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

The measures in this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, were they to be enacted, would deepen inequities between students and in our schools. They would also boost inequality more generally, taking Australia backwards. They represent a retreat by this government from taking a national interest in and national responsibility for schools education. I reject this bill, because I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that every child gets every chance to fulfil their potential at school and in life.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, a bill which supports all Australian schools. Those opposite have much to say about this bill and will pretend to be big on education. But, as in all things Labor, we know that yet again they are short on funding.

We need to focus on the positive impact that this bill will have for schools and, importantly, for students throughout Australia—smart coalition policy, just like Australia's smart students, who are benefiting from real reforms. These are reforms that can only be delivered by the coalition government. The coalition is committed to educating Australian students to the highest possible standard.

Equity and fairness are espoused in the teachings at schools right across Australia. So it is fitting that, through this bill, funding is also fair.

The amendments in this bill allow the government to deliver on our Quality Schools package, outlined in the 2017 budget. This bill amends the act to implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, and to deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools and to tie funding to reforms that evidence shows improve students' outcomes.

Importantly, this bill sets Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond, giving certainty to the sector. It applies new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth school funding and transitions schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. This standard equates to 80 per cent for non-government schools and 20 per cent for government schools. This bill also enables regulation which allows the government to withhold, reduce or recoup funding paid to jurisdictions which do not meet the Commonwealth's requirements to at least maintain their student funding levels. Regulation will be applied to both government and non-government schools, and prevents cost-shifting.

Education is a major part of Australia's future. Irrespective of whether your child attends a public or a private school, the world, quite literally, is their oyster. Education is the great enabler.

Between 2018 and 2027, a record $242.3 billion will be invested in total schools recurrent funding. This includes $81.1 billion between 2018 and 2021. Over the next decade, funding will grow, on average, by 94 per cent for government schools and 62 per cent for non-government schools. This growth allows schools to continue to expand successful programs such as specialist teachers or targeted interventions for children falling behind.

The fact remains that the coalition's new schools funding arrangements are fair, transparent, equitable and needs based. Quite simply, students with greater needs will attract higher levels of funding from the Commonwealth. Students at schools like The Glenleighden School in Ryan will be the beneficiaries.

The Australian government is committed to fairness and, as such, will remove the 27 secret and special deals that Labor instigated that currently mean that students with the same needs within the same sector receive different levels of Commonwealth funding. We know that, under Labor's current arrangements, schools take at least 150 years to see equitable allocation of the Commonwealth's contribution to the Schooling Resource Standard. Quite frankly, this is unacceptable and gives good reason for the coalition to resolve Labor's unfair, biased and ill-managed policy.

Members here well know that the first day of a child's school life spells a limitless career. When parents tell their children—who invariably disagree and disregard the comment at the time—that the sky is the limit, it really is. Given that children spend upwards of 12 years in schools and in tertiary studies, it is important that these places of learning are at their peak.

I know we are all very fortunate to have some exceptional schools in our electorates. However, schools in the Ryan electorate consistently rank among the highest of Queensland schools. This was evident in last year's annual Your School report by The Weekend Australian. The Your School report highlights the achievements of students and teachers in schools that scored the very best results in the national literacy and numeracy tests. Many schools in the Ryan electorate featured in the report, and they include: Ironside State School at St Lucia, which was the No. 1 primary school in Queensland; Rainworth State School, Bardon; Fig Tree Pocket State School; Brisbane Montessori School at Fig Tree Pocket; St Ignatius Primary School at Toowong; Bardon State School; Kenmore South State School; Brookfield State School; St Peter's Lutheran College at Indooroopilly; Brisbane Boys' College at Toowong; Indooroopilly State School and Indooroopilly State High School; Ashgrove State School; St Joseph's School, Bardon; Chapel Hill State School; Mater Dei Catholic School at Ashgrove West; Stuartholme; and, of course, Pullenvale State School. Each of these schools should be proud of their achievements. Each teacher, student and parent at these schools should also be delighted that they enjoy this reputation.

These scores do not indicate that the schools not attaining a top rating are less deserving. Just like the sky being the limit for students, those schools that were not on this year's list are all exceptional in their own unique ways. It is not just academic scores that create a successful school and a successful student. There is certainly no one-size-fits-all model. However, there are always a few ingredients that go a long way, including resourcing, talented teachers, a strong sense of community, dedicated students and committed parents. What works for one school may be completely different to another school nearby. Whether a child becomes a successful doctor, builder, business owner, astrophysicist or plumber, they can think back to their schooling days and the investment that they and their school made to help them achieve.

While on the topic of schools in the very scholastic electorate of Ryan, I was privileged last week that the Prime Minister took some time out of his busy schedule to visit a very special school, The Glenleighden School located at Fig Tree Pocket. The Prime Minister saw first-hand that school's unique teaching methods which combine teaching and therapy to prepare children for the next stage of their education. Aptly, The Glenleighden School's motto is helping children to speak and find their voice. The school recognises that children and young people with language impairments often have difficulties with social, emotional and behavioural regulation. It is therefore committed to supporting and protecting all students. I know I speak on behalf of the Prime Minister when I say that this visit was truly humbling. It is through the Quality Schools package that this education facility will be better equipped to support the success and futures of each and every student.

This bill provides a strong foundation for achieving our long-term vision for Australian schools. By providing a funding model that is fair, transparent and needs based, we will improve results of all Australia's school students. In the great words of a local Ryan resident, Springfield Land Corporation CEO Maha Sinnathamby: 'Education is the currency of the future. It cannot be stolen from the owner.' Through decisive coalition policy, we are providing all Australian students with the currency that they need for their futures.

I commend this bill to the House.

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

I rise today to oppose the government's destructive Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. The Prime Minister's sales pitch on this legislation has been the most brazen, shameless attempt to mislead the electorate that we have seen in recent years. But no amount of spin can disguise the fact that the government is preparing to undertake a $22 billion ram raid on Australian school funding. This is the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. We can be sure that this is exactly how much is on the line because it comes from the government's own policy document, which was given, conveniently, to journalists. It reads: 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.5 billion over four years from 2018 to 2021 and $22.3 billion over 10 years from 2018 to 2027.

In my own home state of New South Wales, schools are set to lose $846 million in the next four years alone. Yet, still, the government have been desperately trying to disguise the extent of their cuts, even from the schools themselves. The secretary of the New South Wales education department, Mark Scott, could not have been clearer when he called out the government's fake figures in an email sent to school principals on 11 May. The email referred to funding amounts provided to school principals by the federal government. It reads:

You should not rely on these figures for future planning or budgeting purposes. The calculation of apparent increases to your school also does not take into account increases in teachers' salaries or any other cost growth over the next decades.

This is because Mr Scott knows, just as I do, just as parents in my schools do, that the government's figures and its school funding calculator are deliberately designed to disguise just how deep these cuts will go. Even the New South Wales Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, has called the Turnbull government out on its extraordinary attempts at deception. Mr Stokes has questioned whether the government's figures 'represent reality or not'. In fact, he is so concerned about the impacts of this legislation on my home state that he is currently looking into the legality of the government's plans to trash the existing school funding agreement that the New South Wales government has with the Commonwealth.

This is extraordinary stuff from a Liberal government, and it demonstrates clearly just how much is at risk. It shows how little the Turnbull government understands about the importance of education not only for our children but for our national capacity and indeed our future prosperity. Investment in education is fundamental to increasing productivity and addressing inequality, which we know is now at a 75-year high in Australia. But those opposite clearly do not care about the economic impacts of this decision and they patently do not care about inequality or fairness. When given a choice between properly funding our schools or giving big business a tax cut, they have chosen big business. This is what the school cuts are all about—funding the Prime Minister's corporate tax cuts, which have now blown out to $65 billion.

And we must not forget that the Commonwealth's own figures show that these same tax cuts will take 20 years to deliver even a minuscule one per cent boost to growth. Last year, the Economic Society of Australia and the Monash Business School undertook a pre-election survey of Australia's top economists about the benefits of education investment compared to corporate tax cuts. Of the 31 economists surveyed, two-thirds agreed with the statement 'Australia will receive a bigger economic growth dividend in the long run by spending on education than offering an equivalent amount of money on a tax cut to business'. Only one lone respondent said he was strongly opposed to that statement, and even he stipulated that any benefits of tax cuts would not be particularly large.

That is not exactly what you would call a glowing endorsement of the government's plan. But so blinded are those opposite by the opinion of experts, so desperate are they to help out their big business mates, that they are taking money from our kids to hand over to large corporations. There is no doubt that the school plan on offer today in no way delivers on the government's spin. It is not sector blind, it is not needs based, and it will hit the schools with some of the most disadvantaged students the hardest. The government has cynically appropriated the Gonski brand but none of the Gonski substance. This plan is really a continuation of the long-held agenda of Liberal governments to rip funding from education, especially from our public schools. This government clearly sees education as a line item to be slashed, not an investment in the most important thing we have—our kids and our people.

Those opposite like to pretend that this legislation is sector blind, that it only looks at needs and not whether schools are public or private. But nothing could be further from the truth. This is a plan that prioritises private schools and leaves public schools at the mercy of individual state governments. Under this plan, public schools, which currently educate 80 per cent of Australian students, will receive less than half of the small increase to funding that is on offer.

Not only does this bill slash critical funding of our schools but it also legislates a reduced role for the Commonwealth funding of our state schools into the future. It abolishes the existing requirement for the federal government to increase funding for underresourced schools by at least 4.7 per cent a year and it caps Commonwealth contributions to public schools at 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, the benchmark amount that our schools need.

When the Prime Minister complains about different funding arrangements made with the states under Labor, which we have heard loud and clear, this legislation will in fact make the situation worse. Under the former Labor government's plan, Commonwealth funding was, importantly, linked to and contingent on the states also increasing their funding. We were setting Australia on a path which would ensure that every school got 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. Under Labor, most schools would have reached that standard in two years' time. But this meant that the states had to pull their weight too, and that is only fair. It was essential for the states to contribute so that we could in fact ensure that not only every school but indeed every child in every school had access to a good quality education.

There is no such requirement in Mr Turnbull's legislation. This government is giving public schools 20 per cent, eventually, and abandoning all responsibility for how the rest is funded. Clearly, this means that the quality of education children receive will be determined by the state they live in. Those living in states that believe in and can afford to invest in education will prosper; all students in other states will fall behind.

This is very serious, and no matter what the Prime Minister says about being a fan of needs based funding, his plan will hurt disadvantaged schools and it will hurt kids living in states that cannot or will not contribute more. In doing so, the government's plan will rip opportunity away from students who we know benefit the most from extra support, making an absolute mockery of the Gonski principles the Prime Minister pretends to support.

