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 cutting $22 billion from schools.

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

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

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

We have seen over the years a series of budgets from this government that have raised a series of thought bubbles—the 15 per cent GST, state income taxes—that have popped almost as quickly as they have been released. Just a few weeks ago the centrepiece of this budget was going to be housing affordability. I am not sure if we are still talking about housing affordability. When it comes to education funding, this is a policy announcement—a week before the budget—that has been completely pulled apart. It has completely unravelled in the course of the week since it was announced. The Minister for Education and Training has claimed that his proposal will increase school funding, improve fairness and be simpler. None of these things are true.

John Dewey said:

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

I have used that line before in this place and in speeches that I have made because I think it is such a beautiful illustration of exactly what it is that we are trying to do with schools funding: we are trying to provide the best possible education for all Australian children. As parents, we know the sort of effort we put into raising money in our own schools. I think I am going to a comedy night at one son's high school this Friday. We have a film night at my daughter's school in a few weeks time. The last election day, I was up till all hours the night before baking cakes for the election cake stall at my youngest son's school. I think that is the experience of parents right across Australia, whichever system they are in and whichever school their children attend. They are gathering together those small amounts—the thousand dollars from a sausage sizzle, cake stall or fete—that make all the difference to resources in their schools.

How can it be okay, then, for those opposite to cut $22 billion from our schools? They say, 'It is not a cut; it is an increase.' It is an increase from Tony Abbott's $30 billion cut from schools.

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

I remind the member—

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

'The member for Warringah'—you are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. The member for Warringah, when he was Prime Minister, presided over the deepest, meanest and most unfair cuts. The member for Warringah was prepared to rip $30 billion from school funding. The fact is that those opposite have not been able to get that through the parliament and have not been able to get states and territories or the Catholic and independent schools to agree to $30 billion of cuts. That they now say, 'We are only cutting $22 billion,' and we are supposed to be grateful for that is so insulting to Australian parents.

Who is it that says it is a $22 billion cut? The Prime Minister acted surprised when I said earlier today it was in their briefing note. Well, here is the briefing note that they handed around in the press conference last week: 'Key funding figures and qualifiers … 30 April agreed costs,' blah, blah, blah. 'Total funding growth … Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' It is, seriously, the third line in the briefing document that they handed out to journalists on the day of the announcement. So any pretence that this is an increase has been shot down in pieces.

Talking about fairness, I think it is extraordinary that those opposite like to say a funding agreement or a funding proposal that rips the guts out of public schools and shocks the Catholic system into the biggest political action we have seen in decades is somehow fair. If it is so fair, why do states and territories, public educators, principals, teachers, P&Cs and Catholic schools all hate it? Why is this proposal completely friendless if it is so fair?

Under Labor's policy, more than 80 per cent of extra funding would have gone to public schools, because they are the schools that educate the greatest number of disadvantaged children. AEU modelling shows that, under the Liberals' policy, less than 50 per cent of funding will go to public schools, compared with the 80 per cent that would have gone there under our proposal. Under our proposal, the majority of schools would have reached the fair funding level, 95 per cent of SRS, or Schooling Resource Standard, by 2019—Victorian schools by 2022. Under those opposite, the vast majority of schools will never get there. A child starting in primary school this year in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory or South Australia will never attend a school that reaches their fair funding level. In fact, only one in seven government schools will reach their full fair funding level by 2027.

It is shocking when you look at the figures for public schools, but equally appalling are the figures for poorer Catholic schools. St Thomas More's Primary School, which we visited yesterday, charge $3,000 a year in fees. They will lose $214,400 a year. That is not my figure; that is the figure they got in the letter from the government with Simon Birmingham's signature on it. That is what they will lose. The Sydney Church of England Grammar School, or Shore, with fees for primary school children of around $25,000, will actually get—get this—an $11½ million increase over the same period. That is fair?

That is what those opposite call fairer and simpler. Really? Simpler? This is 24 different arrangements. It means, for example, that students in the Northern Territory public system will actually get the lowest rate of increase of any public system across Australia. So the kids who are years behind their peers on the national tests and are in tiny, remote schools that are hard to staff are actually going to get the smallest rate of increases for government schools. It means that every state system is getting a different indexation rate, and it also means that funding beyond 2021 is actually unknown. The government are actually asking states and territories and Catholic and independent schools to sign up for an agreement where, for their funding after 2021, the government are saying: 'Uh, I don't know. We'll let you know when it happens.'

The government are saying that funding after 2021 will be indexed on a variable rate based on wage price index—75 per cent of the new figure will be based on the wage price index, with the consumer price index making up the other 25 per cent. What the education minister is saying in his modelling is that wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent that year. What was it last quarter? It was actually negative last quarter. I do not know where Treasury is coming up with these figures, but 3.3 per cent wages growth does not reflect any reality that we have seen in this country any time recently. If the assumption is that it is going to be 3.3 per cent, write that into the agreement. I dare you to. If you think wages growth is going to be 3.3 per cent, write it into the agreement.

