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

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

The Government cutting $22 billion from Australian schools over 10 years.

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, thank you for your advice on that other issue just a moment ago. We do appreciate that.

It is incredible, isn't it, that we have had another question time today with a government that refuses to say that it has a $2 billion black hole at the heart of this budget, and a Prime Minister who, despite repeated questions from the opposition, cannot say the figure $22 billion, cannot name the cut that he is making to schools funding. Do you know what? If the Prime Minister cannot say it out loud, you only need to read the briefing document from his office, circulated to journalists and others when this announcement was made. This is the briefing document that gives the lie to the government's argument about school funding. This is the document that will tell you that their new school deal is not fair, is not needs based and is not sector blind. You do not have to go to our figures or our campaigning or even to the state ministers' or anybody else's; it is the government's own document that damns them as cutting $22.3 billion from schools. It has it right here in black and white: $22.3 billion over 10 years. It says, 'Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a saving of $6.3 billion over four years and $22.3 billion over 10 years.' So it is not fair. It is not fair, because this government has also provided a table about school funding year by year, and what that table tells us is that there is an average of $2 billion cut from school funding every year from 2017 to 2027. It is not fair, because it also includes an adjustment fund. Why do you need adjustment fund if there are no cuts? If you are spending $19 billion extra, why do you need an adjustment fund? Well, there is a $40 million adjustment fund, but it makes it very clear that these adjustment funds are temporary.

Guess what else? It says right here that they are paid outside the model. Does that mean that there will be special deals? They are paid outside the model. I will tell you what else this document tells you. The government's own document tells you that this is not sector-blind funding. In fact, this is sector-specific funding, because, while the government will pay up to 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools—it says right here, '80 per cent of the funding standard for the non-government sector'—guess what? For public schools, it says, '20 per cent of the funding standard for the government sector.'

Who says that this government should pay 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for non-government schools and 20 per cent for public schools? No-one says that. It is certainly not, as my colleague points out, in the Gonski review—nowhere near it. In fact, what Labor did is what the review recommended, which is say that we will fund every school in every state and territory in every sector up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, plus loadings. That is what sector blind means. It means that needy schools—whether they are independent, Catholic or public—get up to 95 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard. And, as we put in extra funding, we expected the states to do the same. We would put in two thirds while the states put in a third. What does this mob say about efforts from the states and territories? Nothing. They say that they will take responsibility for 20 per cent of funding for government schools, and what the states do to get their schools closer to the Schooling Resource Standard is a problem for them.

The government's new school deal is also, of course, not needs based. The proof of that is also in this document. When you look at the table that tells you about indexation in different states, guess who does the worst? The Northern Territory, which has the poorest kids and the worst NAPLAN results—kids who are really struggling in small and remote schools—get the lowest indexation. They get 1.6 per cent per annum on average, which does not even keep pace with inflation in schools. They get the worst deal. Guess who gets the second worst deal? Tasmania get the second worst deal, with the second poorest kids.

If this was such a great deal, if this was actually $19 billion of extra funding, you would have the state education ministers rushing out, excited to get that extra money for their schools. Do they support this? No, they do not. Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, the Northern Territory and WA have all said it is terrible.

In fact, the only government that has welcomed it is Tasmania, and who would know why? I mean, honestly, who would know, when they are losing $85 million from their schools over the next two years, why they would welcome this. Who knows! Could it be because they are a coalition government that does not care about schoolchildren? You would have to assume: yes. One of the strongest state governments on this has been the New South Wales coalition government, saying that this robs their kids of $850 million over the next two years alone—that they were expecting hundreds of millions of dollars in extra support for their schools.

So why are the state governments not rushing out for this extra $19 billion of funding? Because it is a cut. Why are the Catholic systemic schools not rushing out, excited to get the extra funding promised to them by the coalition government? Because it is a cut.

The only place where it pretends that this is an increase is in the dodgy calculator of those opposite—the dodgy calculator that Mark Scott, the head of the New South Wales education department, has said you cannot trust, and that the Catholic system has said you cannot trust. The only place where it says this is an increase for your school is in their dodgy calculator that takes as a baseline the funding level that includes Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, ripping $30 billion out of schools. Well, if you rip $30 billion out, and then you decide not to rip $30 billion but just $22 billion out, your baseline looks a bit better, doesn't it, if you are using a $30 billion cut for a baseline?