In contrast, private schools will get 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard through federal funding. This means that by 2026 and 2027 private schools will all be getting 100 per cent of their Schooling Resource Standard funding while public schools will be nowhere near that, even if state governments do maintain their funding in real dollars—which is highly unlikely. In fact, only one-seventh of public schools will have reached the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027.

It is painfully clear that the Prime Minister's school funding plan does not come close to being fair. But we should not really be surprised. After all, this is the man who wanted the federal government to pull out of funding state schools entirely. The government has tried to run the line that because 24 very overfunded schools will receive small cuts that the Prime Minister's plan is somehow fair. This is a shameless red herring, and people should not fall for it. It represents only 24 out of 9,000 schools across the country. Meanwhile, schools across the country are being hung out to dry.

So what does this mean in the real world? It means less funding, it means less individual attention for kids and, inevitably, it means that many kids will fall behind. It means that schools will be less able to provide one-to-one attention for kids who are struggling. It means that literacy and numeracy programs will be cut. It means fewer programs for disadvantaged kids reconnecting with education and it will mean that some enrichment programs in things like STEM, languages and music will not be able to go ahead. It will also mean that fewer extension activities to help gifted and talented students achieve their potential will be taught.

It is a little hard to get your head around just how damaging this government's $22 billion cuts will be on a local level. Fortunately, the New South Wales Teachers Federation has done some excellent work on the precise impacts on schools in New South Wales. I would like to put on the record right now the exact amounts that individual state schools in my electorate of Newcastle stand to lose.

Adamstown Public School will lose $181,632; Belair Public School will lose $309,659; Callaghan College, with three collective campuses, stand to lose $2,753,008; Carrington Public School will lose $85,025; Elermore Vale Public School will lose $308,934; Glendore Public School will lose $424,580; Hamilton North Public School will lose $110,189; Hamilton Public School will lose $191,554; Hamilton South Public School will lose $273,121; Heaton Public School will $183,987; Hunter School of Performing Arts will lose $618,677; Islington Public School will lose $201,769; Jesmond Public School will lose $252,481; Kotara High School will lose $647,171; Kotara School will lose $74,168; Kotara South Public School will lose $186,495; Lambton High School will lose $673,301; Lambton Public School will lose $286,196; Maryland Public School will lose $439,516; Mayfield East Public School will lose $273,460; Mayfield West Public School will lose $333,711; Merewether Heights Public School will lose $195,373; Merewether High School will lose $540,451; Merewether Public School will lose $153,573; Minmi Public School will lose $71,800; New Lambton Heights Infants School will lose $40,206; New Lambton Public School will lose $358,430; New Lambton South Public School will lose $296,235; Newcastle East Public School will lose $145,126; Newcastle High School will lose $726,889; Newcastle Middle School will lose $56,332; Newcastle Senior School will lose $78,388; Plattsburg Public School will lose $452,993; and Shortland Public School will lose $413,751.

That is not the end of it, but that is all that time permits today. These are outrageous cuts to public education.

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

I am particularly pleased to rise to speak today on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, because earlier this week we on this side of the House commemorated the 75th anniversary of Sir Robert Menzies' speech 'The Forgotten People'. A number of us on this side of the House went down to Old Parliament House to an event organised by the Menzies Research Centre to reflect on that speech and on the contribution Sir Robert Menzies made in his long parliamentary career.

Sir Robert Menzies was the first Prime Minister to provide Commonwealth funding for schools when he famously, after the 1963 election, provided Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. Since then there has been a tradition of Commonwealth funding for schools. And it is particularly interesting to be speaking on this bill in the context of that week. In Menzies' speech 75 years ago he reminded people that the class war was a false war. Yet every time I have heard members opposite speak about education funding it is a repeat of the class war. In fact, every time I hear members opposite speak about education funding they spend about half their speeches talking about how bad corporate tax cuts are. Well, unless we have good small businesses employing people in this country, what are we going to do with the graduates from our schools? What are we going to do with the graduates from our universities? There is a continuing class war obsession on the other side. We seek not only to acknowledge that the class war is a false war but also to say that the war in relation to classes is a false war. With this legislation we are stopping the war in relation to classes by providing sector-blind needs based funding.

The coalition is always cleaning up Labor's mess. All over the country we saw the posters, we saw the demos and we heard the campaign slogan 'I give a Gonski'. The government is now giving Labor the chance to give a Gonski, and Labor seems as though they are squibbing that opportunity yet again. They like to say they gave a Gonski, but in government they failed to implement the Gonski review. In government Labor cut a range of asymmetrical deals with different states and different education systems which created a mockery of the so-called needs based funding system. They did different deals with different states. The Leader of the Opposition when he was education minister was so desperate to get anyone to sign up to his deals he would give anything away.

Some schools, as a result of the funding deal the then Leader of the Opposition did, do not attract their needs based funding for over a century. That is not good education policy, that is not needs based funding reform and it is not good education funding reform. Labor's funding arrangements were not only unfair—they do not deliver performance improvements. Here are the words of the Independent respected education policy analyst and former departmental secretary and hand-picked member of Labor's own Gonski review panel, Ken Boston. This is what he said about what Labor implemented:

Now, this was not what the Gonski review recommended.

He went on to say:

… Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation: agreements with some states and not with others, and—among participating states—different agreements and indexation arrangements.

That is not me—this is Labor's own hand-picked expert for the Gonski funding panel, Ken Boston. But now Labor are turning their back on Gonski altogether. In fact, now they have been given a chance to vote for the Gonski needs based funding model and they are choosing to vote against it. They are voting against a policy tradition that on their side of the House dates back to the Whitlam era. Needs based funding as an idea entered the public arena when Gough Whitlam was opposition leader. Labor has been calling for needs based funding for years, and they will need to explain to the Australian people why they will vote to see government schools receive at most 4.7 per cent legislated funding growth compared to the 5.1 per cent average annual increases on offer, why they will vote for schools of identical need to receive different levels of federal funding from the Schooling Resource Standard just because they live in a different state. They are even voting against David Gonski himself. Here is what he said at the announcement of the government's funding plan:

… 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'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

He went on:

… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …

Labor's abandonment of Gonski is part of their tissue of lies about education funding. They accuse the coalition of cutting funding to education but the truth is there are no cuts. The coalition is delivering record and growing funding for schools—a record $242.3 billion is going to be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81.1 billion between 2018 and 2021. Funding for schools will grow from a record $17½ billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. Funding will grow faster than broader economic growth, with total federal funding growing by approximately 75 per cent—I say it again, 75 per cent— over the next 10 years, with funding per student growing at an average of 4.1 per cent per year.

We are going to transition all schools to consistent Commonwealth shares of the Schooling Resource Standard by increasing funding. In the government sector we will increase the funding from an average of 17 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. That is because the funding of government schools has been primarily the responsibility of state governments, but the Commonwealth is now increasing its percentage. In the non-government school space we are increasing the average of 76.8 per cent for non-government schools to 80 per cent in 2027, again reflecting the historical position of the Commonwealth as the main funder of non-government schools. At the national level, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase in real terms. Over 10 years there will be 5.1 per cent increases in the government sector, 3.5 per cent in the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent in the independent sector.

The current national schools arrangements introduced by the previous government are not only unfair but they are not actually driving any improvements in education outcomes. This is despite the increase in funding over a very long period. The government's Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document released in May 2016 proposes a range of practical reforms to reverse Australia's declining performance. That is why I am so pleased to see that part of the package that was put together at the announcement is what is known as Gonski 2.0.

As we know, there have been disappointing results in recent national and international assessments Australia has participated in. Whether it is in science, maths or literacy, we are not doing as well as we used to do. Whether it is in NAPLAN, PISA—the Program for International Student Assessment—or the trends in international mathematics and science study, Australia continues to slip. We are now being beaten by countries with less developed economies, like Kazakhstan and Slovenia.

When we read the original Gonski review it is clear that the review was focused on funding and equity, but it also presaged the need to improve declining school performance. That is why it is so good that David Gonski has agreed to lead a new inquiry into improving the results of Australian students. The Review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools will provide the Turnbull government with advice on how this extra Commonwealth funding should be used by schools to improve student achievement and school performance. David Gonski will be joined by Ken Boston, who was a member of the original Gonski panel. The review will make recommendations on the most effective teaching and learning strategies to reverse declining results and to seek to raise the performance of schools and students. David Gonski will provide his report to the government by the end of the year, ahead of the negotiation of the school reform arrangements with states and territories in the first half of next year. The question for those opposite is: will Labor treat Gonski 2.0 like they have treated the Gonski funding reforms in this bill?

I would like to talk briefly about what this bill will mean for my electorate of Berowra. One of the great assets we have in Berowra is the quality of our schools and the quality education they provide children. When I go around our schools—whether it is the school presentation day or awards night, when I visit classrooms and when I go to the school fairs—I see the enthusiasm and the excellence across all sectors which exists in the schools in my electorate. Total federal funding for all schools in my electorate amounts to $1.12 billion over the next decade, supporting 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and the over 26,000 students that attend Berowra schools. By 2027, the 35 government schools in my electorate will receive more than $514 million in funding. The 12 independent schools will receive more than $467 million in funding. Over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education systems on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate.

I acknowledge that two of the 24 schools which will receive less funding than they have received under previous arrangements are in my electorate. Those schools are Mount St Benedict College at Pennant Hills and Oakhill College at Castle Hill. Following the Minister for Education's announcement I reached out to both of these schools to discuss the changes and to see if there was anything I could do to assist them. I want to thank the principal and the acting principal of those schools and the chairs of the councils for the constructive approach they have adopted.

I am a strong supporter of the schools and school communities in my electorate. I have been advocating to the Minister for Education on behalf of all of Berowra's schools to ensure he understands the needs of our schools. I look forward to continuing to work with our schools as the funding program is implemented.

It is important to outline some of the measures that are contained in this bill. This bill will implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, to deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools and tie funding to reforms that evidence shows will actually improve student outcomes. That is the purpose of the Gonski 2.0 review. We want to set Commonwealth schools funding up for the next 10 years and beyond. We want to apply indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding and transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. As I said before, that is 80 per cent for non-government schools and 20 per cent for government schools.

We want to enable regulation to allow the Commonwealth to withhold, reduce or recoup funding paid to jurisdictions which do not meet the Commonwealth's requirement to at least maintain their per student funding level to both government and non-government schools to prevent cost-shifting—and we have seen cost-shifting under the current arrangements, particularly in South Australia. We want to require cooperation with the implementation of the national policy reforms to lift student outcomes, and we want to improve accountability and transparency of school funding arrangements through ministerial reporting requirements by removing the requirement in the current act for schools to have onerous and prescriptive implementation plans. The bill will also make a range of technical amendments, including to improve the efficient operation of the act.

The government is basing these changes on what is known as the Schooling Resource Standard under the act. The Schooling Resource Standard provides a measure of the relative funding need of schools and is comprised of a base per student funding amount, which is three-quarters of the total funding plus six loadings. Those loadings relate to a range of things, such as disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students with low-English speaking proficiency and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.

