should also be talking, particularly in my state of Queensland, to her friends in the state Labor Party, who are contributing next to nix to the state education system. In fact, we on this side are putting 6.8 per cent year-on-year increase into the Queensland education system but Annastacia Palaszczuk is only able to put in 1.8 per cent yet Labor are there to contribute the most into education. Labor are in charge of education in that state. Right across the country, we are seeing in the figures that our state governments, mostly Labor, put their hands out—do not worry about it; we will just put on the credit card, put it on the federal government because they will have the money. This is where we have to be smart about what we are doing. This is also about making sure that those outcomes are targeted.

I am proud to be part of a coalition government that is undertaking a review into regional and remote education that will look at the outcomes that we want to achieve for those living in remote areas from grade 1 right through so that those kids that live in my electorate are able to undertake an education, have the opportunities—no matter their postcode—and come back and contribute to Maranoa.

Only last week I sat with a young doctor who grew up in Charleville. He went away, got his medicine degree and has come back under our new medical pathways program to be a specialist in St George. Those are the success stories if we do the right things with education. We target our education. We do not spend blindly and put money out the window and just hope that it will happen. Throwing money at a problem does not always work. Outcomes are the solution.

I only have to look at what is happening in my electorate of Maranoa. Longreach State High School is a little high school in the outback. This year 62.5 per cent of the year 12 students had an OP of 1 to 5, not because we threw money at it, not because we thought let's throw millions of dollars at Longreach State High School but because of the passion and the dedication of those educators out there, who were able to use what they had to get the outcomes they were looking for. Throwing more money does not always work, and the proof is in the pudding.

You know what? We come in here and we see the emotive speeches of the member for Sydney and we are all nearly in tears with her. But the reality is: unless you stop the lies, unless we make this a bipartisan approach about outcomes—not throwing a blind amount of money—we are all kidding ourselves and we will not take the next generation with us and get them the best outcomes that they deserve. My children, her children, all our children are our responsibility when we step into this place, not to play blind politics and not put baseless lies out in the electorate that concern parents. We have that responsibility. (Time expired)

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

I rise to join my colleagues today on what has been a fabulous day. We spent time this morning with principals and parents from across country. The member for Maranoa, who is leaving the chamber, who had a lot to say on education ,might want to take this little piece of information back. The electorate of Maranoa will lose $33 million if this government does not come up with a new plan for schools and ditch the plan they currently have, which, of course, is to cut $30 billion from what was promised under Labor.

The school principals we spoke to this morning had pride in their faces as they went to the core of this issue. The core of this issue, as the member for Maranoa rightly points out, is about outcomes. He should have come with us. They were just down the hill; it was not very far to walk. He could have met principals and heard the stories about the outcomes that those schools are achieving, that those schools are getting, because of the resourcing that has been going into those schools. He would have been able to smile with me as I heard about those schools and their great work.

He would have been able to meet Shelby Papadopoulos, the principal of Colac Primary School, and hear her talking about what they are doing with needs based funding at that school. He could have heard from principals in Victoria, from principals in New South Wales and from parents. He could have heard their stories about the improved outcomes in their schools. For his information, in case he does not know—and possibly for the information of parents around the country—there is a website called My School. Those opposite might want to go and look up a few schools on that website. They might want to check what equity funding is going into those schools and the difference it is making to the outcomes for children in those schools.

I went out there today and I talked to Peter Clifton, the principal of Magpie Primary School in Ballarat. Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, if you go to the My School website and see the difference that it has made in that school, you will be stunned. What was all red on My School is now all green. That means that they are working above standard. He told me he has 90 children in that school—it is a small school—and he told me about the work that they have been doing. There is not one child in that school under national standards. The pride in his voice and on his face was extraordinary. There are stories like this right across this country because of needs based funding. There are stories of kids who were destined to always perform below.

When I go to schools in my own electorate, I walk through the door and principals say to me: 'Jo, I want you to come into the office. I want to show you our results. I want to show you the outcomes we're getting by implementing the Gonski ideals, by implementing the reforms that were set by the former Labor government.' Even though Minister Pyne, while he was minister of education, cut those strings to the states and to the sectors, professional principals have not let go of those reforms. They are driving on regardless. They are doing the work on the ground. They came here today to speak to those opposite. They came here today hoping to get a hearing with the people who are holding the purse strings and making the decisions. They came here to talk to Minister Birmingham about education—the man who keeps putting off the decisions and the sharing of the plan, the man who keeps undermining their work with his chats to journalists. His latest balloon was to pull out one tiny piece of data around children's behaviour and then blame children for a lack of outcomes in their schools. They came to be heard. They came to prove that equity funding is making a difference and improving outcomes. But the only audience they got were those who were already convinced. We on this side will stand here day in, day out, determined to deliver this for our schools for the long term so that we can build a better Australia.