The member for Warringah has made very clear what he thinks. Perhaps we should put him on this new panel that is helping David Gonski with his review of what should happen in schools. The member for Warringah said:

I think any move by the Commonwealth to relatively disadvantage independent and Catholic schools and relatively advantage public schools—

It does not do that.

I think is just wrong in principle.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that the funding needs 'further tweaking'. I am looking forward to seeing what 'further tweaking' means. Senator Abetz said:

… genuine parental choice in education is at the heart of Liberal Party values and beliefs and I will be analysing the proposal from that perspective.

I can tell you something: you can only have genuine parent choice when you properly fund public schools as well as Catholic and independent schools. This is cutting funding from public schools and Catholic schools and, at the same time, managing to advantage some of the wealthy schools that the government say they are going to go after.

Last night, I heard the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs, Zed Seselja, say:

My message to the Minister, and I have put this to him personally, is to have another look here in the ACT … I've put my case very forcefully to the Minister and he's listened.

He might have listened, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is going to act in any way. I want to remind those opposite that one of the best and most important investments we can make as legislators, as we do as parents, is an investment in our children's education—all our children's education. It does not matter which system, it does not matter which state, these $22 billion of cuts do the opposite. (Time expired)

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

It is back to school time for Labor. They cannot do the maths. Their comprehension ability is clearly limited, and that has been reinforced by the member for Sydney in her dissertation on the Quality Schools reforms that have been widely supported throughout the sector; their support is widespread. I will come back to all the support and go through it chapter and verse. Our policies, I can assure you, are far from friendless. So Labor need to go back to school. Concentrate on your maths. Concentrate on your comprehension. Concentrate on listening. Concentrate on learning. That would actually be a positive. On top of the issues that they need to concentrate on, I would have to say that what is particularly interesting about the position that Labor have taken on these reforms is that they have set themselves up as the national advocates against consistent funding for schools, against fair funding for schools and against needs-based funding for schools. By their very own actions they have carved out their own special niche in Australian politics, and that is as the anti-education party.

We on this side of the House have spent considerable time looking at and consulting on the much-needed reforms in the school sector. We have put considerable time into making sure that we are in a position to announce some much-needed and widely respected reforms to the education sector. There are two parts to what I would like to speak about today: firstly, the money, which I will cover next; and, secondly, time permitting, the issues of quality and quality education. I have said many times before to the mums and dads of Australia that their children are going to get a much greater quality education under a coalition government than they will ever get under a Labor government.

Let me just turn to the money. This government, the coalition government, is going to commit an additional $18.6 billion for Australia's schools over the next decade, starting from 2018. It is going to be distributed according to a model that is fair, that is needs based and that has transparent funding. Under what is clearly a landmark in school reforms, the Quality Schools reforms, Commonwealth funding for Australian schools is going to grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. This includes more than $2.2 billion in new funding over the first four years to be included in this year's budget, following on from an additional $1.2 billion in last year's budget. It is a record $242.3 billion that will be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 through to 2027, including $81.1 billion over the period 2018 to 2021.

We are going to do a number of things with our reforms, but, critically, we are going to end Labor's 27 special deals with states and territories, unions, and non-government school leaders. Labor traded away the principles of Gonski, and they did that for political expediency. It is very interesting that they do not seem to talk about Gonski very much anymore, but I will come back to that. The changes we are making—our Quality School reforms—are going to ensure that all schools and states transition to an equal Commonwealth share of the resource standard in a decade, unlike the 150 years of inequity that current arrangements would entail.

Let me go through a few more numbers. Let me make clear at the outset that the state governments are the major funders of state schools. The Commonwealth will meet a share of the Gonski recommended school-resourcing standard: 20 per cent for government schools, up from 17 per cent this year, and 80 per cent for non-government schools, up from 77 per cent this year. I need to address the confusion over the Catholic education sector funding, and our very strong support for parental choice. We continue to support parental choice in education, and we do that by funding both government and non-government schools. Under our funding model, in 2018 a student in a government school will receive an average $2,863, growing to $4,453 in 2027; a student in an independent school will receive $7,571, growing to $10,853 in 2027; and a student in a Catholic school will receive $9,166, growing to $12,493 in 2027. These funding figures clearly show our enduring support for the decisions that parents make when choosing the best learning environment for their children.