For non-government schools the base amount is discounted by the capacity of parents in the school community to financially contribute to the schools' operating costs, and this is calculated using ABS data. Then there are school level loadings for the school's size and location. Those loadings take into account individual student needs, and that is based on the data that is provided to the Commonwealth. The socioeconomic disadvantage loading is based on the socio-educational advantage index, based on the education, occupation and employment of parents, as indicated by a form that those parents complete. Students from the two bottom SEA quartiles attract funding at different rates.

Principals and teachers are able to use the funding provided to their school to best allocate resources and address the needs of their students and more autonomy. We must continue to drive for more autonomy in our schools. It means that they can choose to invest the extra funding in these like speech pathology and special needs teachers according to the particular needs of their school community.

While Commonwealth funding is calculated based on the entitlement of individual schools, schools in government and non-government systems distribute their funding to their member schools according to their own allocation models—and we are not interfering with those allocation models. Every student within a school within their individual circumstances and background will count towards their Schooling Resource Standard.

In conclusion, this bill presents a challenge. It presents a challenge to Labor. Do they support needs-based funding—which has been their tradition since the late sixties? Do they support improving outcomes for school students? With David Gonski's endorsement of the government's proposals, do they still give a Gonski?

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

It is great to follow the member for Berowra in this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. Perhaps I can offer him this: Berowra Public School, losing $230,000; Brooklyn Public School, minus $47,000; Cherrybrook Technology High School, negative $1.1 million; Cheltenham Girl's High School at Epping, $731,000 worse off; Cherrybrook Public School, $559,000 worse off; and then there is Clarke Road School and Cowan Public School. It is a shame the member for Berowra left the chamber.

I rise clearly and firmly to express my disgust and frustration that this government, the Turnbull government, has turned on the children of my electorate of Lindsay and turned on their principals. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has provided data using confidential information from a government information public access request, or GIPA—formerly known as an FOI—via the Department of Education's own figures. The Teachers Federation, through the Department of Education, has provided school-by-school analysis, showing that this government's budget has extraordinarily slashed more than $846 million from New South Wales public schools. This is the money due to be provided over the years 2018-19 under the original Gonski funding agreement, signed by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments.

So extraordinary is the money being ripped out that the New South Wales Liberal Minister for Education, through the Department of Education, wrote to every single school principal in my area, telling the schools:

I am aware the Commonwealth education minister has written to you with an estimate of the funding increases that your school will attract from the latest announcement.

You should not rely on these figures for future planning or budgeting purposes.

And I have the letter here. The full letter goes on to say much more. Of course, I would be happy to table that document, but I am sure that Liberal members opposite have already seen it. It is simply extraordinary that a Liberal state minister and a department secretary would take such a step. But, on a scale and the importance of this decision made by the Prime Minister and this incompetent government, I say it is absolutely the right step.

The Turnbull government are punishing every single public school in my electorate and every single public school in New South Wales, and they know it. Every single one of the 43 public schools in my Western Sydney community of Lindsay is going to lose money—every single student, every single classroom, every single principal, every single teacher and every single family, and that is a disgrace. Every school will lose money, from Principal Justine Blackley's Mulgoa Public School, a gorgeous little school on the outskirts of Lindsay, which will lose $61,000, through to Colyton High School, a big high school, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary and will now have $1.3 million cut from its bottom line. These are students in Western Sydney who need it the most.

I have to admit that, when I learned that every single public school in Lindsay will lose out under this proposal, I actually did not believe it. I did not believe that we would be $23 million worse off. Maybe that was denial. I thought: 'Surely there has been a mistake. Surely the Turnbull government would not be so callous. Surely the Turnbull government has not turned its back on the children of Lindsay, and surely the Turnbull government would not launch an attack on our public schools.' You would think that a bloke as out of touch as this Prime Minister is would at least have the electoral smarts not to do something so callous and so indefensible as to take money from a child's education.

Public schools around this nation are vitally important. They look after seven out of 10 kids with a disability, like Kingswood South Public School in my electorate of Lindsay; seven out of 10 kids from a language background other than English; around eight out of 10 kids from low-income families, many of whom are living in Lindsay; and eight out of 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The Prime Minister talks big when he delivers a speech for our First Australians but cannot back in our First Australians when it comes to giving them a decent, fair and funded education. Taking money from Aboriginal students' education will not help close the gap.

Like many in this chamber—or at least on this side of it—I am a mum and I am a very proud one. I have three beautiful children and all of them are in public schools. I have one in year 3, one in year 5 and one in year 9. I will miss the assembly of my third grader tomorrow, as I will be standing in this place defending the school funding of every nine-year-old in public schools in my electorate. My middle child, who has a disability, has been a direct beneficiary of needs based funding, for which I, as his mother and local member, am so grateful. Just like in all families, each of my children has their own unique learning needs. Each one of them adores their school, their hardworking teachers, their friends and their school community. Each one of them will lose out under the Turnbull government's cuts to education funding.

I say to every single year 12 student and to some students in year 11 at high schools in my area, like Glenmore Park High, Chifley College Dunheved, St Mary's Senior High: when you cast your first ballot at the next federal election, never forget that the Liberal Party abandoned you and your education. Never forget that the Liberal Party ripped more than $23 million out of school funding. Never forget that the Liberals took $23 million that could have gone to new resources, remedial teaching, gifted and talented programs, and targeted tuition for your younger brothers and sisters. Never ever forget that $23 million was taken out of education in the same budget that Malcolm Turnbull gave big business a tax cut worth $65 billion. Never forget. Never forget Liberal governments' priorities and, if you are not a millionaire, always remember that you are not one of them.

This Turnbull government is ripping funding out of every school in Lindsay. Every single one of the 43 public schools in my electorate will have its funding cut, including Claremont Meadows, Kingswood Park and Kingswood, where I completed my first prac as a teacher in training—every child, every parent, every teacher, and every principal. The Turnbull government is going to make life harder for every single one to get ahead, from the foundation of a good, proper and well-funded education—kids in schools like Penrith South.

The Turnbull government is ripping $1.2 million out of Cambridge Park High School, which has one of the highest populations of Indigenous students in Lindsay. Cranebrook High School—not Cranbrook!—which is in a part of my electorate that has a lot of public housing, educates kids from diverse backgrounds. It is a great school, and it is in an area where we need to be giving kids a chance, not taking it away. It is going to lose $1.2 million.

Kingswood High School does not even have air conditioning in its classrooms—in a suburb that reached 45 degrees in January—and it has a school hall that is falling to pieces. The state Liberal government and state member Stuart Ayres should be ashamed! But, while Kingswood families are working their guts out, Kingswood kids are trying their hardest, and they are going to lose $1.1 million.

Principal, Mr Glen Leaf, of Bennet Road Public School in the hardworking suburb of Colyton is going to lose just over $1 million. These are kids from kindy right through to sixth graders losing out. Cambridge Park Public School, where good principal, Cheryl Binns, is doing awesome work with students and kids in their support units, will have over $1 million ripped out.

The parents and students at St Marys North Public School, who have been assisted by long-term, well-respected volunteer and community champion, Jackie Greenow, will be losing over $1 million. The Turnbull government, in its callousness, is even ripping $166,000 from Kurrambee School, which provides a dignified education looking after students with the most special needs; an SSP in my electorate, doing amazing things for families and students—many of whom I am privileged to know. I have watched firsthand the positive impact that the education they are getting is having on their lives. Every school in Lindsay—every school: the Turnbull government is attacking every kid, every parent and every teacher in every public school in Lindsay.

Properly funding public education is at the very core of the fair go. It was a Labor government that commissioned the review of funding for schooling, a Labor government that introduced the Schooling Resource Standard and a Labor government that developed a genuine needs based funding model, guaranteeing more funding to kids to give them the extra help that they require. Over here, on this side of the House, we do not just know how to say 'fair' we know how to do it. 'Fair' is not just a word for us in the English language that you can simply say; it is a word of action. It is something you demonstrate: it is a value and it is measurable. On 'fair': these Liberal Muppets in government would not know how to do it if it slapped them on the forehead!

The Australian Education Act 2013 includes the following objective in law:

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

The Turnbull government's bill proposes removing these words from the act.

I say to the teachers at Penrith High School and Penrith Public School that the Liberal Party does not believe in public education. To the students at York Public School, Jamisontown Public School and Orchard Hills Public School I say that the Liberal Party does not want to guarantee the rights of every single one of your classmates. To the hardworking kids at Oxley Park and Penrith Primary School I say that the Liberal Party does not want you to receive the best education that this nation can provide. To the parents over at Henry Fulton Public School I say that the Liberal Party and the government does not care about your kids.

Jamison High School, which is around the corner from where I live and where principal, Mr Greg Lill, is doing great things, is going to lose $913,000. These are the students who walk to and from school every day past my home. The Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School, is where the principle Mr Max Ford is pushing his students to shine beyond the four walls of the traditional classroom and to seek opportunities to excel in the creative jobs of the future. They are going to miss out on $821,000.

Oxley Park Public School is in a very diverse part of my community in Lindsay. It will be short by $141,000. Over in Emu Plains, across the Nepean River, a cluster of schools will lose more than $1.7 million—Emu Heights, Emu Plains and Leonay. The Glenmore Park Learning Community, where local legend, Mark Geyer, and I championed education and leadership to a group of kids this year, will lose more than $2.2 million combined—Glenmore Park High School, Glenmore Park Public School, Regentville Public School and Surveyors Creek Public School.

Schools servicing families to the north of Lindsay will also lose over $2.2 million: Braddock Public School, Cambridge Gardens Public School, Castlereagh Public School, Henry Fulton Public School, Llandilo Public School and Samuel Terry Public School. The eastern end of the electorate, in Werrington and St Marys, will lose a combined $2 million: Werrington Public School, Werrington County Public School, St Marys Public School, St Marys South Public School and St Marys Senior High School.

The Turnbull government has even attacked the Putland Education and Training Unit, which provides rehabilitation and training services for youngsters coming out of Cobham Juvenile Justice Offenders and who need a second chance. They have almost $200,000 gone. And the Penrith Valley Learning Centre, helping to engage those who need something more targeted than a mainstream school, will lose $100,000.

If those over there do not think that money being spent on education is money well spent then I am not quite sure why they even sought election to this House. More than $23 million dollars has been ripped out of public schools right across the Penrith region. That is one hell of a sausage sizzle fundraising effort for P&Cs and a lot of cakes to bake for bake sales to raise the kind of money to replace it. It will be missing from all of those schools come 2018. I am disgusted and I am frustrated that the Turnbull government has short-changed the children of my electorate of Lindsay, short-changed their parents and short-changed their very, very dedicated and hardworking teachers and principals at every public school in Lindsay—every public school. The Turnbull government is attacking every kid in every public school, and they have the audacity to come in here and to shove their faces on the TV news to defend their disgrace of a policy, champion their budget and wave around a $65 billion dollar tax cut for big business like they are changing the world. They are giving their big business mates tax cut on the backs of the kids of Lindsay. Tax cuts for big businesses have never, ever changed the world.