The principals and the parents we spoke to today all had stories about the fact that this is working and that they are getting outcomes. I asked the question that I ask all the principals I meet in this role. I asked them when their indicative budgets will be in. Surprise, surprise! They will generally be in before the fourth term starts. When is this minister going to unveil his great plan? It will be when it is too late for those schools to get that money. It is an absolute disgrace. They are letting down every school in this country, regardless of sector. Just as the equity funding sector is blind, they are blind to what schools need, and they are treating every sector with the same disrespect.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to rise and ride the wave of outrage from those opposite, especially on an important issue like education. Education is something that we take very seriously in this chamber and, more generally, in the coalition. Our continued prosperity as Australians, the functioning of our political system, depends on young Australians having equal access to quality education across primary, secondary and tertiary levels. We cannot be any clearer on this. We care about education.

I want to make a few observations before I get started. Firstly, Labor have chosen to frame this debate in obtuse technocratic terms, as if education were all about money. Those opposite are the party of distant bureaucracy; they talk about education in conceptual terms. However, we know education is about young people, young Australians, who are our future with all their hopes, aspirations and dreams. It is not just about money. It is about people. It is about government delivering quality education.

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

$19 million!

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have made this about money, so let me answer that point straight up. Here are some facts. I will start with Australia and then localise it to my own state of Western Australia. The total Commonwealth funding to all schools across Australia will be $73.9 billion as at the 2016-17 MYEFO. Recurrent Commonwealth funding to all schools across Australia will total $73.1 billion as at the 2016-17 MYEFO over the forward estimates period. Based on current estimates, total Commonwealth funding to all schools across WA will increase by $600 million—a 38.2 per cent increase from 2015-16 to 2019-20. We are not cutting funding. Total government funding to government schools in WA will increase by $369.5 million by 2019-20—a 65.6 per cent increase from 2015-16. Total Commonwealth funding to non-government schools in WA will increase by $236 million by 2019-20—a 22.9 per cent increase from 2015-16. So the facts just do not add up for you; they effectively defeat your argument, but I will keep going.

In Canning itself, from 2014-15 to 2016-17 there was an increase in funding to all 52 schools of $382 million. But as I said, quality education is not just about money. It is much more than that. It is a range of factors. It is about parents, it is about children and it is about teachers, working in collaboration to provide quality education to young children. It is about community and commitment from that community.

One thing that is very distinctive about the coalition's approach to education is that we want to empower local communities when it comes to educating their children. That is why we are very supportive of the Independent Public Schools model. While they remain government schools, they are accountable to staff and parents. We know that giving power back to local communities improves educational outcomes. We encourage those on the ground to make important decisions. It puts students and parents first and removes some of those command-and-control features which those opposite really like to have at their fingertips. Australia does not happen in Canberra; it happens in local communities spread out across this continent. The IPS model has been a clear success in Western Australia. There are 445 IPS schools in the state. We believe in the Independent Public Schools model. We believe it is good for kids and for communities and it delivers better educational results. That is why we promised and delivered $70 million back in 2013 to encourage more primary and secondary schools to adopt this model. In the 2016 budget we continued this effort, pledging an additional $19 million to the effort until the end of 2017. So across the board the coalition's education policy provides extensive funding. In fact, funding is currently at record levels, with the budget and forward estimates moving towards $20.2 billion by 2020.

I just want to say a few things about Canning independent public schools. The Serpentine Primary School has just been recognised as an independent public school. South Halls Head Primary School, in the south of my electorate, and Jarrahdale Primary School, in an old timber town which started in 1874, are independent. Every time I go there I admire their community library. It is a reflection of how healthy the relationship between parents, students and teachers is. I think of West Byford Primary School and Pickering Brook Primary School. All these schools are independent. They are not produced through funding but, rather, through that relationship at the community level. (Time expired)

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

Sixty million dollars—that is the gap in schools funding in Tasmania in 2018-19 between the Liberals and Labor. The Liberals will not invest $60 million in Tasmanian schools, but Labor will. Sixty million dollars is real money. It would make a real difference in every Tasmanian school and would benefit every Tasmanian school child. Nationally, the school education funding gap between the Liberals and Labor over the Gonski years is $30 billion. That is a huge gap; it is a nation-changing gap. It is not just a chasm in funding; it is a chasm of priorities.