I know I have shared this story before, but my brother, when my parents would say, 'Turn that bloody music down!' would go and turn it up, and then he would turn it down and he would go, 'See? I've turned it down.' If you change the baseline and you think you are going to fool people—well, he did not fool us, I can tell you! But that is what those opposite are trying to do: to change the baseline and use that to fool people.

I will tell you what shocks me most about this: those opposite refusing to defend the kids in their electorates. They are refusing point blank to defend the children in their electorates. The electorate of Parkes loses $43 million over the next two years alone, based on New South Wales government figures. The electorate of Riverina loses $23 million. The electorate of New England loses $26 million. These are big figures—they are bigger, actually, than kids in my electorate of Sydney lose, because they have got more need in those big regional areas. They have got more kids facing educational disadvantage. The electorate of Page loses $23,896,671 over those two years, including $1.6 million from the Rivers Secondary College and 1.3 million from Casino Public School—I could go through, school by school. The electorate of Banks loses nearly $12 million over the next two years, including $1.2 million from Beverly Hills Girls High and $506,000 from Peakhurst Public School.

As to Victoria: the member for Chisholm should not have put her head up today; the children in the member for Chisholm's electorate face cuts of $9.7 million over the next two years, including $1.3 million from Mount Waverley Secondary College. Oh, and the Aurora School, supporting deaf and deaf-blind children and their families, are facing a cut of $600,000. Do those opposite not know or do they not care? Do they not know or do they not care about these funding cuts? They should be ashamed to come in here with those sorts of cuts. (Time expired)

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

Whilst I am delighted to be speaking on today's MPI and the coalition government's reforms to school education, I am disappointed that I am not here discussing vocational education and that we are not having an MPI on vocational education—

Mr Husic interjecting—

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

The member for Chifley will not debate while he is walking around the chamber.

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

because it is certainly an issue that is of importance to the coalition government, and I do hope that in the future we will be in here discussing vocational education during an MPI because we have a fantastic story to tell about vocational education here in Australia.

Can I also say that the coalition government does not see education in discrete lots. We actually see education as an education highway—

Mr Husic interjecting—

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

The member for Chifley is warned.

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

where people are able to embark on education through early childhood, through school and into vocational education and higher education. So I am very keen to discuss in detail vocational education, but today we are here to discuss schools, and I am very happy to put on the record, yet again, some very important facts.

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

We are going to do a number of things with our reforms, but, critically, we are going to end Labor's 27 special deals with states and territories, unions and the non-government school sector. The changes we are making are going to ensure that all of our schools and states transition to an equal Commonwealth share of the resource standard in a decade, unlike the 150 years of inequity that current arrangements would entail.

There are quite a few stats that I would like to go through today that are important in the context of this debate to make it very clear that states and territories are responsible for the overall quality of school education in their jurisdictions and also the major funder of schools, providing around 66 per cent of total public funding in 2014. At the sector level, current government funding—Commonwealth, state and territory—accounts for 94 per cent of funding for government schools, 73 per cent for Catholic schools and 42 per cent for independent schools. All schools receive funding from the Australian government and from state and territory governments. Over the last decade, Australian government per student funding for government schools has been growing faster than state and territory government funding. Government funding per student, recurrent funding, to government schools increased by 72.4 per cent in real terms over the 10 years to 2014-15, while comparable state and territory funding grew by only 9.4 per cent over the same period.

Those on the other side are often keen to talk about funding for individual schools. So I took the opportunity to have a look at the funding for the electorate of Sydney. The electorate of Sydney has 23 government schools with 6,664 students and four Catholic schools and 13 independent schools—totalling 40 schools with 14,072 students. I looked at the government school statistics for each school and at what the total Commonwealth funding over the period 2018 to 2027 was. For the government sector, Ultimo Public School receives $8,402,600, Conservatorium High School receives $5,917,700, Darlington Public School receives $7,229,700, and Burke Street Public School receives $9,812,200.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They sound like increases.

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

It is actually a $2,324,200 increase for Burke Street Public School. Crown Street Public School receives $7,858,900—that is a $1,860,900 increase; Darlinghurst Public School receives $8,474,300; Plunkett Street Public School receives $1,793,400; Gardeners Road Public School receives $10,399,200; Forest Lodge Public School receives $8,817,600; Alexandria Park Community School receives $22,583,500; Newtown High School of the Performing Arts receives $35,112,800; Glebe Public School receives $7,439,300; Australia Street Infants School receives $3,939,700; Newtown North Public School receives $7,428,900; Newtown Public School receives $11,064,700; Erskineville Public School receives $9,986,800; Lord Howe Island Central School receives $2,189,800, which is actually within that sector; Bridge Road School receives $3,156,500; Sydney Distance Education Primary School, based in Surrey Hills, receives $8,026,800; Sydney Distance Education High School receives $18,120,000; Fort Street Public School receives $5,253,200; Cleveland Street Intensive English High School receives $8,647,400 and Green Square School receives $2,956,300. All of those schools will have significant increases in their school funding as a result of the reforms that this government has put forward in the education sector in schools.