If we look at history, we will find the thing that has changed the world is education. History will judge this government and their decisions quite poorly. I believe that everyone needs a chance and a champion, and under the Liberals no child in a public school in Lindsay will be given a chance. They absolutely do not have a champion in this government, who choose to champion big business tax cuts over their education.

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

I am really pleased to be speaking on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 today, because it is going to deliver wonderful funding increases for all of the schools in my electorate of Boothby. I have some 24,852 students in Boothby, spread over 52 schools, and they are all going to benefit from this unprecedented investment in our education system and our school system. The sector-blind needs based funding that this bill makes law will see my schools receive an increase of $269 million over the next 10 years.

The Quality Schools package means fairer, simpler and more sustainable funding for our schools. This legislation is not just throwing money at a problem; it is proposing a solution. The task of achieving better outcomes for our children demands an ambitious reform agenda to see the increase in funding finally align with an increase in results. It simply does not cut it that while the Commonwealth has been providing record amounts to students and schools, year on year, we have seen results go backwards. We cannot prepare our children for the jobs of the future if they are not significantly beating international benchmarks for maths and science—and in English and the arts, for that matter. Similarly, in a global and competitive world there will not be future jobs for our children if skilled labour from other countries proves to be more educated and more highly qualified from an increasingly younger age. That is why this bill will strengthen teaching and school leadership to ensure our best teachers stay in the job and build on their skills. It will develop essential knowledge and skills for a rapidly changing world, improve student participation as well as parental engagement—because education is not just the responsibility of teachers but also the responsibility of parents and families—and it will also ensure we are measuring performance accurately and increasing transparency so issues can be identified and rectified early on.

I am pleased to be part of a government that is not reacting to symptoms, but one that is addressing the very real issues in education. Our model is what the Labor Party should have put forward while in government. Instead, as we know, we got 27 separate backroom deals done on the fly, which did not even cover all of Australia. It was particularly bad in my home state of South Australia. These are deals that would have seen inequitable funding models in place, some for up to 150 years.

The coalition's sector-blind and needs based model will see uniform funding delivered to schools across the country. However, the needs based component of the package is particularly important, as students with a disability will see an average 5.2 per cent increase each year. In my electorate I have a wonderful school, Suneden Special School, that looks after our children who have some of the highest needs in the state. They will see a funding increase of around 13 per cent this financial year, as we undo the terrible deal that state Labor Premier Jay Weatherill struck with his Labor colleague, the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. This year, Suneden Special School will receive an extra $183,000 to be shared across their 68 students. Over the course of the next 10 years, their funding will increase from $20,000 per student to $54,600 per student by 2027. This is a significant increase. As I said, it is going to help some of our students who have the highest needs.

Our reforms will also rectify the interstate inconsistencies regarding the definition of students with a disability by providing a national definition. Our education minister, Simon Birmingham, has form when it comes to addressing inequities between the states. He has a great track record. I will speak more on that in a moment.

I am proud to be standing here in support of this bill that will more than double their funding that these students will receive, helping them get more out of their education and preparing them for the future. Just as I am proud of my government, I am so disappointed by those opposite. I am intrigued to see how the next Labor candidate that may face me in the seat of Boothby will explain to parents of students in my electorate how Labor opposed our increases in education funding. Likewise, I would like to see how they plan to explain to parents how our current late state Labor government in South Australia not only signed the worst funding deal for schools in the nation but presided over a decrease in funding for our schools in real terms. I am not surprised that the minister for education took to cleaning up this school funding debacle with such enthusiasm. As a fellow South Australian, he understands just how ripped off our schools in South Australia were by the dodgy Weatherill-Gillard education deal.

It is not just about the terrible deal that was done between the Premier and former Prime Minister; it is also about what the state Labor government is doing to schools, as was revealed on 3 February by my former employer, The Advertiser, in an article. I am just going to read a few quotes because I think it is important to remind people of Labor's terrible track record at both the state and the federal levels in terms of education funding. I quote from The Advertiser article:

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 …

So state government funding reduced for public schools and federal government funding increased.

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

This is the sort of track record that state Labor has on education in my home state of South Australia.

We found out at the time, as well, that the state government had not only decreased funding for public schools but given a $757,500 grant to a group of community organisations to run a campaign against federal education funding policies. So state Labor not only reduced funding for our public schools in South Australia but also wasted $750,000 or so of taxpayers' money to run a campaign against federal education funding policies. This is money, obviously, that could have been, and should have been, spent helping to educate children in my home state. Instead, in typical Labor fashion it was used for political purposes.

I will reflect a little further again on the current model that Premier Weatherill and former Prime Minister Gillard signed South Australia up to. Most of the funding was to flow to South Australian schools in the notorious fifth and sixth years of the Labor deal. So that was money that was never budgeted and schools in my electorate have never seen. To add to this, over the past few years the South Australian Labor government has seen negative growth in real terms of minus 2.5 per cent. This is where we really begin to understand which party actually cares about quality schools in South Australia—and that is certainly not the Labor Party.

I want to read a quote from Mr Michael Honey, the principal of Nazareth Catholic College in Adelaide. He was on radio immediately after this excellent announcement—of what the minister for education and our government are doing for students in South Australia—had been made. Mr Honey said:

… 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.

These are the sorts of things that we are going to be fixing. So, thanks to this bill, South Australian schools will enjoy funding increases above the national average, at 4.4 per cent, providing a desperately needed boost to our school system.

This increase, in the context of the South Australian deal, and the fact that this legislation is not receiving support from those opposite, exposes the Labor Party as the hypocrites that they are, for saying that there are cuts to education when indeed there are none under our government. It also exposes them for the political opportunists that they are, giving more weight to political expediency than to quality education. I have faith, though, that the education sector, the teachers, the students and their parents, and the Australian people, will see through Labor's continued misinformation. In fact, I think that they probably already have, but you do not need to take my word for it; instead take it from Phillip Spratt from the Australian Council of State School Organisations, who said:

The move to reduce the twenty-seven funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors.

Dennis Yarrington, the president of the Australian Primary Principals Association—who I will talk a bit about in a little while, because we had a very successful function with him here at Parliament House last night—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.

And we have another quote from Martin Hanscamp of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, who remarked:

… we'd like to loudly applaud a policy approach that is good for all schools and sectors and, as has been said, provides … the opportunity to put an end to the ridiculous school funding wars.

These are the sorts of reactions, comments and views of people who are in the sector and are obviously very supportive of the bill and the work that the Minister for Education is doing.

As I said, I was with Mr Dennis Yarrington, the president of the Australian Primary Principals Association, and many of his colleagues last night because they had their annual conference here in Canberra, and we also relaunched the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education last night. So I am delighted to be speaking on this bill today because I can also let people know what a wonderful event we had, and that we have relaunched the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education. My co-chair is the member for Scullin, and we were joined last night by the Minister for Education, the Hon. Simon Birmingham, and also by the shadow minister for education. So this is a great bipartisan group, and we are focused on looking at all of the different ways in which we can support our school principals and also the primary schools in our electorates, because we all have many of them. It was wonderful to have the opportunity to speak with Ms Julie Hann from Mercedes College, which is right around the corner from my home in my electorate, and also with Mr Dave Edwards, another South Australian educator, who was honoured with life membership of the Primary Principals Association last night.

I just want to reflect on the Primary Principals Association charter because I think it fits in well with what we are doing with this bill and the changes that we are making in terms of funding and outcomes and this legislation. The Primary Principals Association's Charter on Primary Schooling states that:

Primary schools teach our children and contribute to our nation's future. They embrace the responsibility of giving children the academic and social foundations for leading fulfilled and enriched lives … personal responsibility is encouraged and expected; and, the knowledge and skills are gained to become independent and lifelong learners.

We all know how important it is for children to be provided with the academic and social foundations that will allow them to lead fulfilling lives and make a contribution to our wonderful nation.

Being the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Education is particularly wonderful for me because, in some ways, I suppose you might say, it is a chance for me to participate in our family business. My great-grandmother and my grandmother were both primary school teachers at Colonel Light Gardens Primary School, which is in the heart of my electorate of Boothby. So it has been wonderful for me to be able to try and serve the community in a different way, as they both did when they were teaching young people at Colonel Light Gardens Primary. My brother and sister and my two sisters-in-law and my brother-in-law are all teachers as well. So there is nobody more excited about this bill than me, because I come from a family with so many teachers. My siblings, my sisters-in-law and my brother-in-law would all benefit, and their students will benefit, from our government's funding package.

So I would like once again to congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on this excellent work that he has done. I am really excited for South Australia. Schools in my electorate and in South Australia will finally get the funding that they deserve, which they have been denied by the deal done by Premier Jay Weatherill and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I am looking forward to getting out and about to every single one of my schools to let them know about this excellent package and the fact that funding will increase in so many schools, particularly, as I said earlier, schools like Suneden Special School, which really does do wonderful work for kids who need our support most.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. We need more money for public schools, but not the model that Labor came up with on the eve on an election, that locks in funding to wealthy private schools at the expense of public schools; and not the Liberal model that will make it harder for many of the neediest public schools to catch up after years of neglect; but funding that puts public education on a pedestal.

This is something that matters deeply to me. I am a proud product of a public school education. I went to Linden Park Primary School in South Australia and Rosalie Primary and Hollywood High in Western Australia. That public education was the foundation that allowed me to go on to higher education at Murdoch University and then Monash University. My parents, like countless parents before and since, wanted what was best for me and believed that a quality public education was not only the means of creating greater opportunity for their children, but also greater equality in society and the cornerstone of a democratic society.

I share their vision and the Australian Greens share their vision. We believe that federal funding to the school education system should be delivered on the basis of need. The reality is that that means more money is needed for public schools and less money should be put into overfunded private schools. As a party, our commitment to public schools is rock solid. We understand that all governments have a responsibility to guarantee every child access to a high quality, funded public education.

There are some good independent and catholic schools in my electorate, and I have spent some time there with those communities. Parents obviously get a lot out of sending their children there. But my point is that sending their children there should be an act of real choice. Parents should never have to shop around because they worry that their local public school does not have the resources it needs to educate their kids. Public schools should remain the gold standard and not become a safety net. The Greens also know that decision-making in education should be open to input from teachers and academics and their unions and parents and students. That is why we have been consulting widely on this proposal from the government.