The Liberals went to the 2013 election with a bipartisan pledge on Gonski. I note the member for Maranoa is still in the chamber, wishing for bipartisanship again. After the last example, maybe we will think twice. A week out from the election they promised they would match Labor's funding in 2013 'dollar for dollar', but after the election that lie was exposed. They abandoned bipartisanship, they abandoned Australian families and they slashed $30 billion from Gonski. You have to wonder about the priorities of a Prime Minister who says $30 billion is too much to spend on schools, but he is happy to spend $50 billion on handouts for corporations and banks. This is a Prime Minister whose priority is bankers, not Australian school children. The priorities of this Prime Minister and this government are wrong, but they are not the priorities of the Australian people.

Australian parents want their children to have the best education this nation can afford. Australian parents want more teachers in schools, more speech pathologists, more computer coding, more languages, more music programs, more numeracy and literacy programs.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More of everything!

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

Well, we would rather spend it on schools than banks, Sunshine!

Labor knows this too. Australian parents know their children will do better in life with a better education, and so does Labor. Australian parents know it is not only the children of the rich who deserve a quality education, and so does Labor. Every child in every school in every community in Australia deserves a quality education that bears no relationship to the wealth or social standing of their parents. Australian parents do not accept the false argument that Gonski is unaffordable. They certainly do not accept it when they see this government so willing to hand $50 billion to corporations and banks—big businesses that are posting record profits.

This morning, the Gonski bus pulled up outside this place, crammed with teachers, parents and education union representatives who have been touring Australia, talking to school communities and gathering Gonski success stories. Many of us on this side of the House went out to talk to the Gonski bus passengers. It is a shame no-one from that side of the House bothered to show up. They would have heard some remarkable stories, like the one about a boy who had been close to dropping out of school but, because of Gonski intervention, he went on to become school captain. Those opposite did not show up for the bus, but I hope they take the time to read the results of a survey released today that highlights the impact of education cuts. Half of all principals report teacher shortages, problems filling vacancies and under-resourcing; 84 per cent of principals—these are the people we entrust with our education—say the $30 billion cuts will see students miss out on help with reading, writing and maths; and 62 per cent say students with a disability or learning difficulty will miss out.

There is light on the horizon. Before Labor lost office in 2013, we implemented the first stages of Gonski and those seeds are growing and starting to bear fruit. After just three years of this extra funding, 90 per cent of principals agree the extra funding is making a significant difference in their schools. The only way we can continue to make a real difference to education in this country is to vote in a Labor government at the next election and make sure that Gonski and needs based funding continue into the long term.

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

I am pleased to say that for once—and there is hope for the future here—speaking on a matter of public importance, I can almost agree with those opposite; almost. I do agree there is a need for state and federal governments to properly fund Australian schools, which is precisely what the Turnbull government is doing, overseen by the very capable Minister for Education and Training, my South Australian colleague Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for those opposite and particularly their state colleagues in my home state of South Australia. I cannot believe that those opposite who do come from my home state of South Australia could possibly support this matter of public importance when they know what their state colleagues from the failed Weatherill Labor government have done to the education sector and particularly the public education sector in my home state. It is the state Labor government and those opposite—not the Turnbull government—that have failed schools in South Australia.

Firstly—and just a broad point; the point that annoys me the most—the South Australian Labor government under Premier Jay Weatherill have failed South Australians time and time again. They have failed on education, on health, on public infrastructure—like the $1.8 billion desal plant that is sitting there mothballed and the world's most expensive hospital at $2.2 billion; it cannot open its doors—and on power. They have absolutely failed on education. On the so-called Gonski scheme they failed South Australian schools in the most spectacular manner. Premier Jay Weatherill signed South Australia up to a deal that would deliver most of the money in years five and six of the program—money that we on this side know was never in the forward estimates of the budget. If those opposite bothered to read the budget papers, they would see that that money did not exist. You never budgeted the money, and that is what matters: what was on paper, what was in writing, what was passed by this parliament. That is right—the Premier of my home state of South Australia signed us up for a deal that delivered almost no money to our schools in South Australia compared to other states. It was all to be delivered in these magical years five and six that were never passed by this parliament. I note that those opposite still have not funded these spending promises.