Many people have raised concerns in the past and have indicated that this government does not have the ability to pass legislation through the Senate, but that is not true because we have been able to pass quite contentious legislation through the Senate. I am very confident that the schools reform package that we have put to the parliament will be passed in the House and also by the Senate. I am confident about that because I am confident that the crossbench will understand that the schools are going to be better off under the proposals that we have put forward.

Once we have resolved the funding issues we can then move forward and discuss the issues of quality education and ensure that every dollar that we put into our schools is well spent and results in a significant high-quality-outcome education for our students. We on this side of the House have said many times, and the coalition government has been very clear, that we are focused on a quality education outcome for all students across Australia. The proposal that has been put together by the minister has been well received throughout very large sections of our community, and particularly throughout the education sector. There is endorsement after endorsement that we have been able to put forward.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're cutting everything! You cut schools, TAFE and universities!

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

The member for Chifley has already been warned!

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

The last time education was discussed in the MPI, I was able to make very clear the high number of endorsements that we had received and I read those onto the transcript. Unfortunately, I did not have time to conclude my list. There were multiple endorsements that I could have read out but time did not enable me to do that. But I am happy to continue, because I am very sure that those opposite will put up another MPI and totally ignore the vocational education sector.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a sad day when we have to get up here and debate something we buried the hatchet on in 2013. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, we all recall the bunting, the posters and the advertising messages which clearly said: 'Us too! Us too! We're part of Gonski!' We worked out a system for the first time in the history of Australia where schools were funded on a needs basis. In other words, schools were looked at and assessed and we ensured that there was enough funding to deal with any shortfalls to ensure children had the right start to life so they could go on and do bigger and better things.

To see the government today rehashing something they did not agree with back in 2013, but for the sake of an election decided to do the 'Us too! Us too!' thing and put out their advertising and bunting and campaigned on it to win votes to be able to win government, is a disgrace. What they have done now is reneged on that promise of 2013.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We put more money in!

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I were the member for Aston, I would not talk too loudly. In his electorate alone there are over $8.3 million in cuts to schools, one of them being the Rowville Secondary College, which alone loses $1.5 million. That is one $1.5 million from that community and that school.

We know, and everyone around the world knows, that one of the levers we have to change someone's life for the better is through education. We have seen so many people that had a start in life living through poverty, through bad luck and through a whole range of things. Because of determinations of governments, of parents and of communities, they have been able to put people through schooling to change their entire lives and their entire generation. We saw this is the early years of public education here in Australia. We saw this when we had the Gough Whitlam government, when we had free education for universities. It gave people the opportunity to go and get a degree when they had previously had absolutely no hope under conservative governments.

The government is not interested in education. They can dress it up, they can package it, they can paint it, they can put lipstick on it and they can put a bow tie on it, but the reality is that when you add up the sums there is a $22 billion cut to education in Australia. That is fine. If the government want to make a cut, that is fine. Be up-front. Be honest. Come out and say, 'We're making these cuts in order to fund X, Y and Z.' Perhaps there is a shortfall in health and we need that money and it is urgent. That is fine; we will debate it. But, through you, Deputy Speaker, do not give us this story that you are not cutting and that you are putting more money into it when we truly know that the $22 billion is taken out of education to make up the sum for the $65 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in Australia. There is no reasoning for us to be doing such a thing as to take $22 billion out of our schools and communities—funding that is there to assist and build the foundations for those students to go on and change their lives—in order to give a $65 billion tax cut to Australia's richest people. That is not on.

We on this side do not believe in that. We believe that children should have every opportunity to better themselves and to get an education, and also that schools should have the facilities, the teachers, the abilities and the resources they require for some students that perhaps are falling behind or, for whatever reason, are not up to standard. That is why we need to be able to build those foundations in those early years to give those children that opportunity to go ahead and change their lives. Together with that, we are changing the world. Deputy Speaker, when you give someone a good education you are changing the world. Along with a better life for them, with a collective we are changing the world to be a better place.