The more that I learn about the government's plan in this bill, and the more I learn about the state of our country's schools, the more I am convinced that this government is not serious about properly funding our public schools. The government says it will take some money away from overfunded private schools, but in fact, according to information provided to me, it means that the number of overfunded private schools will go from 17 per cent to 65 per cent. The government says it is increasing funding to schools, but in fact, in this bill it appears to be cutting the current indexation of funding of 4.7 per cent, and it is putting in much less funding than was agreed with states under the current funding arrangements. In my electorate of Melbourne many schools will get substantially less than promised under the current arrangements.

To understand why this is the case we need to look at the original Gonski review and the current arrangements which grew out of that review. In 2011 David Gonski recommended a new funding arrangement based on a new student resource standard that would form the basis for general recurrent funding for all students in all schooling sectors. It would consist of separate per-student amounts for primary school students and secondary students, provide loadings for the additional costs of meeting certain educational needs, and those loadings would take into account socioeconomic background, disability, English language proficiency, the particular needs of Indigenous students, school size and school location.

The Greens backed this original Gonski model in. And remember, at that time we were in a power-sharing parliament with Labor. The failure to lock this original Gonski model away in law when we had the chance is something I will never forgive Labor for. We could have used the 2010 parliament to legislate the original Gonski plan. Instead, Labor decided to play politics with schools, delay for two years, do some last-minute deals and then take the issue to the election, which they lost. And some of the Labor members who are crying the loudest now about the Liberals' plan forget that when they had the chance to fix public school funding they sold public schools out. We were pleading with Labor for years to get on with Gonski. But because it was more important for them to have a stick to beat the Liberals up with at election time they refused to legislate the original Gonski plan, and now many public schools are suffering.

In 2013 the Gillard-Rudd government did implement some aspects of the Gonski recommendations, and that is what is underpinning current funding arrangements. Five agreements were signed by the Commonwealth—with Tasmania, New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia and Victoria. The Turnbull government wants to dispute the degree to which these arrangements were binding. But the reality is that there was an arrangement agreed to, and each agreement runs from 2014 to the end of 2019. With the exception of Victoria, each agreement commits the two parties to provide additional funding required to get schools to reach 95 per cent of that state's Schooling Resource Standard, and the agreement was 92 per cent for Victoria; we were coming from a long way behind.

In a nutshell, the agreements mean that the Commonwealth puts in two thirds extra money and the states one third. States are also required to distribute funding according to need and maintain three per cent growth in all school funding, while the Commonwealth committed to 4.7 per cent in funding growth for schools below the Schooling Resource Standard which is set out in the current legislation. Each agreement sets out exactly the additional money required. In New South Wales, for example, the deal was for $5 billion over six years. The money that is flowing is making a difference, and I see it in action in schools in Melbourne.

But one of the flaws of the Labor-led agreements is that the funding is back ended, with approximately two thirds of the funding in the final two years of 2018 and 2019. This was one of the many bad decisions made by the Labor government, more interested in playing politics than in fully implementing the original Gonski reforms. Labor's back ending is why, in part, the Turnbull government's plan will have such a negative impact, because it reduces that amount of money that will be invested in our schools compared with those current arrangements. That means less money for reducing class sizes or employing additional specialist teachers in areas such as literacy and numeracy; providing greater assistance and support for students with disabilities or behavioural problems; or building the skills and knowledge of teachers through additional training. This in turn means that the more disadvantaged schools and the more disadvantaged students are left further and further behind.

This is why the Australian Education Union says that the Prime Minister's Gonski 2.0 is a con and not a good deal for public schools, because, despite the government saying that it is making a large increase in school funding to 2026-27, it will deliver only a tiny increase in funding per student, especially when inflation is factored in, according to the information that has been provided to me. This increase amounts to only 40 per cent of the increase planned under the current arrangements, and thousands of public schools will get a much smaller increase. Perhaps worst of all, the government's plan will put a cap on Commonwealth funding of public schools at 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard—20 per cent. This is a major retreat by the Commonwealth government in funding public schools and disadvantaged students.

Disadvantaged public schools will continue to be underfunded, and there is no requirement for states to put in funding, which means that state governments, as they have in the past, may short-change schools as well. This is not an accident of the approach; this is an explicit policy of the Turnbull government. As Trevor Cobbold of Save Our Schools has pointed out:

The Turnbull Government has rejected the necessity of a nationally agreed approach to funding schools according to need. It has unilaterally struck a new Commonwealth funding model without consultation with state and territory governments. As a result, inconsistencies and inequities in funding between schools in different states will remain as state governments follow different funding policies.

I can only deal with the bill that is put in front of me for me to vote on. Given these flaws, I cannot vote for this bill. I will not support cuts to funding to schools in my electorate and I will not support a reduction in funding to public schools around the country. We will use the Senate inquiry into this bill to shine a spotlight on the bill and consult with parents and teachers and their unions to determine what is needed to implement the original Gonski plan.

We must not forget the Gillard-Rudd Labor government's promise that no private school would get a reduction in funding has exacerbated the inequities in funding. The special deals for the Catholic education sector and other school systems and the refusal to legislate the funding increases to the states, despite the Gonski report's recommendations to do so, are major failings of the Gillard-Rudd Labor government arrangements. As a result, what we have now existing in law is not needs-based funding, whatever Labor might say. Labor undermined needs-based funding by giving more money to wealthy private schools that do not need it, trapping the wasteful overfunding of wealthy private schools in law.

For example, according to the My School website, thanks to Labor the elite Loreto Kirribilli school in New South Wales received $7.3 million in government funding—a shocking 283 per cent of its entitlement—in 2014. That figure then increased by another $1.5 million to $8.8 million in 2015. That is nearly three times what they are entitled to under the Gonski Schooling Resource Standard. Thanks to Labor, private schools in New South Wales alone received a combined $129 million above their entitlement in 2014. That is $129 million of funding in one year, in one state, that went to grossly overfunded private schools and did not go to the public schools that needed it the most because of Labor's legislation. There are many more examples like this.

The Greens do not support Labor's locking in in law of ever-rising funding to wealthy schools that do not need it. It is jaw-dropping to watch Labor now become the staunch defenders of overfunded Catholic schools, showing this is just rank political opportunism by the ALP. The Greens believe government should fund Catholic schools directly and put an end to using poorer Catholic schools to subsidise wealthier ones. I challenge Labor to agree with us on that. Hundreds of public schools around the country are way below the Schooling Resource Standard and will remain there for decades. They are missing out, thanks to Labor, so that the wealthy, overfunded schools can have even more.

So it is time we implemented the original Gonksi plan. The Gonski report delivered in 2011 was a landmark document delivered in good faith, but it has been bastardised by Labor and now again by the coalition government. The Greens want to see the original Gonski vision realised and that is why we will be fighting for a better deal for Australian public schools. The Greens believe our students and our schools deserve a genuine needs-based funding model that is legislated to guarantee certainty and transparency, with an independent national schools resourcing body to oversee school funding. We want to see the delivery of much more money, faster, to Australian public schools and a cooperative, not combative, relationship between Commonwealth and state governments on schools funding that is committed to genuine needs-based funding from both levels of government.

It should not be beyond the wit of this place to return to David Gonski's original idea of a needs-based, fully funded, transparent and sector-blind model that ends the overfunding of wealthy private schools and results in a well-resourced public school sector. But neither Labor nor the coalition has put this on the table. The government needs to go back to school and re-read David Gonski's original report.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a proud member of this government committed to delivering a fair, needs based, sector-blind funding system for all Australian schools. The proposal outlined in the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 will ensure that students and schools with the same need attract the same Commonwealth support through a needs based, transparent funding model. The present situation is that recurrent funding varies depending on negotiated arrangements with state or territory governments. This is good news for schools and students around Australia in my electorate of Petrie. Every local school will be better off—I say again, every local school will be better off—under the proposals outlined in this bill: $18.6 billion will be distributed to Australia's state, independent and Catholic schools over the next decade.

This legislation will also strengthen the linkage between Commonwealth financial assistance and the implementation of evidence based reforms to improve student outcomes. The federal government has also launched, as everyone would be aware, a new online calculator to ensure transparency, and I encourage all parents to check how much funding their school is entitled to. Needs based funding that rewards results is a win for parents and students around the nation, particularly in our local area, where we will see a funding increase of $369 million benefit some 27,200 students.

I was surprised by the announcement just a couple of weeks ago, in early May, from the minister for education, the Prime Minister and David Gonski himself, and the reason I was surprised what that this year in Queensland and right around the nation we are contributing some $17½ billion to education. Last year we contributed $16 billion, so there has been a big increase this year alone and over the last four years. I clearly remember campaigning in 2013, when I was elected as the federal member for Petrie. We made a commitment—as you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough; you came in in the same year—to ensure that Gonski was funded over the forward estimates. Labor somehow continues to lie on these different issues, saying that we did not do this or we do not do that, or it was not the original Gonski agreement. They continue to fib on this issue. I do agree with the member for Melbourne, for once, when he says that Labor have decided to play politics with schools. That is what they love to do—they always love to do that.

Let us have a look at what some people are saying about this. What does David Gonski himself say? David Gonski AC, at a media conference on 2 May 2017, with the Prime Minister and the minister for education, 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'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

He went on:

… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …

Thank you, David Gonski—I will take that on board and I will quote you here today. If Labor are not happy with David Gonski himself saying that this is a good deal, maybe they will accept Peter Goss from the Grattan Institute:

Today's announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the Commonwealth.

I could go on. I was surprised that we made this announcement to contribute $18.6 billion over the next 10 years and really make it fair and ensure that all schools around Australia are treated equally, but I am even more surprised when I hear the shadow minister for education and Deputy Leader of the Labor Party say, 'Oh, we are voting against that; we are not going to support it.' Even the Greens have said that they will vote against this. So they are voting against $18.6 billion in additional funding that our government is giving that is well thought out, that it is budgeting for—not like the money that they put in the forward estimates back in 2011, which was never going to be funded. I am very surprised that they are voting against this. It is outrageous. Every school in my electorate—I have them all listed here; there are 40 or so—will be better off under this deal, and I will be campaigning hard on this at the next election, making sure that every parent of every child in every suburb of my electorate knows that Labor is voting against this education bill. They are voting against it. I have seen some hypocritical things in my time, especially in this place. I have seen some backflips on a whole range of things.

And let's not even talk about the NDIS. They are voting against that as well. They are voting against a fair Medicare increase to help fund the NDIS. I have a good friend whose child had a disability and died at the age of two. I think it is just outrageous that Labor will not vote to fund Medicare 0.5 per cent. If someone on $10,000 a year—currently not paying any tax—decided they wanted to help fund the NDIS, they would pay 50 bucks a year. And Labor does not support that. They do not support it. They want to make sure NDIS is unfunded. But I am getting off topic. I will get back onto schools.