How much does the Catholic school system receive? Over the next four years, from 2018 to 2021, annual average per-student funding to the Catholic school sector across Australia will grow by 3.7 per cent. The growth will be 3.5 per cent for Victorian Catholic schools, 3.8 per cent for New South Wales Catholic schools, 3.7 per cent for Queensland Catholic schools, 3.8 per cent for South Australian Catholic schools, four per cent for Western Australian Catholic schools, 4.4 per cent for Tasmanian Catholic schools and 5.8 per cent for Northern Territory Catholic schools. ACT Catholic and independent schools will have neutral growth and no cuts over this period. These increases are above both inflation and the projected wage-price increase and will begin to transition each state Catholic sector to an equal footing regarding needs based funding.

I am conscious of the time, and I am well aware that a number of my colleagues will be following me in the debate on today's MPI. They will be very well versed in all the reasons why the Quality Schools reform is actually in the best interest of the students and also of the parents of those students. So what I would like to do is address one of the issues that were raised by the member for Sydney when she said that our policy was friendless. It is not friendless; it actually has a lot of friends. Quite frankly, I might run out of time before I get through even the few that I have here, so let me start—I cannot wait.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

You are right, I am beside myself with excitement over this. David Gonski AC, in a media conference on 2 May 2017—I have to hurry up to make sure I get through a bit of this, let me tell you—said:

I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I am very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

Bill Scales, one of the original Gonski panellists, said on AM in an interview on 3 May:

This is about how to provide the highest quality of education for every student and we shouldn't make that a political issue.

We also have Principal Michael Honey, from Nazareth Catholic College Primary Campus, in an interview on ABC Radio Adelaide, on 3 May:

I think this is a fabulous deal for South Australia … Every school in South Australia will benefit from this, every single one …

And there are more. Shelley Hill from the Australian Parents Council in a media release on 3 May said:

The Australian Parents Council welcomes the announcement by the Prime Minister and Education Minister …

"It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools …"

And there is more. But I will have to leave that to my colleagues. But let me say that I am so proud of what this government has proposed to reform the schools sector in this country.

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

Before I call the member for Scullin, I remind members on both sides that they are out of their places and they are being disorderly. I now call the member for Scullin.

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

The assistant minister has just demonstrated very effectively two things. The first is that 10 minutes can sometimes seem like a very, very long time—and we are sympathetic. But she has also shown herself worthy of promotion, because what a homage she has delivered to Minister Birmingham, the man who can talk around any subject without getting to the nub of the issue—almost as good as the impression given of our Prime Minister by Lawrence Mooney, but perhaps you can get there, Assistant Minister.

The assistant minister made a number of references to the process this government has gone through—and I will come back to them—but what we need to start on here is the nub of this issue, and that is this: in 2014 this government declared war on schools. This government declared war on Australian schools in ripping up the unity ticket that it proclaimed under the member for Sturt and the member for Warringah. They probably do not remember that. It is very clear that the Prime Minister does not remember it. I think he should look at the Hansard of question time today; he will find it very awkward reading. They have declared war on schools funding. Today they come into this place and ask for credit for ending the war that they started. That is the insult. The injury is that, instead of cutting $30 billion, they are cutting $22 billion—nearly $6.5 billion over the forward estimates, and this goes to the crux of it.

Listen to the mutterings from the table. They are using David Gonski as a human shield because they cannot confront the simple fact that what David Gonski did in 2011 was to call for urgent action to deliver needs based funding, and what do we get from this government? The absolute reverse. Let's forget about the obfuscation. Let's forget about the play with numbers. Under this government's proposal it is not only less money; it is guaranteeing that most kids in public schools—in fact 85 per cent—will not be at schools under the schooling resourcing standard in 2027. On this side of the House, education is a priority. On this side of the House, we see investing in quality school education as the key to every child fulfilling their potential—but also to Australia fulfilling our potential. That is something that is missing from those opposite. They are oblivious. The Prime Minister should also reflect not just on the sound and fury of today at question time but on his past commitment to innovation. This is stripping our future, in harness of course with the cruel cuts to higher education which have been persisted with, despite some other sophistry in the form of window-dressing by the minister.

I do think it is worth reflecting on the Prime Minister's performance in question time today: sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. It was very interesting that he started question time talking about fairness. When the pivot came to education there was a word he did not say. What was it?

Opposition members: Fairness.

Because he understands, as do all Australians, that, whatever else this policy is, it is not fair. I will give the Prime Minister some credit. There was a person less convincing than him in question time today. It was the minister who took the Dorothy Dixer. He spoke of harmony and prosperity when it came to education, and he conjured up images of the forgotten people. We, on this side of the House, know the forgotten people are Australian kids. They have been abandoned by this government.

But it is not just the Prime Minister. It is not just Minister Frydenberg. I think we also need to reflect on two other parties that have a role to play in this debate. Senator Hanson-Young appears to be the only person who is buying what this government is selling. The attitude of the Greens to this massive betrayal of equity is tantamount to the weakness of the case that has been put. I was so disappointed the assistant minister did not have more time. I hope that other speakers will go through the stakeholders who are supportive. Every day we will come here and talk about education and the poverty of your government's vision.