This was funding under Labor's plan. Under the plan this government agreed to in 2013, this was funding that needed to go to students who needed extra support, in some cases, for numeracy and literacy and to help teachers support students with additional needs. There is still no detail. This is what I cannot understand. We have not seen clear funding detail from this government to this point. (Time expired)

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

We had that great film, Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray. That is Groundhog Day, the film. We have now had, I understand, Groundhog Day, the musical by Tim Minchin. Today we have seen 'groundhog day, the parliamentary motion' from the member for Sydney. We got a bit of a flavour of this from the assistant minister when she was talking about how little we have heard about vocational education from those opposite. By my count, in this parliament alone, the member for Sydney has moved six MPIs, two private members' motions, one censure motion and seven questions on notice about education funding. In the last parliament, the member for Adelaide moved 10 MPIs, asked nine questions on notice, and made speeches on one grievance debate, one 90-second statement and one adjournment debate all on the question of funding.

Nobody is saying that school funding is not important. But, absolutely, the most important issue in school education is school performance. We have a terrible situation where we are declining in our performance in literacy and numeracy. We are having no discussion from those opposite about performance quality or results.

Ms Husar interjecting—

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

The member for Lindsay is warned.

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

I have looked high and low to find a motion on these matters, and you just cannot find it. When we are being beaten by countries like Kazakhstan and Slovenia one has to ask the question: what are we doing about quality and performance? On this side of the House, we are doing something about quality and performance. That is why we have commissioned Ken Boston and David Gonski to do the Gonski 2.0 inquiry, where they are reviewing teaching and learning strategies, and where they want to do something to reverse the declining results and to raise the performance of schools and students. They are going to produce their final report by the end of 2017 in time for negotiations with the states and territories in relation to the next agreement.

It is to be hoped that those opposite treat Gonski 2.0 better than they have treated Gonski 1.0. We have had this long series of funding fallacy motions from those opposite. You do not have to believe me; you do not have to believe conservative think tanks. You can believe the ABC Fact Check, which said, on these matters: 'Labor is sprouting rubbery figures.' This so-called $22 billion cut never existed. If you believed that Labor was going to spend $22 billion more on education funding, you would believe that they would have also delivered us a surplus. They kept promising to deliver surpluses, and we never got them.

Labor has had many opportunities to support the Gonski program. But when they will be given the opportunity to vote for sector-blind, needs-based, transparent funding, as they will be shortly, they are going to vote against it. The vote against it is to vote against Gonski. Here is what David Gonski himself said at the announcement of the government's funding plan. This is the person that the Labor Party chose to do the funding review. This is the person that the Labor Party and the trade unions plastered over every school, every train station and every available piece of public land in everyone's electorate. This is what Mr Gonski had to say about our proposals in relation to funding.

… 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 ringing endorsement from David Gonski. If you are going to support the Gonski funding model, you have to support the proposals that we have put forward here.

The truth is the coalition is actually delivering record funding in education and record funding for schools. A record $242.3 billion will be invested in total schools recurrent funding from 2018 to 2027, including $81.1 billion over 2018 to 2021. Funding in 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 Commonwealth funding growing by approximately 75 per cent over the next 10 years and funding per student growing at an average of 4.1 per cent per year.

I plead with those opposite: this is the best chance that we have for transparent, sector-blind, needs-based funding. I ask them to join with us on this side of the House and to give a Gonski.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, in question time the Prime Minister commenced with the statement: 'It is unjust, inconsistent and a betrayal of what David Gonski intended.' Well, doesn't he need to go to the house of mirrors and have a good hard look! That is exactly what this second dud version of Gonski is. He also said today—and it is really interesting when you listen to the Prime Minister's language, as it is very telling: 'Labor needs to say whether they would fund it.' Do you know what the answer is? We would and we will. This government is cutting $22 billion out of Australian schools—there is no denying it. You cannot make a promise—'not a dollar difference'—and then say: 'No, no, we changed our mind. We're not going to fund it now, but we will give you this, and it is an increase.' Well, it is an increase when you cut it—it really is—but it is not a true increase.

In the Hunter region, my region, in the next two years $23 million will be ripped out of schools. This is a region where youth unemployment is amongst the highest in the country. We hear from those on the other side: 'This is not $22 billion in cuts—Labor is making it all up. It was never there in the first place.' Well, the money was there; it is there. It is a matter of priorities. Those on the other side do not want to properly fund education. What have members said today? 'It is the parents' responsibility to fund education.' This is about priorities. You do not want to fund education, and that is the bottom line.