I will be campaigning hard in my own seat right up to the next election. Arethusa College is an independent school in my electorate with a lot of kids that have dropped out of school and gone to their school. It has a lot of kids with special needs. In the next 12 months under our bill they are going to get another $278,200. That is why I am supporting our education bill. Aspley East State School in my electorate is a Queensland government school. What do you think they are going to get next year? $92,600 extra. It is a great little school down in the southern end of my electorate. Aspley Special School is another government school. It has 105 students with disabilities. They are going to receive $47,000 next year under the Turnbull government's Gonski 2.0 bill. That is why I will be voting yes.

Aspley State High School is a great school in the southern end of my electorate. The principal there does a wonderful job. We know—I know from getting around to schools—that staff make a big difference in school. It is not just about the money. It is also the quality of the staff and the quality of the principal. Within five minutes of meeting a principal I can tell whether they are any good. I have a lot of good principals in my electorate. Where there are good principals, the schools always get good results. So teacher quality and staff quality is essential, as well as school autonomy, and we have a lot of independent government schools in my electorate. There will be $129,400 extra for Aspley State High School, next year alone. That is in 2018. I do not even mention the next nine years after that. It keeps going up.

The Australian Trade College North Brisbane trains a lot of tradies, young people that want to become apprentices—in hairdressing, motor mechanics; they have plumbers there. They will get $83,200 next year. Bald Hill State School is a wonderful state school. I did not get the chance to get down there this week. I was going to see Kylie Conomos, the school chaplain, who does a great job there. There is a great feel about the school. They are getting $71,400 next year. St Benedict's College is a Catholic school in my electorate, at Mango Hill. They will be getting $133,500 next year. That is why I will be voting for this bill. St Benedict's Primary School, also at Mango Hill, will get $160,800 next year.

Bounty Boulevard State School, the biggest primary school in Queensland, will get $144,900 next year alone. Bracken Ridge State High School will get a $72,600 increase next year if the bill passes the House. If Labor vote against it and the Greens vote against it and it does not get through, I will be making sure Bracken Ridge State High School knows that Tanya Plibersek, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party voted against it. Bracken Ridge State School will get $41,300 next year. Christ the King Catholic Primary School is a great little school in Deception Bay in my electorate. Nick Hurley, the principal up there, does a great job. A lot of the teachers do a good job. It is a fairly high needs area; $86,600 next year alone for them. Clontarf Beach State School—$55,700 for them next year alone, if this bill is passed. Clontarf Beach State High School, if this bill is passed—$152,200 next year.

Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre, a Catholic school which helps kids in Deception Bay who have perhaps dropped out of school or a struggling, will receive $102,700 next year—for those people in the gallery. Over 10 years it goes up by millions of dollars. Those opposite think it is a cut—outrageous. Deception Bay North State School will receive $78,300 next year. Deception Bay State High School will receive $171,800 next year. By the way, this does not include the state government's increase; this is just the federal increase—fully funded. These blokes think there is a $22 billion cut. What planet does the Labor Party live on? Deception Bay State School, which is a struggling school but a great little school with good staff, will receive $53,200 in 2018. Grace Lutheran College, which is an independent school, a big school, will receive $547,000 next year. Grace Lutheran Primary School, which is just down the road from where I live, will receive $141,900. Griffin State School, which has been open two years for the people who live in Griffin and is a great little school, will receive $30,500 next year if this bill is passed. If it is not passed, you can blame Labor. They are voting against the bill. It is outrageous. Hercules Road State School will receive $110,100. This is another Queensland government school. Humpybong State School, another great little school—it has been going for over 100 years in my electorate—will receive $112,500 next year. Jabiru Community College will receive $168,400. The member for Herbert is laughing. I wonder what St Patrick's will lose out on next year when those opposite vote against this bill.

Let's have a quick look at Lilley—Wayne Swan is going to vote against this bill—and some of the neighbouring schools in my electorate. I went to St Flannan's school, which is a small primary school in Zillmere. It is going to receive $151,500 next year because of this bill. Sandgate District State High School, which services a lot of the students in Bracken Ridge, will receive $165,000 next year. Both of those schools are in Lilley. St John Fisher College—a Catholic girls high school in my electorate—will receive $173,500 in 2018. Those opposite are going to get up after me and say that there is a cut to funding in this bill. That is what they are going to do.

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

Because there is!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Outrageous. St Joseph's Catholic Primary School in my electorate will receive $185,500 in 2018. Kairos Community College—another school in Deception Bay which does great work—will receive $48,500 next year. Over the 10-year plan—let's just throw that in—they will receive another $3 million. Kippa-Ring State School, which is a government school in my electorate, will receive $44,700 next year if this bill goes ahead and is passed by the Senate. Mango Hill State School—a great little school; Tracy Egan, who is the principal there, is doing a wonderful job—will receive $90,500 next year. Moreton Downs State School will receive $98,400 next year. Mueller College—another great school, pre to 12—will receive $516,400. It is a big school in my electorate. Norris Road State School will receive $76,000 next year. North Lakes State College will receive $388,800 next year. Redcliffe Special School will receive $52,700 next year. Redcliffe State High School will receive an increase of $189,500. That is on top of the state government increase. I am not going to have time to run through all my schools. I am going to have mention the rest of them in my contribution on the appropriation bills. This bill is fair; it is funded. Those opposite are playing politics, and it is outrageous that they do this with schools.

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

I thank the member for Petrie for his contribution, which he made just before me, and also the contributions of others on that side of the House to the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. I am sure we will hear more speeches flogging the dead horse of a claim that they are going to increase funding to schools.

Mr Howarth interjecting—

I would suggest to the member for Petrie that so many of them went to the 2013 election on a promise, and maybe that is why they are feeling some pain now, because that promise was that if you elected them you would get all the Gonski funding, dollar for dollar, equivalent to what Labor was providing. So despite running through school names and claims of amounts of money, the problem they are going to have when they campaign on this at the next election, as the member for Petrie referred to, is that people in every one of those schools will be saying then, as they are saying now, 'That's not what you promised and we are not happy with the cut that is being delivered in the piece of legislation before us today.'

If you want to talk about jobs and growth, if you want to talk about improving employment opportunities, it is absolutely true that education is central. It is a fundamental, core basis of the Australian story of people getting a chance in life to reach their full potential. There will be a number of opportunities to talk on this aspect of the budget. This budget makes cuts at every level of education. The schools sector sees $22 billion worth of cuts. The TAFE and vocational education sector sees massive cuts. The university sector—not only cuts, but pushing the cost back onto students. All of that is difficult enough, but it is damning when you consider it is done in the context of a $65 billion tax cut for the big end of town. It is not that they had no choice; it is exactly that they did choose. They chose the big end of town over investing in education to give all Australians a fair opportunity.

How did we get to this point with this bill? I would like to put some context around this. It is true that Labor in government undertook the landmark review into school funding. We did that because the minister at the time, Julia Gillard, had identified that we had a very long tail of disadvantage in our schools, that there was a clear issue for us as a nation, and that too many people were being left behind. We wanted an eminent body of people to look at the issue of school funding, and that is what they did.

That led to the recommendation for establishing the Schooling Resource Standard—a standard that would be sector blind and would clearly define what funding level all schools needed to deliver a great education for all of our kids. That funding model would guarantee extra funding, in particular for kids with the poorest outcomes, to give them the extra help they needed. Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013, enshrined a very important objective into law. That objective was:

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

How is that playing out on the ground? Let me give two examples of local schools in my area. First of all, Keira High School, which, as a result of the bill before us today, will see a $922,000 cut to their funding over the next two years. At Keira High School every Aboriginal student has a teacher-mentor and access to the AIME program. They have been delivering Aboriginal studies to every year 7 and 8 student. Keira High School is also able to deliver a stage 6 Aboriginal studies course to students at the high school, as well as to students from other schools. That is how they are using that additional funding.

Woonona High School in my electorate will have $447,000 cut from their funding over the next two years. They have reduced class sizes, increased curriculum choices and increased the number of students who now have the confidence and ability to attend university. Prior to the funding going through to the school in 2012, only 15 per cent of Woonona High School students went on to study at university. That number rose to 55 per cent in 2016—an amazing outcome.

This government simply does not value education for all. The changes being introduced in this bill before parliament represent a $22 billion cut to our schools.

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

Shame!

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

It is indeed a shame; the member is quite correct. That is $22 billion taken from schoolkids so the government can give a $65.4 billion tax cut to big business. And, despite all the claims coming from the other side, parents and teachers know that their school will be worse off because of these cuts to school funding. It is equivalent to cutting $2.4 million from every school in Australia over the next decade or sacking 22,000 teachers.

Let me be very clear about this. We campaigned very strongly against the first Abbott government budget, because it cut $30 billion from school education. This bill before us seeks to return $8 billion. That still leaves a $22 billion cut. That is why people in the communities of those on the other side are unhappy. That is why they are not swallowing your con about them getting additional funding. They know that, when you promise and commit to something and then you give significantly less, that is a cut and a con.

In my area, the Liberal's refusal to honour their commitment to Gonski funding in 2018 and 2019, just in two years, will mean a cut of $54.3 million for schools across Cunningham, Whitlam and Gilmore: $15 million in my electorate; $22 million in my good colleague the member for Whitlam's electorate; and $19 million in the electorate of Gilmore—$22 billion in cuts to schools across the country are to pay for $65 billion in tax cuts for big business and millionaires. That is an appalling outcome, and that is why this bill is a con job.

The worst affected schools in my area are those that most need the assistance. Just to give a sample: Warrawong High School will lose $1.3 million in the next two years; Bulli High School, $500,000; Keira High School, almost $1 million; Warrawong Public School, $650,000; Figtree High School, over $700,000 cut; Five Islands Secondary College, $744,000 cut; Wollongong High School, $767,000 cut; Woonona High School, $447,000 cut; Bellambi Public School, $389,000 cut; Corrimal High School, $598,000 cut; Helensburgh Public School, $314,000 cut. Schools in every suburb right across my electorate in just two years are facing significant costs, let alone looking at the 10-year outcome.

When the review of school funding reported, they recommended that all governments work together to ensure every child has the best chance to succeed. That is why Labor worked with the states and territories to ensure that, by 2019, every underfunded school would reach their fair funding level, with an extension for 2022 for Victoria. We said to states, 'We will work with you to ensure this fair funding is achieved.' But the Prime Minister has said that that does not matter anymore; that it is not the total funding that each school has that matters. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister and this education minister are walking away from a fundamental part of the Schooling Resource Standard—that is, that it is total funding that matters. They are walking back into the past where it was only Commonwealth funding and the states were not locked in to keeping up their share of the bargain.

Under what the government are proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027—eight years away from now. Kids will come and go through the schooling system waiting to reach that fair funding level. It is very, very important to not only our public schools but also our Catholic schools, our independent schools and all of the states and territories that the government are held to account for the fact that they are cutting funding when it is most needed. It is a fundamentally unfair offer to schools.

