Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) welcomes and congratulates the Government for banning the importation of African lion hunting trophies and its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting;

(2) acknowledges and commends the Government for its elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn ban for products produced after 1975 but recognises that these bans need to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well;

(3) notes that elephants and rhinoceroses are facing extinction due to poaching with:

(a) one elephant dying every 15 minutes for its tusks;

(b) one rhinoceros dying every 8 hours for its horn;

(c) less than 400,000 African elephants remaining; and

(d) less than 27,000 rhinoceroses remaining;

(4) notes with concern that we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia, which is part of the problem;

(5) notes the sadistic and cruel method poachers use when harvesting elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn;

(6) recognises that this ban is not about attacking legal hunters, it is about stopping illegal poaching and illegal trading in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; and

(7) calls on all governments to help Australia be part of the solution and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn, additionally to set up an infringement fine system, offense provisions and penalties.

Leonard Joel is one of Australia's biggest auction houses and the largest trader of rhino horn and ivory. In Australia, a kilo of rhino horn sells for up to $68,000, whilst ivory tusks sell for up to $8,000. This is good money for an auction house, so I put out huge congratulations to John Albrecht at Leonard Joel Auction House for enacting a ban on the sale of rhino horn and ivory from 1 January this year. John made the point to me that Leonard Joel wanted to take the sophistication away from the ivory and rhino horn trade and reveal it for what it truly is.

In August this year I met with experts on this matter at Melbourne Zoo. I would like to thank Donalea Patman, director of For the Love of Wildlife, who is the local resident who brought this issue to my attention; Dr Lynne Johnson, director of Breaking the Brand; Nicholas Duncan, President, SAVE African Rhino Foundation; Fiona Gordon, from Gordon Consulting; and, finally, Rod Campbell, from the Australia Institute. They advised me that, in 10 years, it will be very rare to see these animals in the wild, if not impossible, because they could be extinct. They wanted me to be aware that, every 15 minutes, an elephant dies for its tusks and, every eight minutes, a rhino dies for its horn.

I acknowledge the work the government has undertaken in its efforts to ban rhino horn and ivory products in Australia produced prior to 1975, and I congratulate the former environment minister, Greg Hunt, on that. But I recognise bans need to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well. Today I call on all governments to help Australia and be part of the solution, and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn.

We need to understand the sadistic and cruel methods poachers use when harvesting rhino horn and elephant ivory. These violent poachers carefully sneak up behind these beautiful creatures. Often the rhinos are so young they are still at their mother's side. First they hack at the rhino's ankles, preventing them from running away and putting them in such agony that they are unable to fight back. Then they hack off the rhino's face with a machete, leaving the tortured and mutilated animal to bleed to death in excruciating pain, as the mother helplessly watches. These brutalities are used to acquire elephant tusks as well, and I've actually sadly witnessed this in videos. However, some elephants are instead poisoned with cyanide through their water source, resulting in a slow and excruciatingly painful death. This is how dire the situation can be when it comes to the entire food chain, with other animals eating toxic carcasses.

This illegal wildlife trade is worth around US$5 billion to US$10 billion each year, making it the fourth most profitable global crime, only behind drugs, human trafficking and firearms. Poachers are paid an average of $12,000 per rhino. This is what fuels this brutal industry. Their incentives need to be taken away from them. The market for these products is unregulated, with no requirements of evidence of a product's origin, import history or age. I believe that as a nation we need to completely close Australia's market for ivory and rhino horn. That's why I'm calling for an Australian trade ban which prohibits the domestic commercial trading of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; prohibits the international trade and import and export of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn from Australia; allows the commercial trade in musical instruments that contain only small amounts of ivory, allows the non-commercial exchange of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn specifically for bona fide scientific, education and law enforcement purposes; allows for the distribution of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn to legal beneficiaries; sets up an infringement fine system with offences, provisions and penalties; and allows for importation of elephant and rhino parts gained through official hunting permits approved by Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, otherwise known as CITES.