This government is cutting $22 billion from Australian schools. Nobody on this side of the House or in public schools in my electorate is fooled. We know it is a cut, because the government said it was a cut in its own briefing papers to journalists. We know it is a cut, because the states and territories signed up for a six-year agreement under the original Gonski plan and we have two years to go. Those agreements have been signed. They are in place. That money was budgeted for by schools. As for making it up, go and talk to the principals in my electorate. They were not making it up when they signed up for it.

If this government is serious about education, it will drop its ludicrous Gonski 2.0, lame duck, second-rate plan and honour the original, genuine Gonski plan that it signed up for. 'Not a dollar difference'—how short is your memory? The money is there; it is just priorities. This government must prioritise school funding that actually and adequately meet the needs of every Australian schoolchild. In my electorate, nine schools will lose more than $1 million each. One school will lose close to $2 million in the next two years. You would not know it, but they have done a fantastic job with this shonky, rogue algorithm, schools-funding estimator—what a dodgy deal that is! The estimator only shows the funds the government will give to the schools in the next two years. It does not show what the government is tearing up in these Gonski agreements and what it will take away.

In my state the Department of Education data sets those two figures side-by-side. So, if you want some decent data and some evidence, go and have a look at those figures. It says what the government will give schools and what the government will take away. Do the arithmetic. There is the difference. No-one should be fooled. This government has the hide to call this budget fair, when our most disadvantaged students will miss out on funds. School principals know it—they know it when they receive their letters from this education ministers spruiking about extra money. They know he is not telling the whole story, that he has totally ignored the fact that the money that was promised will not be delivered, and that a lesser, paltry amount will be delivered in its place.

Two schools in my electorate show just what can be achieved when proper, genuine, original Gonski funding money comes to the party. Kurri Kurri High has employed a teacher to work with Aboriginal students. They have improved their writing results by 200 per cent. They have employed an experienced HSC marker to work with every individual HSC student, resulting in twice as many band 5s and far fewer students not finishing. These are really critical, important markers that we should be looking at.

We should not be bickering about this money in this House. This government should pay up and back our kids so that they may receive the excellent education that, firstly, they are desperately entitled to but, secondly, they deserve.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak out against the campaign of misinformation spearheaded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney, and to speak in support of the coalition government's education reforms. The fact is simply that there are no cuts to the amount that the federal government provides to schools. We have seen a positive trend in combined Commonwealth funding for schools in recent years. From 2017 to 2027, the funding for schools across all sectors is due to increase by a sector average of 53 per cent.

There are 27,909 students studying in my electorate of Dunkley, and on average the funding for each student is set to increase by $6,557 over the next 10 years. This increase is forecast to bring total Commonwealth funding for Dunkley schools to $1.25 billion over the next decade. All 51 schools in my electorate of Dunkley will be getting an increase in funding. I know it must be a disappointment to those on the opposition bench but, contrary to their claims of cuts of $22 billion over the next 10 years, the Turnbull coalition government is in fact increasing funding to schools nationwide by $18.6 billion, which leaves the member for Sydney's calculations out by over $40 billion.

On Monday evening I joined with the Minister for Education and many others, including four principals from schools in my electorate—Flinders Christian Community College, and its various campuses, and Bayside Christian College—for the Christian Schools National Policy Forum here at Parliament House. These principals—Nick Haines, Cameron Pearce, Andrew Watts and Chris Pryor—were all very pleased with the funding changes and the transparency and consistency of the new funding model, which ensures fairer, needs-based funding for our education sector. Like the other 49 schools in my electorate, both Flinders Christian Community College and Bayside Christian College will receive increases to their funding over the next decade. In particular, funding for Flinders Christian Community College will go up by $715,400 next year, with a total increase of nearly $43 million by 2027. Funding for Bayside Christian College will go up by $230,900 next year, with an increase of over $14 million by 2027.

The reception from the community in Dunkley has been overwhelmingly positive in response to the school funding changes. I would refer those who find themselves doubting the positive impact it has had for over 9,000 schools Australia wide to the answer the Prime Minister gave in question time on Monday, where he quoted the delighted comments of the principal of Bayside Christian College in my electorate in a letter he wrote to me on Monday. Returning to the member for Sydney's assertions: despite her insistent claims of what the opposition would do if they were in government, they need to explain to the country why they have chosen to play politics with the funding of 9,000 schools across the country rather than to vote with the government to increase their funding.