It is important to note that the bill before us also throws out the reform agreement that was in place with states and territories. The government says reform is the most important aspect of education. There is none of that in here. Of course, at the time of the Abbott budget, the then education minister said, 'Oh, we don't need any strings attached requiring reform or improvements around schooling and the systems that it offers'—that did not matter—'We'll just give them the money.' This bill is no better. It does not offer any sort of reform agenda. It does not deal with leadership or transparency or any of those issues that were part of the original agreements. They do not care about quality, either.

In the time I have left I want to indicate to the House that it is not just the Labor Party saying this. Those opposite have made numerous references to the fact that we might be misleading people. I would say to you that the fact that you went to an election promising to match Labor dollar for dollar is where your problems started. I want to share a quote with the House.

As somebody with a disability, I understand the positive and significant impact which these Gonski education reforms and needs based funding are bringing for students with disabilities right across New South Wales," he said.

Today, I have called on the Commonwealth Government to do the right thing by our local students and teachers and honour its agreement with the New South Wales Government with respect to the full Gonski funding.

Those were the words, in March this year, of the new parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales—the Liberal parliamentary secretary for education—Gareth Ward, on his appointment. He went on to say:

The Premier has stated very firmly that she will be pursuing this outcome with the Commonwealth Government to ensure that NSW receives every possible cent of Gonski funding.

I was extremely proud that New South Wales was the first State to sign up to this historic Gonski funding agreement.

It has provided so many additional opportunities for students that would not have otherwise been possible such as employing additional specialist teachers in numeracy and literacy, providing greater assistance and support for students with disabilities and behavioural problems.

Gonski has also helped to build the skills and knowledge of our local school teachers through additional training and classroom resources.

He finishes his contribution, referring to a notice of motion that he was putting in the parliament, with the words:

I will continue to support Gonski and call on the Commonwealth Government to honour its funding agreement with the New South Wales Government.

It was not a once-off.

In April, in the Illawarra Mercury, Andrew Pearson again reported that the parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales 'gives a Gonski, and the Turnbull government should too'. The parliamentary secretary was with the New South Wales Teachers Federation Organiser, John Black, who said:

The federal government's failure to honour the Gonski funding arrangement beyond 2017 leaves the educational future of millions of children hanging in the balance.

And the member was there to support that campaign. More recently—only this month, in May—the South Coast Register reported on the parliamentary secretary's comments in support of the full Gonski funding agreement. And just yesterday, 2ST radio had an interview: 'New South Wales Education Minister calls out Turnbull government on Gonski funding during Shoalhaven visit'.

So, in our area, all the federal Labor MPs, all the state Labor MPs and the state Liberal MP, and the parliamentary secretary for education in New South Wales are calling on this government to deliver the Gonski agreement in full, to walk away from the cuts and to not continue with this con job of a partial reinstatement of funding that goes nowhere what was promised. There is only one voice in my region that is continuing to try, in vain, to defend what the government seeks to do today, and that is the member for Gilmore. And I am very pleased to say that our very active candidate Fiona Phillips in the seat is right behind the Gonski campaign here.

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

And she's gonna win!

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

Hear, hear!

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

One of the most important lessons we can teach our children is how to identify a scam. In our society today there are many scam artists, there are many people running deceptions and there are many people telling outright lies. The ACCC even has a website called Scamwatch. On it, they have details of the Nigerian scam, the fake charity scam, the inheritance scam, dating and romance scams, false billing scams and up-front fee and advance payment frauds. But what they should add to that list is the Labor Party's fraudulent campaign on education and school funding in this nation; it is nothing but a complete and utter untruth which has been repeated by member after member coming into this chamber and claiming that there are cuts to school funding. The disgraceful performance of the Labor Party—scaring schoolchildren, scaring parents, misleading them with false information about cuts which simply do not exist—is a scandal and a shame and you should all stand up and apologise for it.

Let's go through some of the facts. People may not believe me—they have heard different things from Labor Party members talking about cuts and they have heard the truth from the outside—but let's go through the actual facts of what is happening with federal government funding to schools so that we can dispel the myths and the untruths and the sophistry of the Labor members in this debate. Firstly, let's look back. Between 1987-88 and 2011-12, total public funding for schools has doubled in real terms. During that period, we have had a doubling of funding in real terms—that is, over and above the rate of inflation—yet we have had only an 18 per cent increase in enrolments. We have had an 18 per cent increase in enrolments and a doubling of funding over and above inflation. Total combined Commonwealth and state funding has grown in real terms per student by 15 per cent over the 10-year period from 2005-06 to 2014-15. In that period, there was an increase in enrolments of 15.4 per cent.

When the coalition came to government after the glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, in our first year, Commonwealth spending on schools was $13.94 billion. In 2015, we increased that by 8.7 per cent. In the following year we increased it again, by 7.4 per cent. In 2017, the latest year, we have increased it to 17.76 per cent, another eight per cent increase. So let's be very clear: this government is spending record amounts on school funding. We are spending close to 40 per cent more than the last budget of the Gillard-Rudd government, when they were in power. And they come in here and complain about cuts when we in the coalition are spending 40 per cent more than they did! That is an absolute fact, yet these Labor members, one after another, roll into this place and talk about cuts.

How have they done this? Where does this sophistry come from? There is an acorn of truth in their deception and sophistry. If we go back to the original Gonski funding, it was over six years. In our budgets, we have a forward estimates period of four years; for anything outside of that four-year period you do not have to account for where the money comes from. If we look at the original Gonski funding, in those first years there were reasonable increases; but the real increases were backloaded into the fifth and sixth year so they did not have to show the public where the money was coming from.

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

They had no money!

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

Of course they had no money, as the member for Bowman correctly interjects. It was just a complete, absolute con. If those opposite want to come into this parliament and say, 'We will spend more money than the coalition,' that would be a fair enough debating point and we in the coalition would accept that. But they are not saying that; they are going around pretending that there are cuts to schools. We heard it. The member for Lindsay came into this chamber earlier today and went through a list of schools in her electorate—as we heard from the member for Cunningham—and talked about cuts to those schools. Those opposite are unnecessarily misleading not only the schoolchildren and the parents but the teachers at those schools.

Let me go through the member for Lindsay's electorate. In 2017, the current year, spending in Lindsay will be $147,364,000. Remember that the member for Lindsay walked in here and said that there were cuts to all these schools in her electorate, when spending in her electorate increases to $154,184,000. That is an increase of 4.63 per cent—an extra $6,820,000. The member for Lindsay came into this chamber and misled students and parents about cuts, when the truth is that there is $6.8 million in extra money going into Lindsay.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not enough!

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

I will take that interjection—that is fair enough. The member says he would like to spend more. That is a fair enough debating point, and I will accept it, but you must come and say where that money will come from. If you want to borrow more money, if you want to put this nation into greater debt than we are already in, that is a fair enough debating point, but do not come into this chamber and tell lies about schools having their funding cut when it is simply untrue.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Hughes, take your place for a moment. Member for Burt, I am not accepting the point of order. Sit down. I think this is unruly and I think it is unfair on the people listening to the debate. I call the member for Hughes.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and you are correct: it is unfair to the people listening to this debate. It is unfair to the members of the Australian public and it is unfair to the schoolchildren of this nation for one Labor member after another to roll into this parliament and tell untruth after untruth about school funding cuts when school funding is clearly and unambiguously increasing.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order?

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know the member is trying to avoid using the word 'lie', but coming in and using the word 'untruth' hardly skirts around the standing orders.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Member for Hughes.

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

The other words I would use would be 'sophistry' and 'mendacity'. I think that sums up the Labor Party's tactics in this debate.

In my electorate of Hughes in this current year the federal government is contributing $99,103,000. Next year there will be an increase of 4.2 per cent, to $103,267,000. The schools in my electorate, similarly to those in every electorate around the country, will be receiving an extra $4,164,000—not quite as much as the member for Lindsay, who is enjoying a greater increase, and who is going to come in and vote against this increase, but an increase.

The Catholic schools have made a bit of an issue about the cuts. Next year St John Bosco College will receive an extra $248,000. St Patrick's College will receive an extra $318,700. Aquinas Catholic College will receive an extra $279,300. When it comes to per-student increases, outside of the four special schools—the Cook School, the original boys' school down at Engadine, Bates Drive School and Minerva School—the school that will get the biggest increase is St John's Bosco Catholic College in Engadine. They will receive an increase of $305 per student next year. This is similar. My electorate is not special. This is happening across the nation. Every school is getting more money on top of the 40 per cent more that this government is giving over and above the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments.

The Labor Party like to use David Gonski's name and to quote David Gonski. What has no less than David Gonski said about these changes? He 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'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

The Labor Party come in here and they quote Gonski's name time after time after time. I hope that they will quote that, because David Gonski is telling the truth when he says there is additional funding, unlike members of the Labor Party. What did Ken Boston, one of the original authors of the Gonski report, have to say about it? He said:

In the run-up to the 2013 election, prime minister Kevin Rudd and education minister Bill Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation …

He said that what Labor implemented:

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

Those are the words of one of the original authors of the Gonski report.

There are many speakers listed on this debate. I would hope that they will have greater respect for the citizens, the constituents and the school students in their electorates. It would be outrageous if Labor member after Labor member walked into this chamber and created the false impression that funding in their schools was being cut when the absolute opposite is the truth—their schools are getting more money. We can have our debates and we can argue intensely across the chamber, but what we should not do is adopt such a low act at to mislead students and their parents and tell them that there are cuts when the facts are that they are getting more money.

We have seen that results in our schools are not where we want them to be.

Ms O'Toole interjecting—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition whip may like to remind the member for Herbert that she is not in her place. If she wants to participate in the debate, she can do it from outside or from her place.

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

I will leave my comments there. But I call on members to show good faith. Do not use the sophistry we have seen. Tell the truth about school funding, not the mendacity and untruths that we have seen so far in this debate.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A quality education is fundamental to the core Australian value of a fair go. Today, I rise to join this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 and join the thousands of parents and grandparents, hundreds of educators, principals, teachers' aids, school workers and, most importantly, the children that I represent in this parliament who want decent funding for education in our community. Making sure our schools and classrooms are properly funded and resourced is the cornerstone of ensuring that every Australian student is given the best opportunity to succeed in their education and reach their full potential.

My sister is a school teacher and has proudly been a public school educator for almost 30 years. My cousins are teachers. I am proud of them and every other teacher in this country. I am not just proud of them; I am grateful for the work that they do day in, day out. I am incredibly proud of the QTU, a strong body that advocates for and represents teachers across Queensland. I acknowledge the outstanding leadership of people like Kevin Bates, my good friend Sam Pidgeon, Kate Ruttiman, Brendan Crotty and Lyn Esders, a local teachers' organiser who stands up for teachers in my local community every day of the week.