I would like to make the strong point that this is not about legal hunters; it is about going after the poachers. African states such as Zimbabwe are now imposing necessary and very harsh penalties. In Zimbabwe convicted poachers of rhino horn and elephant ivory will now receive nine years. These products should not have the material value, and trading in them is investing in incredible cruelty. Australia must stop this practice.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier this year, in February, I submitted a private member's motion on the same topic. I will read the motion, because there are some statistics in it which are relevant to the matter that we are debating. It was:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the growing recognition that the world's African elephant and rhinoceros populations are facing extinction as a result of unprecedented levels of poaching for the global ivory trade;

(b) that the poached ivory is sold in auction houses around the world, including several Australian auction sites;

(c) that the overwhelming amount of ivory sold does not have provenance information to prove its origin, history and authenticity;

(d) that during a 2015 International Fund of Animal Welfare investigation, just 2 of 73 ivory lots offered at Australian auction houses had provenance documentation; and

(e) that the 17111 Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) from 24 September to 5 October 2016 adopted the following resolution: that all CITES parties and non-parties 'in whose jurisdiction there is a legal domestic market for ivory that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade, take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency'; and

(2) calls on the Government to implement the CITES resolution.

I read that resolution out because it goes to the heart of my comments on this matter. It does concern me when I hear about animals becoming extinct because of human greed and stupidity. It makes me angry that people are financing their destruction through buying the very products that those animals are being killed for. Some months ago I met with Shaun O'Shea. I've known Shaun since he was a teenager. When he left school he joined the South Australian Police Force. He worked as a police officer in South Australia for 30 years. On retirement, still a relatively young man, he went to work for the International Coalition of Rhino Protection in Mozambique in Africa. He spent three months there in what was referred to as an anti-poaching unit, and he saw firsthand what was occurring and the devastation that was happening to both elephants and rhinoceroses. The point made by the member for La Trobe in terms of the cruelty and the barbaric way in which these animals are killed was something he saw firsthand, whether it was the use of poison arrows, rifles, grenades, machetes and the like.

The fact is that prior to European civilisation there were some 20 million elephants in Africa. Today there are 350,000, or thereabouts. With the northern white rhino, of which there were some 2,000 in 1960, there are only six left in the world, and I believe they are all in captivity. With black rhinos, I understand there's only about 5,000 of them left. The authorities in some African countries are not doing enough to protect these majestic animals. Indeed, I understand that in some places corruption is rife. The work that Shaun and his team are doing is very risky. African conservation park officers are often killed doing their duty—working on the conservation parks and trying to stop the poachers.

The elephants and rhinos would not be killed if there were no market for the ivory. I note a recent news story reporting that both China and the US are doing something about this. China has committed to phasing out its ivory industry. I understand that 11 states in the US are legislating to ban ivory trading. These are both encouraging developments, but there are many other countries where the ivory is still being sold, and Australia, whilst it's taken some steps, is one country that could be doing more. We should adopt the CITES resolution as a matter of urgency. It was agreed to last year and it's an international resolution. In my view, this is the first step that the Australian government should be taking. If we don't act and don't act urgently, then there is every likelihood that these wonderful animals will become extinct in the not too distant future.

I go back to the comments of Shaun when he was working out there. The cruelty and the barbaric way that these animals were being killed is something he experienced. Because of his police expertise, he was able to successfully stop poachers many a time. But, unfortunately, there are not enough people like Shaun doing that kind of work to protect them.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I rise to second the motion put forward by the member for La Trobe, and I welcome the contribution from the member for Makin. I wasn't aware that he had put a motion forward earlier in the year. Well done on doing that, and I appreciate your input on this particular subject. It's great to join with the member for La Trobe in congratulating the coalition government for banning the importation of African lion-hunting trophies and for its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting. The Australian trade ban prohibits the domestic commercial trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn and prohibits international trade import or export from Australia. In addition to this, it sets up an infringement fine system, offence provisions and penalties yet still allows the non-commercial exchange of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn specifically for bona fide scientific, educational and law enforcement purposes.