I note that our nine Catholic schools in Dunkley will also be getting increased funding, noting that block funding is given to the Catholic Education Commission in each state to redistribute as they see fit, as has always happened. Indeed, Catholic schools in Victoria will be getting a 3.5 per cent increase over the next four years in annual average per student funding. In my electorate next year John Paul College will get a funding increase of over $350,000, Padua College will get an increase of over $770,000, St Anne's School in Seaford will get an increase of over $48,000, St Francis Xavier School will get an increase of nearly $60,000, St John's School will get an increase of over $91,000 and St Macartan's School will get an increase of over $154,500. And there are three other schools in my electorate that I should also mention will be getting an increase next year. St Jude's School in Langwarrin will get an increase of over $81,000, St Augustine's in Frankston will get an increase of over $88,000 and St Thomas More Catholic School will get an increase of over $71,500.

Members opposite continue to make comments which astound me, and they choose to deny the benefits that these education reforms provide to people in my electorate. So I would ask that they support these reforms of the government.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   I am a mum with three children, all in primary school, and this year my youngest has started kindergarten. With this budget, I am absolutely livid that this government will take away $22 billion from education, from schools, from my kids' future, from the needs that they will have as they move through their education. It is quite astonishing that the member for Dunkley says there are no cuts. Those opposite have to look at the government's own documents—their own paper admits to the cuts. They call it a savings, but we call it a cut. They are the same thing. So, please admit that that is what it is.

Under Labor the Schooling Resource Standard for all schools and all systems in Tasmania would be at 95 per cent by 2019. That standard ensures there is the funding needed to give every child a quality education but now, under this government, that standard goes down to 20 per cent for public schools. What happens to the rest? In Tasmania, the Tasmanian schools in every sector will lose $85 million over the next two years—$68 million from Tasmanian public schools. I want to read out a quote from the Australian Education Union:

Instead of the $100 million our schools would receive under our six-year signed agreement, the Federal Government is offering just $16.5 million to the 2018/19 financial year.

It is $16.5 million when they should have got $100 million. On the night of the budget the Premier of Tasmania celebrated the federal budget, celebrated these cuts to Tasmanian schools. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said before, he is the only Premier in the whole of this country who is agreeing to these cuts to his own schools. It will be very exciting to see what the Tasmanian state budget delivers tomorrow for education. How is a state like Tasmania going to make up for this shortfall? How are they going to meet the 95 per cent of the resource standard? The Tasmanian state education minister, who is a state member in my electorate, said that the axing of the Gonski $100 million that I referred to before 'will condemn generations of Tasmanians to educational disadvantage'. This is the state education minister, but the Premier is saying, 'Well, this is fantastic—we really do need a $68 million cut to Tasmanian public schools!' The $85 million cut to all Tasmanian schools over the next two years will mean larger class sizes, reduced numeracy and literacy support and less individual attention, and a reduction in support services like counsellors, school psychologists and speech pathologists—all those supports that do give real meaning to needs based funding. One of my schools, Ulverstone High School, wrote to me to tell me about what the additional funding under this agreement has meant to their school:

The additional funding has enabled our School to provide extra support for students in Literacy and Numeracy through support staff working in classes with students and providing extra support for disengaged students. The implementation of 1:1 devices for all students is underpinned by the extra funding that the School has been able to access to provide all students with access to technology.

Is that going to continue under these cuts? Is the state government going to make up the difference and ensure that the kids at Ulverstone High School will get the funding they need for extra resources for numeracy and literacy? We will see tomorrow, in the state budget, but I am certain that that will never happen.

The Catholic schools are also very worried. I have met with the Catholic Education Office in Tasmania a couple of times in the last week. They are very concerned that the federal government is not giving them any information so they can inform their families what these cuts mean for them. Here are the government, the parties that say parents need to have a choice in education, and now they are forcing parents to make that choice based on funding. Schools in Tasmania are low fee schools. Fees range from $1,000 to $2,000 per year, and this government is putting that situation at risk and will close those schools down.

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

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other speakers try to bluff their way through the mythology of funding for our schools. Back in 2013 we committed to meet the forward budget education commitments of four years. The fifth and sixth year of funding were never budgeted for. The first four were funded, and we increased the investment by $1.2 billion to cover the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government shortfall. With this budget, a further $2 billion will be invested over 2018 to 2021, which brings the total to $18.6 billion. I am sure I heard that Labor made a commitment to fund all students to 95 per cent. Where on earth was that money going to come from, when the Labor source of funding originally was supposed to be raised by the minerals resource rent tax? And what a dud that turned out to be.