I have not had a chance to speak on the failure to support remote and regional students—a matter which should be of interest to the Nationals—and the complete abandonment of students with a disability. One thing is very clear under this government: every Australian does not count when it comes to a schooling education. These are $22 billion worth of cuts that will constrain the future of Australian kids everywhere, and they will constrain all of our futures. The government stands condemned for this policy. (Time expired)

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just point out to the previous speaker, the member for Scullin, who speaks of this policy having no friends, that I can tell him how much negative contact I have had into my office since this policy was announced—none. Zero. I always have a fair idea when government gets a policy wrong, because my phone runs hot, mate. It runs hot. But not on this one. I have been asked about it once at an opening of an Apex shed on Friday night, where the gentleman asking the question was not across all the details. I said: 'Don't worry, mate. We've got your back covered.' And we have. Senator Birmingham is completely on top of the job on this game.

Let me tell you, this is a sad place the Labor Party have brought themselves to. Nothing gets stuck in their craw more than watching a coalition government do the things they wish they could have done themselves. There was a time when they wanted to lower taxes to big businesses, but, no, now they have to go out and say, 'That's a terrible idea.' There was a time when they believed in an independent Fair Work Australia. They said: 'Keep your hands off it, you filthy, stinking Liberals. Don't you touch Fair Work Australia. Don't you tell them what to do. Oh no, now we need to interfere with Fair Work Australia.' There was a time when they supported mining jobs, but now they cannot bring themselves to come up and say, 'We support Adani.' They cannot bring themselves to come up and say, 'We support the steelworkers,' in my electorate in Whyalla who are going to blow the steel for the Carmichael mine in Queensland. And they could not bring themselves to support the naval shipbuilding industry. The whole time they were in government, they could not even order one ship.

Now they cannot bring themselves to support the true Gonski. They cannot bring themselves to support needs-based funding. We remember Julia Gillard going around and trying to cobble her response together—27 different funding agreements. Talk about a national response! It was a national emergency at that time for the Labor Party, and they had to do something. What we have done now, what the minister has done, has brought a true needs-based funding process to Australia. He has not backloaded it. He has not loaded up the front years or loaded up the back years. We are going to have a gentle 10-year progression, so everybody knows exactly where they are heading in the next 12 months. Incidentally, it has been pointed out that we are only guaranteeing the 3.6 per cent increase for the first four years. Well, that is correct, because that is as far as forward estimates go—you remember that story. But then we go to a model which adjusts itself to the increases of expenses of the education sector. It is all very well to say 'Wages mightn't grow that fast.' They might grow faster. It makes sense.

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

Not under your government.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a fair chance, mate. If you are sitting around long enough—I suspect you may not—you might found out that it does. Let me tell you that the correct way to deal with this is to have a mechanism that responds to the conditions of the day. I have had a run through and I have had a look at the schools in Grey—on My Schools—and guess what? Everyone is going to be better off. Every single one of them. No wonder my phone hasn't been running hot. Over this period the government is making a very important statement that we are up to the game for the long haul. We are going to push Commonwealth funding for state government schools, and remember these are state government schools, to 20 per cent—up from 17.6 per cent.

I will point out that in the state of South Australia, at least, 50 per cent of the income of the state government comes from the federal government anyhow, but we are pushing up our contribution to 20 per cent. For the non-government school sector we are going to 80 per cent. These are nice, simple figures. You can call it the 80-20 rule or the 20-80 rule if you like, but it is the rule which will guide government over the next decade. Schools know what they are dealing with. They know that they are going to receive funding on their needs—on the SRS model that the Labor government of the time put in place.

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

Like many parents, I have two sons doing a NAPLAN test today. If they get a maths question that says, 'If a government takes $30 billion away and then gives $22 billion back, is this an increase or a decrease?' I am hoping both my sons are smart enough to work out that that is actually bad.

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

Smarter than Michael Keenan.

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

Smarter than the education minister. What does a $22 billion cut to education mean? It is equivalent to a cut of $2.4 million for every school in Australia. We have had a bit of misinformation flowing from those opposite, so I want to give a little bit of history. We have 27 systems, because we have government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. About 2.5 million kids go to government schools, about 800,000 to Catholic schools and about 550,000 to go independent schools—the Christians, the grammars and so on.