This is not about attacking legal hunters; it is about stopping illegal poaching. As we know, behind every ivory ornament or trinket there is an elephant that has been brutally killed for its tusks. Elephant tusks and rhino horns aren't there for aesthetics; they evolve from teeth, giving an evolutionary advantage. Elephants and rhinos use their tusks and horns to dig, to lift, to gather food and to defend themselves. Tusks also play a big role in protecting the trunks of elephants. Unlike Asian elephants, both male and female African elephants have tusks.

One elephant is killed every 15 minutes for its tusks and every eight hours a rhinoceros is killed for its horns. In Kenya alone, 60 per cent of its elephants were killed between 2009 and 2014. As a result, only 400,000 African elephants and less than 27,000 rhinos remain, pushing these magnificent animals to the brink of extinction. In fact, it is predicted they will be extinct in five to 10 years. Despite this, we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia. Can you believe that? We need urgent proactive and preventative measures to protect these animals. In recent years Australian authorities have seized multiple rhino and ivory products at our borders, yet people continue to import ivory into Australia. International illegal wildlife trade is valued at around US$5 billion to US$20 billion per year, making it the fourth most lucrative global crime after drugs, human trafficking and arms dealing. China, the United States, France and India have already enacted domestic trade bans. The African Elephant Coalition, consisting of over 29 elephant ranger states, have also sought to shut down global and domestic ivory markets.

We know ivory is highly valued. We know it is worth thousands of dollars on the unregulated markets. Whether it is for jewellery or ornaments or because of a belief that it contains healing properties, the animals are always killed in the process. We've seen local tribes using bows and arrows and more traditional hunting methods, but more and more we are seeing the use of weapons like AK-47 automatic rifles and even grenades on entire herds. The outcome is devastating. In fact, at some game reserves poachers will start a fire to draw the attention of rangers to one area of the park. While they flock to put the fire out, the poachers target the animals. Because of these sorts of tactics, a number of conservation groups and game reserves have actually undertaken a dehorning program for their rhinoceroses. By safely removing the horns, they greatly reduce the risk of animals being targeted by poachers, because they lose their worth to the poachers. Dehorning can be done safely for the animal after it has been anaesthetised. The dehorning program is widely publicised to deter poachers from reserves. When targeted by poachers, the horn is brutally removed and the animal is killed. In regions in South Africa, over one-third of all reserve rhinos have been dehorned and, out of 33 rhinos killed between 2009 and 2011, only one was a dehorned rhino.

Dehorning is not a standalone solution. We need a comprehensive approach using preventative and protective measures to secure the future of elephants and rhinoceroses. As it stands here in Australia, there are no requirements to show evidence of a product's origin, import history or age, despite some pieces being worth thousands of dollars. In 2014, our authorities seized carved ivory ornaments and jewellery at a shop in Sydney worth an estimated $80,000, and the following year in my home city of Perth, 110 kilograms of ivory was seized by Customs. I support this motion and I congratulate the member for La Trobe for bringing it to the House and I thank the other people who are making contributions.

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

I rise to speak in support of the motion submitted by the member for La Trobe and commend him for so doing—and the previous speakers. There's no doubt that African animals are in grave danger of becoming extinct due to illegal poaching and the trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn. The figures, sadly, are too hard to ignore. The black rhino's population has decreased by 97.6 per cent since 1960. Lions are now extinct in seven African countries. Up to 35,000 African elephants were killed last year alone. At the current rates of poaching, elephants and rhinos and some of the other unique African animals may be extinct within our lifetime. That would be a tragedy, not only for Australians who dream of one day visiting Africa to see these majestic animals in their natural habitat, but for the many African people who rely on animal tourism for their livelihood.