I also heard about funding for Northern Territory schools, so let's just check on two. Ampilatwatja School received $10,930 per student this year and will get $11,121 next year. Bradshaw Primary School students this year received $5,117 and next year will receive $5,207. For both of these it was a significant increase, but the first school I mentioned is a little bit more remote. Remoteness and being Indigenous actually gives them extra funding, and that is what is reflected in those numbers. The arguments that are being put forward by Labor are bizarre at best, dishonest at worst. They must support the amendments, or shame on them.

One school in my electorate has been featured, not for the amazing work they are doing but for the rubbish regarding funding. So let's put this funding in the context of reality. Nowra East Public School this year gets $3,528 per student and next year will get $3,707. Just around the corner, less than five kilometres away, another school gets only $2,640 and next year will get $2,774. That is needs based funding, because Nowra East is in a low-socioeconomic area. It is $1,000 difference per student for the principal to be able to apply to all the wonderful programs the school is doing.

We have a total combined Commonwealth and state and territory funding that has grown by 15.4 per cent per student over the last 10 years. Commonwealth funding has increased in real terms by 72.4 per cent for government schools and 25.7 per cent for non-government schools. While our funding has been growing, our results are not reflected in that increased investment. How much funding we provide is important, but what we do with it is what counts. Funding should go where it is needed most and should be used in ways that we know deliver results. But under the current funding arrangements that we inherited from the former government, funding for schools is based more on history and special deals than on actual need. States and territories were treated differently by Labor depending on what deal they could negotiate. It is not acceptable that the same student with the same needs currently gets a different level of funding from the Commonwealth depending on where they live. States and territories that had historically funded their schools were actually penalised under those deals.

I note that the previous speaker on this matter of public importance, who happened to be the member for Whitlam, who spends a fair whack of time in my electorate, has not actually discussed any of the schools in his own electorate. So, I have four examples here that he might want to take notice of. The first is Shellharbour Public School. This year they are getting $1,096,200. That is $2,298 per student. Next year they will get $1,151,700. That is $2,415 per student. That is an actual increase, well above CPI, so they can continue their great programs. Flinders Public School this year gets $1,305,700. Next year they will get $1,371,800. That is $2,481 per student. Dapto High School—which is actually quite an amazing high school; I went up there to have a look at their commercial kitchen—this year is getting $2,734,600. Next year they will get $2,873,100. That is quite a significant increase. But need I remind those on the other side that the Commonwealth government is not responsible for the state schools. Getting the funding up to 20 per cent for state schools is great—much better than where it is now—and we have a responsibility to do it. Let's get real about the funding model.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to think that most members who come to this place appreciate the honour they have in representing their community and doing the best they can for the future, not only for their constituents but for all those within their respective communities. But when it comes to education, health and other issues—although this debate is about education—you have to start to look at not just what this government says but what this government does.

A number of faces I see here were here in 2013. We saw in the lead up to that election that the government obviously did some polling and worked out that, in terms of health and education, they could not have much division with Labor. When it came to education, the view from the then shadow minister was that there was not daylight between them and Labor and, therefore, if you voted Liberal you got the same deal as if you voted Labor. He said, 'We all subscribe to needs based education, so this is not a division; this is a unity ticket.' And what did they do? As soon as they got in, they tried to take $30 billion off that. They led with the view that there would be no cuts to education, not cuts to health and no cuts to pensions, but they moved on all those.

When it comes to education, I think we have to be realistic about it insofar as this is an investment. There is no question about it. I know the member for Gilmore says, 'This is not our problem; it's a matter for the states.' I will tell you what is our problem: investing in this country and in its future. The best way of investing in the future is through education. Not only does it give a ticket to opportunity for young people in the future but it also actually skills up these young people for the jobs of the future. By the way, that is our future as a country. I get concerned when we hear the explanation or the doubling down as to why this is not a $22 billion cut to education.

The Prime Minister was asked on repeated occasions today, 'If it is not $22 billion, what is the number between the Liberals policy on education and what Labor would deliver over the next 10 years?' Apart from the obfuscation that occurred, nothing really happened. They were not prepared to come out and say, '$22.3 billion,' but the PMO was quite happy to go out and circulate a briefing statement to all of our colleagues up in the press gallery to say, 'This is what it amounted to.' This is a key area of investment in this country. There are many key areas, but education is what we need if we want to be that smart, innovative nation for the future. Yet they are trying to double down. How do you get back out of this and call it a saving of $22 billion?