Let us have a look at how they have changed over the last five years. In government schools there has been an increase of 142,749 kids over the last five years. That is a 6.1 per cent increase. What does that mean? That means, if you had 20 kids per class, about 7,137 teachers. I know it is not as simple as that, it is primary and secondary, when we come to calculating money. The reason I say this upfront is these growths of 6.1 per cent in government schools, 4.1 per cent in Catholic schools and 7.1 per cent in independent schools over the last five years indicate that there will always be increases in funding for education. This is a smoke and mirrors operation saying, 'The Prime Minister says we are increasing funding in education.' Guess what? Those 7,137 teachers in the government schools all have to be paid and it obviously costs money to build classrooms to put the kids in, and there are all the other associated costs.

We need to look at the details and look at a bit of history. We are a federation. The Constitution provides that basically the schools, including the non-government schools, are overseen by the states and the money is distributed according to some decisions made by Canberra. If we go back to 1964, we brought in capital funding for schools for the first time, then recurrent funding for school students, and the Australian Schools Commission was set up. Then we look at what John Howard did in 2001 where he brought in the socioeconomic status system. Remember that 48 per cent of the schools covered by that model were 'funding maintained', meaning they sat outside the SES model because they were going to be worse off. The Catholics did not actually join the SES model until 2005, because they have a different mechanism, which basically means the richer parents distribute money to the poorer schools in the Catholic system.

We need to look at the 27 different systems, because educating in Queensland is different to Victoria; educating in country New South Wales is different to inner-city Sydney. We need to understand that. There are different costs associated with primary and secondary students; therefore, we need to be careful about how we distribute our education funds. Gonski, the banker, made it clear that there is a good economic return, a much better economic return on education than giving money to big business. Strip away the morality of the bleeding heart leftie, and you actually get a better economic return by investing in kids; it makes sense to do so. Gonski understood that as did his expert panel.

Where we can do this, we should be investing in schools as much as we can but we have sadly got a government that is giving with one hand and taking away with the other and is going to leave schools worse off. We know that we have to get the best possible return on that investment so that the smartest kids get a chance in life. We cannot let those that are hampered by things like being from the bush or being Indigenous or having English as a second language—all those other things that come into play—be a disadvantage.

We on this side fundamentally get needs based education funding. Those opposite are dressing up a five-year-old wether and calling it a lamb. It is not going to fly at all. We need to keep fighting to make sure that every child in every school has the opportunity to reach their educational potential. We know that when the Prime Minister talks about fairness, he is really just reading from his talking points; he does not fundamentally get needs based education funding because he never understood those schools in his lifetime.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all agree this is quite an outrageous MPI that we are wasting our time on today. I think we all know there are no cuts, none. We are moving away from overfunded, bloated schools—many on the east coast—that have had it too good for too long and giving back to those schools, in particular in Western Australia and South Australia, that those opposite have ignored for too long. We on this side are going to fix the mess.

There is a lot of negativity coming from those on the other side, despite the fact that we here are talking about significant funding in schools. We heard the deputy minister talk previously of a total of $243 billion in total school funding between 2018 and 2027. I do not know about you but that is a big number and I think that is something we should be celebrating. But I think we all know why those opposite are negative. It must infuriate the Labor Party that they failed to deliver a proper needs based education system model. But we on this side, the coalition, are managing to do it, and I dare them not to support these changes. It must infuriate the member for Sydney and her colleagues opposite that the special deals that the Labor Party were able to cut to let some of the schools off the hook and not require hard choices to be made are now going to be made by us on this side; it must stick in their craw.

The Labor Party and the member for Sydney talk about their Gonski model, their needs based funding model. They do not have one. I thought they liked Mr Gonski. Obviously they do not like him anymore. They do not give a Gonski anymore They cut special deals all over the country so they would not need to roll out a needs based funding model. My state of Western Australia was the big loser. It takes a mature, responsible government like us on this side to make the hard decisions and to allocate money to those schools that need it most. We heard previously that there were some 27 special deals cut by those opposite, and they sold out West Australian children. They underfunded the entire state and used that money to cut special deals predominantly on the east coast.

Currently regional West Australian schools receive: middle-of-the-road federal funding if they are a Catholic school—that is pretty good; they are the second-lowest funding level if they are an independent school—not great; and they are the lowest if they are a government school—that is disgraceful, and we are going to fix this mess. Under Western Australia's guidance, when Colin Barnett was running the show, the West Australian government contributed more to public education than any other state in Australia and should be commended for that but it had to step in because the federal government had not contributed what it was required to do, and this is exactly what this package is designed to correct. It is disgraceful that the Labor Party are not getting behind this package, and are instead reverting to their old scare campaign tactics to discredit this government and this fabulous reform.