Poachers are encouraged to continue their disgusting trade by people in Australia and around the world who pay huge amounts for elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. Rhinoceros horn is, pound for pound, much more expensive than gold. Some misguided people believe it has medicinal qualities, curing many ailments, from hangovers to cancer. However, there is no evidence that it has any medicinal qualities at all. Of course, our government should do all it can to prevent any contribution that Australia may be making to this illegal trade. That is just being a good, responsible global citizen. Realistically, Australia's contribution to the encouragement of this illegal trade is not the largest. Sadly, China is responsible for up to 70 per cent of the illegal ivory sold. Nonetheless, it is important that the Australian community also take our responsibilities seriously.

We should know, more than most countries, the value of our natural wonders, especially in difficult economic times. I know, coming from Queensland, that the Great Barrier Reef is a huge drawcard for tourists. Tourism in Central Queensland is worth about $1.4 billion to the economy and supports 7,000 jobs. That's why when Labor was in government we implemented major reforms to protect our oceans. The Turnbull government, sadly, is rolling back some of these protections. It proposes to remove 40 million hectares of marine national parks from protection. So, while we should be concerned about illegal poaching and the protection of endangered species in Africa, or wherever they are, this government is in the box seat to protect marine parks in our own backyard. Sadly, some of those opposite have abandoned these parks, even though one of them was set up by the member for Wentworth when he was the environment minister. Obviously, that was a person from another time, another place.

We were reminded last week that Africa is also far from immune from the devastation of international terrorism. With up to 300 lives lost and many more people receiving terrible injuries, the people of Somalia were dealt a dreadful blow last week. As terrible as the loss of life from this attack has been, it has also caused massive destruction in the Mogadishu business district. I send my prayers to all the Somali community in Australia, especially those living in Moreton.

Australia could make a real difference to the lives of African people by fighting poaching and also stepping up to help Africans combat international terrorism. Australia's expertise in counterterrorism could strengthen the resilience of Africa to combat this very real and increasing threat. In fact, in an article in The Australian newspaper today, Anthony Bergin, the senior research fellow at ANU's National Security College, says that:

Australia has 190 ASX-listed companies running 590 mining and exploration projects across 38 countries on the continent.

The projects these Australian companies are embarking on in Africa may increase the potential for terrorist threats to occur. So it's incumbent on these companies and the Australian government to do all they can to mitigate that risk. Mr Bergin also suggests that more of the African aid budget be spent on countries facing the threat of terrorism by jihadist groups to bolster their resources and fund the necessary capabilities to defeat those groups.

Sadly, the Turnbull government has abandoned Australia's bipartisan commitment to aid funding and slashed well over $11 billion from our international development assistance budget. This is short-sighted and fails to take into account that strengthening the resilience of Africa to counterterrorism would not only help Africans but also assist with stability in the region, which would then help all Africans and obviously be good for those Australians with African connections. Many of them call my electorate of Moreton home—people from Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, South Africa, Congo and Eritrea, to name but a few. Just one year ago, a Sudanese Australian from my local community stopped his taxi to get a haircut at the Moorooka shops. He saw a bus in flames and stepped in and saved 11 people who were trapped on that bus. Sadly, one person died in that accident—Mr Alisher—but we'll be opening a park in his honour, called Manmeet's Paradise, on Saturday.

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to today to talk about this motion as I believe it's appalling that elephants and rhinos are facing extinction because of poaching, particularly given the sadistic and cruel methods that poachers use when harvesting elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. I congratulate the government for banning the importation of African lion-hunting trophies and its participation in helping end the practice of canned hunting. I acknowledge and commend the Turnbull government for its ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn products produced after 1975 but recognise that this ban needs to be implemented for all products produced prior to 1975 as well.

I note that elephants and rhinoceroses are facing extinction due to poaching, with one elephant dying every 15 minutes for its tusks and one rhinoceros dying every eight hours for its horn. There are less than 400,000 African elephants remaining and less than 27,000 rhinoceroses remaining. I note with concern that we can still buy and sell elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn in Australia, which is part of the problem. I commend the Turnbull government for being part of the solution. I recognise that this ban is not about attacking legal hunters; it is about stopping the illegality. It is about stopping illegal poaching and illegal trading in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. I call on all governments to help Australia be part of the solution and prohibit the domestic trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn and additionally to set up an infringement fine system, offence provisions and penalties. I support this motion and congratulate the member for La Trobe for bringing this motion and for his compassion and commitment in relation to such issues.