I am not in a habit of quoting Liberal state ministers, but I will on this occasion—Minister Rob Stokes in New South Wales. He made it very clear. He said:

We made sure we found the funds we needed to meet the obligations under the agreement we signed in good faith with the commonwealth government. We have funded the full six years of our agreement with the commonwealth.

He goes on to say:

… we have a deal with the commonwealth government and we expect that deal to be honoured.

If he cannot get a deal out of his liberal mates here in Canberra, I guess this guy cannot get a deal at all. The head of the NSW Department of Education, a senior public servant, says that the Commonwealth budget contains an increase of $820 million for New South Wales Schools but that there remained a shortfall of $1.8 billion in the existing agreement. That has been circulated at every school and to every PNC; every principal has that letter from Mark Scott, the Secretary of the NSW Department of Education.

Education should not be an issue that we are coming in here and debating about. I would have thought that all of us who have been the product of, hopefully, a decent education understand that it is the ticket to success in a country like ours. I have seen what it means for areas such as mine in Fowler. For those who are not aware, my electorate in southwestern Sydney is not a rich electorate. As a matter of fact, it is an electorate that is primarily made up of migrants, but the vast majority are refugees. We are actually slated to have the majority of the new refugees from Syria who come to New South Wales come to my electorate. Education is very, very big for those young people—kids for whom English is not a first language and kids who come from a war-torn, persecuted background. We expect a lot of our schools and a lot of our teachers, but this government has just turned its back on all of that.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I have not had the privilege of serving in this place for as long as you have, but I have been here long enough to remember those placards. 'Why do not you give a Gonski?' they used to say. I thought I might have a think about what that placard meant and what Gonski was calling for. Gonski was calling for a national school funding model. He asked that it be needs based. He said, importantly, it needed to be transparent. We have delivered a model which is national. We have delivered a model which is needs based. And, importantly, we have delivered a model that is transparent. And, on top of all of that, we have provided a model which is sector agnostic.

So, when I see those placards which a few of my colleagues across the way forgot to take down from the windows in their suites, I think, yes, we have given a Gonski. We have delivered the real Gonski. But they hate it. They absolutely hate it. In this modern Labor Party, what do you do when you have been outflanked by an agile and innovative coalition? You turn back to the tried and true misinformation campaigns. They are out there on penalty rates today. They are obviously out there on the NDIS. But in here in this place they are running the school scare campaign.

Let's have a think about the macroeconomic environment—$18.6 million more school funding. No matter which way you say it, that is more money. Those opposite say, 'We would provide even more!' But, just like the NDIS, it is unfunded. You can write a cheque if you do not have to cash it, and that is the problem for those opposite. You have to actually cash these cheques. We do not live in the fanciful world of writing a blank cheque and leaving it to someone else to worry about cashing it. Having spoken about the macro level, let's look at the micro level. Let's bring it back to the good people I have the privilege of representing in this place—110 schools; 25,236 students. Not 90 per cent, not 95 per cent, but every single school on that list receives more funding because we gave a Gonski. In 2017 it is a five per cent increase. Over the 10 years between 2017 to 2027, it is a 61.6 per cent increase. They are not cuts. They are real increases. It runs to hundreds of millions of dollars across these 110 schools in my electorate per year.

I am not the only one calling this fakedom out. To their credit, the Murray Pioneer,a newspaper in Renmark in my electorate, had this editorial headline: 'Funding 'cut' is fake news'. Who would have thought that those opposite would kind of be channelling the fake news theories? The school funding calamity is false. Editors and journalists in my electorate get it. The people of my electorate get it. When you get more of something, that is not a cut. That is an increase. If I get more apples, I have had more apples, not less apples. It is pretty simple. My daughter is seven and she has worked out this sort of addition and subtraction stuff out.

I do not think the last word should go to a politician or to editors—although, they do a great job in my electorate; a great shout-out to the people at the Murray Pioneer. I think the last word should go to an independent school. Rivergum Christian College principal Gregg Smith said: 'We are aware of a fierce campaign from some arguing against these reforms. We fundamentally disagree with those views. Our college, one of 125 Christian schools across Australia, is supportive of Gonski 2.0 reforms. Our support is not simply because we benefit from its successful implementation. In fact, we have six schools within our group who will suffer detriment. This is about what is best for all schools across all sectors in the long term. Our support is simply based on the fact that this is good policy.'