This model provides a tangible boost to regional education and regional schools, and that is simply a fact. I have a nice list in front of me of some of the schools in my electorate—they are all going to better off, but I just want to give you an example of what 10-year funding will approximately be in my seat of Durack: $5 million, Bruce Rock District High School; $12.4 million, St Lawrence School in Bluff Point, Geraldton; $11.3 million, St Mary's Star of the Sea, Carnarvon; $7.1 million, Kununurra District High School; $6.2 million, Yiramalay/Wesley Studio School, Fitzroy Crossing; $2.7 million, Mount Magnet District High School. It is a very long list, and I will not bore you with them all. They are all really important schools doing great work, and I am very proud that that is the money that we are going to commit to them over the next 10 years.

But we know it is not just money that we should be focused on. We also know that we need to talk about quality education for all Australian children. That is why the second Gonski, Gonski No. 2, will investigate how we can improve our system to ensure that every Australian child gets a better education. With the time I have got left, I want to give a big shout out to the fact we have committed $15 million to expanding the Geraldton Universities Centre model, which is a fantastic model for regional students. It enables young people to stay at home. It alleviates the financial stress on families because young people can actually stay at home and get their education. I hope we can expand that into places like the Goldfields, where my friend, the member for O'Connor is, and the Kimberley and the Pilbara. I am very proud of that.

In closing, I would like to say to my friends opposite: please, vote for helping the communities in rural and remote Western Australia. My Labor colleagues on the other side from Western Australia, I plead with you to please put your support behind this. Vote for needs-based funding— (Time expired)

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

I rise with absolute relish to speak on this MPI today, because, as everybody in this building knows, education is what I was involved in for 27 years before I joined my colleagues in this place. When I rise to talk about this government's supposed new policy, its supposed new funding for education, it is with absolute assurance that I say that you cannot turn a $22 billion cut to schools and education into a positive. You just cannot do it.

Look at what those cuts mean state by state: in New South Wales, that is a $6.9 billion cut; in Victoria, it is a $5.4 billion cut; in Queensland, it is a $4.6 billion cut; in South Australia, it is a $1 billion cut; in WA, it is a $2.4 billion cut; in the ACT, it is a $390 million cut; in the NT, it is a $240 million cut; and in Tassie, it is a $470 million cut. That is what these cuts mean.

I know that those opposite are excited to come into this chamber, because they think they have got a good news story to tell about schools. I understand that for the last four years, every time we mentioned schools, they ran away and hid because they knew they did not have a good story to tell. Now they have listened to our Prime Minister—Prime Minister 2.0—try to reset this debate and reset this conversation with the Australian public. Guys, it is a fizzer. This announcement is an absolute fizzer, and no ready reckoner is going to get you out of that. The cuts are real: the schools know the cuts are real; principals know the cuts are real. They know that in 2011 the review happened. They know that there was an urgency about making sure that we implemented a needs-based model. They know that those opposite have not been able to put the words 'needs-based' into a sentence for four years. They know that those opposite made a promise and then broke that promise. Former Prime Minister Abbott made a promise, and then he walked into this place and broke that promise. And standing next to him was the member for Sturt, remember? 'It's a "Conski",' he kept saying. 'It's a "Conski".' Well this is a 'Conski'.

This is not going to deliver for our schools what was promised when Gonski did that review with the expert panel. It is not going to deliver needs-based funding to schools, and schools and families will know it, because they know who ended the funding wars. The whole of Australia knows who ended the funding wars in education. Her name was Julia Gillard, and it was her life's work to end those funding wars and set us on a plane where the federal government could make a contribution to schools across this country regardless of sector. They know that sector-blind modelling is the only way for this to happen.

Even today in question time, although those opposite managed to use the phrase 'needs based', they did not understand what it means. They do not understand 'sector-blind', because if they did the Catholics would not be up in arms about this. If it were sector blind, there would be nothing to complain about. This is a $22 billion cut from what schools were promised at an election by a Liberal Prime Minister. It is a cut that will be felt across this nation in classrooms everywhere, and it is an absolute disgrace.

When the Prime Minister last week announced that he was going to end the funding wars, I set my clock, just as I set my clock when the then opposition leader said he was on a ticket with us on funding these schools. I set my clock for how long until that little bubble burst, in the same way I did when sitting as a candidate and listening to the member for Warringah make his promise and then break his promise.

You have not just got an issue with people going to the detail in this. Of course, that will happen across the next month. When we go to the detail, and when every principal in this country goes to the detail, they are going to know what they are not getting. You can tell them as much as you like. Go to the ready reckoner and see what you are going to get. They have been here for four years. They know what the promise was. They know what they expect. Their families know what they expect. The sectors know what they expect.

With 12 seconds to go, I just want to reiterate this: when is COAG, and when are you going to talk to the states about this? There are 27 agreements because there are 27 different sectors, and you are about to find out how you have to negotiate with all of them.