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

I rise to speak in support of the member for La Trobe's motion and its importance in protecting some of these animals that are fast disappearing from the earth—in particular, the measures banning lion-hunting trophies and restrictions on elephant and rhino products. There is no doubt that these measures will assist efforts to protect wildlife and, in particular, some of the endangered species. I want to acknowledge some of the previous speakers, who made excellent points. I just want to look at some other animals as well and some other difficulties we face in this area so that we might widen the conversation.

Some key statistics: there are over 35,000 species—over 5,000 animals and 30,000 plants—listed under CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES includes species that are threatened with extinction and species that, although not currently threatened, might become threatened if trade is not strictly regulated. We can argue about the exact numbers but, in general, scientists are in agreement that we are in a period of heightened extinction risks and rates as a result of human activity. African animals, as we've heard this morning, are in trouble. But so are others. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy reports that Australia has the worst mammal extinction rate in the world. Thirty native mammals have become extinct since European settlement. To put this in a global context, one out of three mammal extinctions in the last 400 years have occurred in Australia. More than 1,700 species of animals and plants are listed by the Australian government as being at risk of extinction, and around 30 per cent of our surviving non-bat mammal species are threatened with extinction.

Like many of my colleagues, I am really passionate about protecting endangered animals. Back in 2001 I was privileged to volunteer with the NGO Conservation International, which was conducting antipoaching patrols targeting tiger poachers in Cambodia. At that point in Cambodia, in 2001, in particular around the Cardamom Mountains, there were only 30 tigers left and a patrolling armed force was being set up to prevent further loss of those magnificent animals in that national park. Tigers are a great example of why it is critical that we protect animals. They're listed on CITES as a species that is threatened with extinction, and the Worldwide Fund for Nature reports that over the last century tiger numbers have fallen by about 95 per cent. They now survive in 40 per cent less area than they occupied just a decade ago. Tigers face daily hazards from poaching and habitat loss. Every part of the tiger, from its whiskers to its tail, is traded in illegal wildlife markets, feeding a multi-billion-dollar criminal network. I'd suggest that maybe tigers are something the member for La Trobe could move on to next, and I'd be more than happy to work with him on it.

In order to save tigers we need to preserve the biodiverse environments in which they exist—Asia's remaining great rainforests, jungles and wild lands. These areas are also home to thousands of other species of plants, animals and people. They provide food, water and other essential ecosystem services necessary for survival.

There's been a little bit of light recently, in that last year the Worldwide Fund for Nature reported that the global population of tigers had shown a slight increase. That was driven largely by conservation successes in India, Russia and Nepal. Unfortunately, the report estimated that only seven wild tigers remain in China. As we've heard, the Chinese provide a big market for a lot of the products coming from these animals in Africa. That is a concern, but of massive concern is that there are none left in Cambodia. That is not to say that our efforts are in vain, but we must redouble them for the future.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government's additional $23.5 billion investment in Australian schools over the next 10 years, on top of the 2016 budget, will deliver the real needs based funding that our students need to succeed;

(b) this funding package will ensure that all students and schools are treated fairly and equitably, and that students with the same need in the same sector receive the same support from the Commonwealth; and

(c) in the electoral division of Fisher this action by the Government will ensure that, for example, Glasshouse Christian College will receive an additional $28.5 million, Chancellor State College will receive an additional $24.6 million, and Meridan State College will receive an additional $23.5 million in funding over the next ten years;

(2) congratulates the Government on this major investment in Australia's future and on delivering needs based funding into the school system;

(3) welcomes the Government's action to ensure that this additional funding delivers improved results, through initiatives like the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, the Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education, and the Teacher Performance Assessment; and

(4) encourages the Government to continue its focus on improving educational outcomes and ensuring that school funding is well spent, particularly in regional areas such as the Sunshine Coast.

