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 honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question, therefore, now is that the amendment be agreed to. In continuation, I call the honourable member for Fowler.

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

Before debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 was adjourned, I was speaking about the views of the principal of All Saints Catholic Primary School in Liverpool. She made it very clear that this government does not understand the systemic Catholic education system. I noted that last week it was not just what Mrs Scanlon had to say but also what the National Catholic Education Commission said: 'Hundreds of Catholic schools will be allocated less Commonwealth funding next year. Dozens of schools will be hit with a funding cut of 50 per cent or more next year.' It goes on to say: 'Almost 200 schools will be allocated less funding in 2027 than they are currently receiving. These are the department's own figures. They cannot be disputed; they cannot be manipulated.'

I thought about all that and I made some inquiries through the Catholic Education Office. It was only today that I got some explanation on why there is such disparity and conflict between what members opposite are arguing and what is being put to them: it seems that they have relied on the funding estimator for 2017, as opposed to what the schools are actually getting paid in 2017. From my observations, the funding estimator bears no resemblance to the figures supplied by the department of education, so how can this government justify their reliance on the estimated base for their new proposed formula when there are legislated amounts to 2017 which are already being paid in accordance with the Australian Education Act? I think that shows that the figures that members opposite have been reading out for school to school, particularly in the Catholic education sector, are certainly different to what the Catholic Education Office is saying, because they have relied on the estimated model as opposed to what the schools are physically getting paid this year. The estimated model is at a lower level, so they have been arguing that the schools have been getting a larger amount of money. It is going to be very difficult when members opposite start going around their electorates and knocking on the doors of their school principals. Once they start getting out there they will find that the figures they have been quoting are wrong. They are patently wrong. By providing an artificial starting point, the government members have been led to believe by this calculation that no systemic Catholic school would be disadvantaged. Again, referring to the comments of the National Catholic Education Commission, that is wrong. Yet, members opposite have not stopped to actually look at it; they have just relied on their modelling to assert their position.

I spoke this morning to Dr Dan White, Executive director of Sydney Catholic Schools. He made it very clear to me: 'There is no way that our city schools will receive more funding under this new model.' He went on to say, 'Our ability to operate as a system is severely compromised.' He made it very clear that money within the Catholic school system is used in more wealthy areas to assist schools in low socioeconomic areas—that there is a balancing. However, the government's formula compares schools on a school-by-school basis, as opposed to allowing for cross subsidies across the Catholic education system. I think that bears out Mrs Scanlon's view at the All Saints Catholic Primary School in my electorate in Liverpool, when she says she thinks this government fails to understand systemic Catholic education. I think that is right. But this government has a bit of a track record when it comes to education. Bear in mind that in 2013, when we called the 2013 election, we were told by those opposite—by the minister and by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, that there 'wasn't daylight' between Labor's policy on education and that of the Liberal Party. We were told that there was a unity ticket. They made it very clear: if you voted Liberal or you voted Labor, you got the very, very same deal for education. There was no difference, so that was not something to base your vote on, because there was no difference between Liberal and Labor when it came to education.

The only thing is that once they got there in 2013, in their very first budget they moved to take $30 billion out of education over a projected 10-year period. Talk about 'no difference' and 'no daylight between the two parties'. In coming to that, they actually tried to justify their position by saying it was not throwing money at education that delivered results. I am not sure. As most people understand, I represent an electorate which is challenged in terms of social and economic terms. It does need an injection of funds to ensure that young people growing up in my seat have the same degree of opportunity to reach their full potential as anybody else. I have got total admiration for the teachers in my community who, quite frankly, not only work very hard but work very passionately to ensure these young people do get that opportunity to succeed in the future.

This government is talking about education simply as another political issue as to where we can take or adjust the finances. Bear in mind that, under the current proposal of this government, they would be taking $22.3 billion out of education. That is not just our figures on that. When the Prime Minister was asked what the figure was between Labor's policy and the Liberal's, he point-blank refused to give an answer on that last week. That has been pressed on dozens of occasions, but it was his office that went up there and briefed the journalists about what the difference between Labor's policy and the Liberal's policy meant. What they told the journalists was there was a $22.3 billion saving. They are not saying there was a cut; they now calling it a saving and trying to make taking money out of the education system look economically responsible.

This government and this Prime Minister has a track record when it comes to education. Just before the last election at one of those photo opportunities he took, the member for Wentworth made it very clear when he started talking about, 'Maybe state education is something the government shouldn't be involved in. Maybe we should start letting the states have an element of income tax revenue and they can provide for their own education system.' We have even heard that in this debate. The member for Gilmore made it very clear in her contribution when she stood up and said, 'Public education? That's a matter for state governments.' The future of this country and the future of our children, who are going to build the future of our country, is a matter for all of us. Simply taking money out of the education system is not going to fix it.

A couple of schools in my electorate do an absolutely fantastic job, and I will just refer to them: Cabramatta High School will lose $3.9 million over the next two years, Canley Vale High School will lose $3.6 million and Bonnyrigg High School will lose about $2 million. The interesting thing about this is that in my electorate of Fowler we have many, many immigrants. In New South Wales, we probably have the majority of refugees who come into this country. For those young people coming in from war-torn and persecuted backgrounds, where English is not a first language, the schools and these teachers do an incredible amount of work to ensure that these young people can benefit from all the opportunities in this country. My electorate, as I say, plays host to probably the majority of refugees coming in from the Middle East under the special humanitarian intake.

You then take public schools like Mainsbridge School in Liverpool, Les Powell School and Lawrence Hargrave School. They are all taking a cut of $150,000-plus per year. But they are special schools. They provide educational opportunities for young people with moderate to severe intellectual disability. Their teachers are doing an absolutely fantastic job of looking after these young people. They do a fantastic job of doing what we should all be doing, and that is ensuring that we include them in our community in the future. They are giving them the skills to participate. This is simply going to put another impost on all those schools and all those teachers who are motivating the best for our community.

There are many occupations that this country is going to rely on into the future and there are many occupations we have not even dreamt up yet. Teaching, for me, is the profession that stands out the most as making an enormous contribution to the future of this country. You are training and skilling the young minds of the future. You are developing a thirst for education among young people who are going to grow up with a lifetime of learning. The contribution you make to this country is astounding, and you need and deserve a government that is going to support you, support the education system and, most of all, support children.