But it gets worse for public schools in South Australia—and I note that I cannot see any of my Labor South Australian colleagues among those opposite in the chamber right now. As my former employer, The Advertiser, revealed on page 3 on Friday, 3 February:

The state's spending on public schools fell from $2.450 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014/15 when adjusted for inflation, while federal money increased $12 million …

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

So I say to those opposite: do not talk to us—especially to me as a South Australian—about failures in education for schools and, particularly, public schools in my home state. It is Labor who have failed in this area. The additional kicker on this issue in South Australia is that, as reported:

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

You have dropped $750,000 into a campaign to run against us—money that could have been spent so well in public schools in my electorate of Boothby, helping kids gain the education and the skills that they need.

What I would like to do now is congratulate my South Australian colleague and Minister for Education and Training, Simon Birmingham, on the work he is doing in education. We know that funding for Australian schools matters, which is why we are making a record overall investment of $73.9 billion in recurrent funding for schools over the next four years. We know that we do not bear the brunt of the responsibility for state school funding; the states do. State governments are responsible for 82 per cent of school funding; we provide the remaining 18 per cent to public schools. I would note that my electorate of Boothby saw an increase in funding for all its 53 schools of 11 per cent to a total of $364.2 million. These are the sorts of outcomes that the Turnbull government is delivering for schools in my state of South Australia.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear those opposite as they twist and turn and try to change the facts on what has happened in the school funding debate. The member for Boothby, for example, is putting forward an argument that she is quite happy that the schools in her electorate will be getting $25 million less than they would have been if her government had kept the promise that they made to people in the election. Indeed, in South Australia there were posters up at polling booths: 'We will match dollar for dollar what Labor has committed on schools.' The reality is a significant decrease in the funding in her electorate. It is the same story in my own electorate and in electorates all across the country. Our schools across the Illawarra and Southern Highlands will lose $59 million in the next few years alone.

It is just over 30 years since I started my teaching career. I am pleased to have my colleague the member for Lalor here with me, another teacher. The other side like to quite often challenge us on what jobs we have done on this side. I wonder how many teachers spoke in this debate from their side. At the time when I started teaching, an intense, bitter and divisive debate about public versus private school funding played out, election after election, in this country. When we got an agreement around the work done by David Gonski and the panel on how to create a funding model that saw the rights of every child to get the funding they needed to give them the chance and opportunity they deserved to be full citizens in this country, it was sector blind and it was needs based.

For the first time in my generation of teaching, we saw every sector on board. We saw every state on board. But, most importantly, it was not politically divided either. We had the government—the then opposition—making commitments that they were completely on board with this Gonski model and funding program. They made promises at the election. The member for Boothby talks about South Australia; I would draw her attention to her own state colleagues in New South Wales. The New South Wales Liberal state government has been consistently calling for the implementation of the full Gonski model, because they know it is the best program for their schools.

Why are we so passionate about it? It is because resources in schools matter and teaching hours in schools matter, and they do not come free. You have to fund them if you want to deliver the outcomes that that additional targeted resourcing can achieve. Today I picked up a copy of the Getting Results booklet that the Gonski bus campaign, which I attended today, has been distributing. In it there is story after story of schools across the country that are making a real difference with that Gonski money. I want to share details of the two that are in my regional area. I met with Hayes Park principal, Phil Seymour, who talked about the fact that at their school, for the first time ever, they have had the supplementary funds that they needed so that they could utilise programs to address the particular needs of their students. He said, 'Whilst it is early days yet, we are confident that the results will continue and more and more of our students will reach their potential in literacy, funding targeted to what that community school needs.' At Sanctuary Point Public School, a bit further south, Principal Jeff Ward says, 'The nature of our community is such that the school is not able to just work with its kids. We have to work with the whole community if we want to achieve better things our kids. Programs such as the Sanctuary Point Dollars Scheme have had enormous benefits for students, because they see their parents and other members of the community working in the school and they see the positive experience it is for them.' There is story after story about the difference that it makes. Just get behind what you promised before the 2013 election: deliver Gonski and make sure the full program, including the reforms that we put in that your minister, when your first selected, cut the strings on, is put into place. You know it needs to happen. If you visit your schools you will have heard it from them across all sectors. It is time to stop the twisting and turning, trying to rewrite history. You made the promise: deliver it.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is certainly refreshing to be part of another school funding debate, something that happens here nearly every month. Those in the gallery will of course be hearing it for the first time, but this is an age-old divide now, isn't it? One side of parliament argues for more money, regardless of outcomes, and the other side is just desperately seeking what works. Let's look for outcomes and quality, and fund success. At the moment we do not have that. What we have in Australia is the third-highest increased school funding system in the world and it is still not showing results. In fact, Australia is going backwards—backwards on TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA. On all the objective models of how we have performed Australia is stable or falling. Extra money did not prevent that from happening three years ago and it continues today.