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

I relish the opportunity to speak again on this MPI. This is the third education-related MPI that I have spoken on, and it is just as outrageous as the previous ones. There are two very common themes from Labor on education matters of public importance. First, once again they are completely and utterly misleading the Australian public, and quite frankly we are all sick of it. Second, once again there is not one single South Australian on the other side. I would love to see one of my South Australian federal colleagues among the members opposite in this chamber for an education matter of public importance. I am going to come back to this, but there is a very good reason why we do not see them in this chamber: they are embarrassed. They are embarrassed by federal Labor's record on education. They are even more embarrassed by the state Weatherill Labor government's appalling record on education. That is why they are not here. That is why they are not speaking. That is why they will not show their faces in this place during a matter of public importance.

I will come back to this after I explain why the Turnbull government's Quality Schools package is fairer, simpler and more sustainable than the 27 separate deals that Labor struck whilst last in government. Our policy is yet another example of the Turnbull government cleaning up yet another Labor mess. Under the coalition, funding for schools will grow from $17.5 billion in 2017 to a record of $30.6 billion in 2027. Our commitment of $242 billion from 2018 to 2027 means that in just 10 years the Commonwealth will be consistently and fairly funding each and every school in the nation. The Turnbull government is a true friend of the schooling sector. We are the party that sticks by hardworking Australians with school-aged children.

I would like to congratulate my South Australian colleague the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, for the monumental effort he has undertaken to see the education system fixed. Of course, as a South Australian Minister Birmingham knows how bad the situation was in South Australia. The deal that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard struck with her equally incompetent counterpart, South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill, was the worst in the nation. Considering that Ms Gillard was born and raised in South Australia, that really does make it worse in my estimation. Not only did South Australia receive less funding over the forward estimates than it should have, but most of the Gonski money from my home state was backloaded into the unfunded years 5 and 6, outside the funding projections. The Labor Party in South Australia, both state and federal, should hang their heads in shame for what they did to our schools.

But do not take it from me; take it from Mr Michael Honey, Principal of Nazareth Catholic College in Adelaide, who said—last week, I think it was—on radio:

… we've been gutted … of funding in South Australia, the lowest funded sectors in Australia …

…   …   …

… we're looking at a shortfall … of some $200 million per annum at the moment. … this is the deal that was done between Jay and Julia and is still in force today.

That is why there are no Labor members opposite in this chamber—because Labor completely did a raw deal for schools in South Australia.

Well, no longer. We are fixing Labor's mess, as I said, and we are proud to be doing so. In my electorate of Boothby, for example, we are going to see increases to every Catholic, independent and government school in terms of funding. Marion Primary School, a two-minute walk from my office, by 2027 will have received an extra $1.3 million in funding. Warradale Primary School, just down the road, will have received an extra $3.1 million by 2027. Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, where my great-grandmother and my grandmother both taught, will have an extra $4.4 million in funding by 2027. And my brother and sister, who are both teachers in the state school system, and my sister-in-law and brother-in-law will also be teachers who benefit from the Turnbull government's increase in funding.

But the school that I really want to mention is Suneden Special School in my electorate. They have just celebrated their 50th anniversary. Principal Anne Martin and her wonderful teachers do the most incredible work to look after some of our children who are most in need. They are going to see their funding increased from $20,000 per student in 2017 to $54,599 by 2027. This is true needs based funding.

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

With all due respect, the member would not know what true needs based funding is if it hit her in the head. We went through this last time the member for Boothby got up, and we had to point out how much schools in her electorate were going to be worse off. The member for Grey—through you, Deputy Speaker—and the member for Durack say that this is great news for your electorates, when you know how much in need your electorates are. The schools in your electorates deserve better than you are giving them. You said to the Australian people and to people in your electorates that you were going to do one thing, and then you did not. You just totally backflipped.

An honourable member: Not a dollar difference!

'Not a dollar difference' is what you said, but you did not deliver that.

I am the member for Solomon, in Darwin, in the Northern Territory, with great cities like Palmerston. When we look at the Northern Territory we can see that there is lots of need. As a father I obviously want the very best for my children, as all Australian parents do. But unfortunately what we are being served up is not the best for our kids or our schools. You know it is true.

I guess quality education for our kids across Australia under the model that we came up with in the initial Gonski plan meant that, whether you lived in Palmerston in the Northern Territory or Peppimenarti, in the NT, or Point Piper, you had the opportunity to get a great education. Under these $22 billion of cuts—and you can say it all you want—the system that we put in and that we projected over the forward estimates is changed by your side of politics, and there is $22 billion less, which equates to $240 million less for the schools in the Territory. That is a cut. That is less funding going to our schools, and that is simply not acceptable.

I have been talking with the Catholic system, and they are obviously very disappointed. In the Northern Territory, the Catholic education system has been educating Territory kids for over 100 years. In our Bishop Hurley's words, the Catholic schools in the Northern Territory are part of the community. They are not apart from it; they are part of the community.