I am proud to work alongside school principals and local schools in my community. There are wonderful educators like Beth Petersen from Durack State School, John O'Connor from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at Darra, Anne Kitchin at Middle Park, Pat Murphy from Woodcrest college, Denise Kostowski from Forest Lake State High School, Lee Gerchow at Goodna State School and John Brew at the brilliant Centenary State High School. These are just a handful of the great schools in the Oxley electorate. Every time I go to these schools I see the passion and dedication of those professionals and great staff.

Today, I stand to oppose the $22 billion worth of cuts that the Turnbull government is proposing for education in Australia. I will not vote to cut millions of dollars for funding for schools in my community. I will not cast a vote to make it harder for local Catholic parish schools in the electorate of Oxley to make ends meet. I stand in this place to demand true needs-based funding—a model that is fair and gives our kids a fair go. Enough is enough. This government needs to end the war on education and start properly funding education in this nation.

I listened to what the member for Hughes had to say. He said that this was all a conspiracy—that everyone was making it up—and that he was the font of all knowledge when it came to education funding in this country. I need to educate the member for Hughes and advise him on the destructive policies that he is voting for and advocating for. I refer to correspondence from the Catholic Secondary Principals of Australia and the Australian Catholic Primary Principals' Association to the minister of education—the member for Hughes' colleague inside the LNP government. I quote from the letter to the minister:

The legislation amendment announcements by the Prime Minister and yourself on 2 May disenfranchised Catholic school principals, who without any accurate details, suddenly had to explain to current and prospective parents what your announcement meant for their future school fees.

…   …   …

The Catholic principals stand in solidarity with the Catholic education systems and they support system funding and the co-responsibility that goes with it. Hence, Catholic school principals stand united with the broader Catholic school community in the face of a deliberate strategy by the Government to undermine the system by pitting principal against principal, school against school (evidenced by the misleading letters to each school and the funding estimator website).

CaSPA and ACPPA want to make it clear that the tactic will not work. CaSPA and ACPPA can assure the Minister that Catholic education will stand together to ensure Catholic schools remain affordable and available for all families who seek them.

That is what this government is proposing to do: not only to rip money out of the public school sector but to place extra pressure on the small and local Catholic parish schools right across the community. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Hughes: go and meet with your school principals, go to your local Catholic schools, go and talk to their peak bodies—go and listen to them.

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

They're getting millions more.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says they are getting millions. He says the Catholic educators are all wrong. He says that their peak bodies are wrong and that he is right. Well, I say to you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will listen to those in the frontline: the educators, the teachers and the school parishes. They are fearful of this policy. What arrogance, what absolute arrogance, coming in here and saying, 'I am above educators. I know best.' They should hang their heads in shame.

Mr Dick interjecting—

He is still interjecting and saying that they are wrong and that they should be denounced. Well, I stand toe to toe with him in this place. I will not take an arrogance lecture from the member for Hughes, lecturing everyone and coming into this place week in, week out. Get out into the community and start listening to those who are fighting what you are trying to do.

When Labor was in power in 2010, Labor initiated the review of funding arrangements for schooling to develop a funding system that was transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational outcomes for all Australian students. More than 7,000 written submission were provided to the review, and the panel met with hundreds of professionals, stakeholders and school communities across Australia. At the completion of the review, in the letter to the education minister in 2013, the chair wrote:

The panel is strongly of the view that the proposed funding arrangements outlined in the report are required to drive improved outcomes for all Australian students, and to ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.

What we are talking about is a funding model, recommended by that panel, which ensured that no Australian child would miss out on a quality education due to the school they attended or the suburb they lived in. That is why, following the report, Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following objectives into Australian law:

All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

It is a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes to give them the extra help they needed. Make no mistake, when the government rips out $22 billion in funding from our schools that is what they are walking away from—that commitment. Not only will schools lose resources, lose teachers and lose funding; this bill also proposes to remove the entitlement that all students have a right to an excellent education. This is a shameful act from a government that is hell-bent on ripping out billions of dollars from school funding and walking away from the commitment of ensuring every child has access to a quality education. On this side of the chamber, we know that this government does not believe in education as a great enabler. They do not want to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education that this nation can provide.

The government are also walking away from the high benchmarks we set ourselves as a country, and from what we can achieve when we properly fund our education system: for Australia to be placed in the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science by 2025; for the Australian school system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system by international standards by 2025; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate II attainment rates to 90 per cent; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate III attainment rates to 90 per cent; and to at least half the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020.

That is what this government is walking away from: a quality education for all Australian students. This Prime Minister does not value education. This government does not value the power of education. And the changes introduced to this parliament clearly represent—from the government's own documents, their own briefing papers—a $22 billion cut to education. The member for Hughes asks: 'What's this based on? Where do you get this figure from?' Well, he needs to talk to the education minister. He needs to talk to the actual people who provided that information, from his own government, highlighting in black and white that there will be a $22 billion reduction in funding.

That is on one hand. We know that the government's other priority, while cutting $22 billion, is to give $65.4 billion to multinationals and big business—a $22 billion cut from schools and $65.4 billion in a tax cut for big business. I will say it again: that is a cut for every school over the next 10 years of around $2.4 million, over the next decade, the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. The review of school funding recommended that all governments work together to ensure that every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life. So, the member for Hughes is the font of all knowledge! The Catholic educators are all wrong, the New South Wales Liberal government is wrong, the New South Wales Liberal education minister is wrong, and the state and territory ministers are all wrong, but the member for Hughes is correct; he is the only one—the font of all knowledge—who knows everything about education! What an absolute joke.

We know that only by working with the states and territories will we be able to guarantee proper funding for each and every school. It beggars belief that members opposite would want to get up and defend this. I note that the member for Gilmore is in the chamber. She is presiding over $19 million worth of cuts in her electorate. She is proud of that. She is happy with that. The member for Hughes is lecturing everyone that the Catholic educators are all wrong. We know that those opposite—the arrogance they show—

Government members interjecting—

We know that maybe cutting penalty rates is a gift. But there is a double gift, of reducing funding for every school in her electorate. Now, I am not sure that if I was the local representative I would be too brave turning up to a P&C meeting in my electorate saying, 'Good evening everyone; I'm here to announce millions of dollars worth of funding cuts.' I do not think that would be an appropriate thing, but I am not going to give any free advice to those opposite.

When I met with Springfield Central State School P&C last Monday night they asked me why this government is cutting funding. That is what they asked; the school principal asked that. The member for Gilmore says that they are wrong. So, the principal at Springfield Central is wrong? The P&C is wrong? But the member for Gilmore is right? The teachers who work there, the allied support workers, the teachers' aides are all wrong? They have read the budget papers. They have seen the briefing note. They know they are getting $22 billion less in funding. But somehow the member for Gilmore is correct! How arrogant can you get? How out of touch can you get?

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Gilmore: you have a lot on your plate; I would not worry about what is happening at Springfield Central, but I will tell them, from you, that they are all wrong.

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

You are being dishonest!

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. I will be honest with them, because that is what they deserve. We know that over the past four years they have zigged and zagged, gone backwards and forwards, but they still have not landed a credible education policy. Who can forget that the Prime Minister at one stage thought that the government should withdraw all funding from state schools? Remember that one? The government should just walk away from state schools altogether. Well, they might not have completely walked away; they just ripped out $22 billion.

Government members interjecting—

And they are all still interjecting. They are all still trying to defend the indefensible. If I was a representative in this place seeing a $19 million cut to schools in my electorate, like the member for Gilmore is, I would get up in this place and make some noise. I would not simply sit back and give them a clap and say, 'You're getting a gift.' It is high time that this government faced the music. When they go back to their P&Cs, when they have the guts to turn up to their local parish schools and explain themselves, they will find a very hostile reception from those parents and school communities.

We know that what this means is that 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027, some eight years from now. Under their model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes back to public schools. We know that when it comes to education—when it comes to the transformative power of education—the community can depend on Bill Shorten and Labor. The community can know that they have a true advocate with Tanya Plibersek fighting for them every single day in this country. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before I call the member for Gilmore I will say something about the words 'misleading the House', 'dishonest' and 'untruthful'. There are ways to use those terms in the House. This is not the place for them. I would ask members just to have regard to the standing orders in their approach.

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

Before I speak about the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, I just have a couple of little corrections. I was asked to mention the fact that Keira High School, which is not in Gilmore, was mentioned by a member on the other side as a school that would be losing funding. In fact, I have the numbers here. Every student in that school is allocated $2,976 this year, and next year it is going up to $3,127.

From my maths—and while I am only a masters educator—that is actually an increase, so I do not understand where these people are getting these mythical numbers from. They are quoting a six-year-old figure which was never funded—never funded! Those opposite funded four years of programming. It was in the forward estimates; they did not fund the final two. It was some mythical, cloudy number that they pulled out of the universe. It does not add up, so they should stop talking about reductions in funding and look at the reality.

During the 2017 budget we finally saw a fully funded and fair education strategy for all Australian children. This $18.6 billion reform plan is the continuation of the essence of needs based funding that was central to the review, education and philosophy of the original author of the funding changes in Australia's education, David Gonski. He 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'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

…   …   …

… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …

That is a quote from David Gonski, from 2 May this year.

If David Gonski himself is not enough, then Labor should listen to some of the many other independent education experts who have backed the coalition's plan. Pete Goss from the Grattan Institute said in May:

The announcement on school funding is welcome. The Coalition has set out a 10-year goal of every school being consistently funded by the commonwealth.

Bronwyn Hinz from the Mitchell Institute said on an ABC interview in southern Queensland on 3 May, 'The things that stand out to me as positive are a much bigger emphasis on really matching the funding where it is needed. The first version of Gonski did a lot of this, but it had shortcomings.'

Shelley Hill from the Australian Parents Council, in her media release of 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 …

Personally, I am appalled by the opposition playing politics, yet again, with the education of children—particularly those with a disability, those in low-socioeconomic regions and those trying to encourage Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students to attend and thrive. The constant squawking about 'cuts!' to education barely registers with the general public, especially when they see the increased funding written in black and white and funded. The money is allocated in the budget and it will be delivered.

The Labor Party tries to convince the community that their funding set-up six years ago under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government was concrete and promised. The final two years of their funding model were unfunded. They were not funded, and no matter how many times they repeat their squawk of 'funding cuts!', like the bird calls in the bush, repeating the call does not make it truth. Actually, this strategy of constantly repeating mistruths is insulting and deceitful for everyday Australians and certainly confusing for parents everywhere, including those in Gilmore.

Within the bubble of politics, the argy-bargy of debate can easily be dissected into truth and false facts. However, many parts of the media are not quite as savvy and they repeat the false data—over and over goes the myth.

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

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Gilmore will be given an opportunity to conclude her contribution at that time.