When this Gonski bus was put together you would have seen all the principals gathering around and asking, 'Which of us are unionised,' and 97 per cent of hands go up. 'Who wants to get rid of Malcolm Turnbull?' and 100 per cent of hands go up. 'Who wants to get a week of school?' and 100 per cent of hands go up. And you can see them all jumping on the bus. What are the inclusion criteria for jumping on the Gonski bus? Let's start with, 'Raise your hand if you have had some extra funding from Gonski,' and all the hands went up. There is a problem here: 24 principals got a seat on the bus and 14 of those principles had their funding go backwards under Gonski—but they are still down here in Canberra—and that is because 82 per cent of school money comes from the state governments.

Let's get a bit of a perspective on what the Commonwealth and state governments do in education. Over the last 10 years we have seen an increase in school funding of 58 per cent from the Commonwealth government, and state government funding, which funds three quarters of it, has gone up by only 18 per cent. That is 58 against 18. Who is doing the heavy lifting? Let's go to state schools, where they are all fully unionised. I tell you that the highest predictor of poor performance in a school is when you see those green Gonski signs on the fence. They are worried about politics but they are not worried about education. The best predictor of a poor-performing school is the Gonski sign on the fence as you walk in. I will talk more about that later.

When we look at state schools, the Commonwealth has increased funding by 72 per cent over the last 10 years. The state governments, in total, have increased funding by just nine per cent. Let's go to South Australia. The minute they signed the Gonski agreement with the Commonwealth for more money, South Australia reduced their state funding to schools by five times what they should have done as an annual increase. When you put a dollar in from Canberra the states are often pulling a dollar out.

Let me talk about the two schools I have some knowledge of. Of the 24 schools on the Gonski bus two of them were Queensland high schools. Let's talk about those two principles: Upper Coomera having a conversation with Loganlea.

Loganlea principal: 'Hi, how are you going, Upper Coomera?'

Upper Coomera: 'Pretty well. We had a NAPLAN sit rate of 93 per cent.'

Loganlea: 'What was the state average?'

Upper Coomera: '96. The Gonski money did not help us much with that.'

Loganlea: 'How was your OP success rate?'

Upper Coomera: 'Well, we had 60 out of 225 kids get an OP. That is 27 per cent of the school.

Loganlea: 'What is the state average for a school of your wealth?'

Upper Coomera: '35 per cent.'

So Upper Coomera is a 75 per cent producer of OPs compared to an equivalent-wealth school in Queensland—hardly the paragon of virtue who should be down here lecturing us on funding, because Upper Coomera's funding went up very slightly from $11,000 per student to $12,000, but they could not up there OP rate or their NAPLAN attendance rate.

Let's go to Loganlea, which came in at 379th out of 406 state high schools in Queensland. This is not a school to be listened to. What they should have done at Loganlea is jump on a bus and go to Bray Park, to Woodridge or to Beenleigh, right next door, and talk to a genuinely over-performing high school. No, Loganlea, you get an E. You are too busy with your principal down here in Canberra jumping on a bus instead of looking at your own game scores, and they are not good. They are a sea of blood. If you look at their NAPLAN 8 to 10 bands they should have 12 per cent of their kids hitting NAPLAN bands 8 to 10. They are on 10 per cent at the moment. They have 80 per cent of their kids sitting NAPLAN. An equivalent-wealth school is getting 87 and the gold standard should be 92. This is a school so busy fighting about Gonski that they cannot even get their kids to sit down and do a NAPLAN test. Let's look at their OPs. How many OP 1 to 5s? Zero! You could just go up to Shailer Park and ask how they get decent scores in a similar demographic. This is a school with only 17 students out of 80 doing a university OP score, when the average for a school of identical wealth is 27 per cent, not 21 per cent. They proudly report that 59 per cent of their kids get an OP of over 1 to 15, but they are so busy stopping kids getting an OP that the reality is that that figure is actually 47 per cent. We need quality schools way before we need to be debating more about Gonski funding. When you see the sign on the side of a bus or on the side of the school that is a school to be very frightened of in school outcomes. (Time expired)

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

The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.