But you have singled them out with no consultation and changed the formula by which support is given to children with special needs. You have no idea about children growing up in the Territory—some of the communities, some of the special needs cases that we have. For the Catholic system, without any consultation, you have changed the formula so that they are disadvantaged when it comes to kids with special needs getting support. It is atrocious, and the same thing is happening in other jurisdictions like those some members opposite claim to represent.

You are vandalising the future of our country and our kids. I think back to the Territory school that I visited about 10 years ago in a little Aboriginal community called Umbakumba. It was a primary school. I wonder what opportunities those kids have had. Did they have that spark from a teacher or an assistant teacher? I think about the kids with FASD. I think about those kids with not that many opportunities to go on with in life. You are disadvantaging the schools and the school systems that are trying to lift up the horizons of those kids so that they can fully participate in our great country. It is really important to lift up those kids' horizons, and it is simply not going to happen with these cuts to the education budget—the budget that they would have had had we continued with those initial Gonski plans.

The damage that is going to be done will be particularly keenly felt in the Territory, and that is why I am very pleased to be able to represent the parents, the teachers, the principals and the school councils of the Territory who really thought that you said you were going to do something different from this. They really thought that you were going to be good to your words. There has been a lack of consultation and faulty planning, and the children of the Territory will suffer. They deserve better.

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

Before I call the member for O'Connor, I might ask the member for Solomon if he might look at the Hansard of his speech and realise that through that speech he accused me of doing all sorts of things. He needs to address the debate through the chair but not say directly to the other side the term 'you'. When you say 'you', you are referring to the person in the chair.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, to those opposite I say it is good to see some Western Australian members here today: the member for Burt and the member for Brand. I give them great credit for staying here and listening to our point of view and the Western Australian point of view which I and my colleague the member for Durack are about to put.

I go back to what the government is proposing and what we are achieving here: an overall spend of $242 billion on schooling by the Commonwealth over the next 10 years. That is real money in the budget, in the forward estimates and with a plan beyond the forward estimates. That is not what we had when we came to government in 2013. We had a fantasy. When I play monopoly with my kids, I have got to explain to them—particularly the younger ones—that it is not real money. That is what those on the other side need to understand about the original Gonski plan. It was not real money. It was a fantasy.

What the government has done here—and the Minister for Education, Senator Birmingham, has done an outstanding job—is come up with a plan that implements equality across all education sectors and does it with real money. That is the first point that I want to stress here. Now we can talk about what is happening Australia-wide. It is an average increase in funding of 4.1 per cent per student. But what is it for WA, Member for Burt? It is 5.2 per cent. So that is an increase for WA. I am going to be very interested, when we get to the vote, to see whether the Western Australian members in this place on the other side are prepared to vote against a significant increase in funding for Western Australia.

In my electorate of O'Connor—one of those regional electorates that the member for Solomon was talking about—we get a 6.2 per cent increase across all sectors over the period to 2027. Six point two per cent is a significant increase in funding for all school sectors across my electorate. I am particularly pleased to see that the government sector picks up 7.7 per cent—that is in the government school sector. That is a very solid increase in funding for those schools. They often operate in remote areas in difficult conditions and where it is difficult to attract teachers to inland regional areas. I want to give a shout-out to those wonderful schools in my electorate.

In 2016, in the league table—I know that not everyone is a fan of the league tables, but they do give an indication of how individual schools are performing—we had in the top 50 Eastern Goldfields College in Kalgoorlie, Great Southern Grammar in Albany and John Paul College in Kalgoorlie. Two schools from my colleague from Durack's old home town—and indeed I think that John Paul College was formed out of Prendiville College, where the member for Durack went to school. In 2015 the Mount Barker Community College, the Western Australian College of Agriculture Denmark, Esperance Senior High School, Kearnan College in Manjimup and St Joseph's College in Albany all made the top 50. These are fantastic results, given that there are another 16 electorates around Western Australia. That would be an average of three to four schools per electorate in that top cohort—and in 2015 we had five. In 2014, we had Albany Senior High School, Manjimup Senior High School and Eastern Goldfields College all score extremely well in the group.

We have heard that this policy is friendless from those opposite today. I want to read a few quotes. We have already heard from David Gonski. On this side we all give a Gonski, and it would appear that those on the other side no longer give a Gonski. I want quote from Dennis Yarrington from the Australian Primary Principals Association. These are government schools, who would generally not necessarily be all that friendly to a coalition government, but Dennis Yarrington said:

Common funding arrangements across the country will see greater transparency and give principals confidence that what they receive in school funding is fair and equitable.

What more can you say? That is the whole purpose of this funding model. It is good for Western Australia and I await seeing those opposite from Western Australia voting with us for a better deal for WA.

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

The debate has concluded.