The upbringing of our children is one of the greatest responsibilities that we all share as a community. It is often said that it takes a village to raise a child, and that is very, very true. For those of us in this place it's our particular responsibility to deliver an education system that gives all Australian children the opportunity to grow and to succeed. Governments and politicians quickly come and go. Laws are enacted and repealed but, in setting the parameters of our children's education, we play a part in building the future of an entire generation and therefore our nation. That's why this government has made investment and reform in education one of the centrepieces of its agenda. We have committed an unprecedented additional $23.5 billion over the next 10 years. This investment in our children's futures, which is unmatched in our nation's history, represents an average of more than $2,300 for every Australian student. However, this government recognises that taxpayer funds are not endless, which is why we must prioritise those schools and those students who need additional resources the most. The true needs-based funding model that the government has developed achieves just that.

In my own regional electorate of Fisher, this will mean that every school will receive additional funds. The biggest beneficiaries will be Glasshouse Christian College, which will receive an additional $28.5 million; Chancellor State College, $24.6 million; and Meridan State College, $23.5 million. Overall, every student in every school sector in Fisher will see an increase in support. It is a testament to this government's commitment to education that many colleagues on both sides of the House will be able to say the same.

We also recognise that money is not everything when it comes to securing the best educational outcomes for our children. However, in my own electorate of Fisher, we have seen the great things that schools can achieve when they do have the resources to invest. I spoke only last week in the House about a school in my local electorate, Kawana Waters State College. Kawana Waters has built a new health education unit to teach up to 120 year 11 and year 12 students. Their investment allows the school to go far beyond the classroom, to create a truly immersive, practical and 21st century learning experience, mixing actual hospital equipment with digital simulation. This is in a high school.

Extra investment can deliver these big projects, but it is also about the smaller changes that can make a world of difference. Extra resources can allow schools to put together simple but expensive activities like work experience, sports programs or debating teams. While I'm on the subject of debating teams, I'd like to congratulate Kate, Lucy and Mia as well as their teacher Ms Watson from Chancellor State College for their win in the intermediate age group just last week at the Sunshine Coast Schools Debating Competition held at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Whether it be a Kawana Waters State College Health Education Unit, Chancellor's State College's debating team or even the new bathroom facilities installed at the C&K Mooloolaba Early Childhood Centre, these programs deliver for the Turnbull government and make a huge difference to the learning experience of all our students.

However, when it comes to education, money isn't everything. Over recent decades, we have seen huge increases in spending on schools while our educational outcomes have not substantially improved. What is more important than money is how our students are being taught, what they are being taught and the skills and training of the teachers who are their instructors, their mentors and their guides. That is why the government is ensuring the quality and readiness of new teachers with strengthened accreditation standards for teaching courses and ensuring that graduate teachers have literacy and numeracy skills in the top 30 per cent of adults, with the rollout in 2018 of the new teacher performance assessment.

To ensure ongoing improvement, the government is also undertaking a comprehensive process of consultation and review of education practices throughout Australia. We are asking the right questions of teachers, students, school administrators, parents and education experts in our cities and regions. I commend that work, and I commend this motion to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I have a seconder for the motion?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the member for Fisher was elected only in the most recent election so he might be forgiven for not knowing the history of Gonski reforms and for not knowing that the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, before the 2013 election committed to the full funding of the Gonski reforms. There was not a sliver of paper between Liberal and Labor on education and yet what we have before us now is a motion that seeks praise for a $22.3 billion cut from that trajectory—there will be $22.3 billion less for schools than was agreed by the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in the final days before the election in 2013. When you spread that $22.3 billion out and you look at the effects on local schools in my electorate of Parramatta, it is $18 million less for the 33 government schools over two years alone. The schools that are hit hardest are the schools that can least afford to be hit at all. We have Arthur Phillip High School losing $622,000 in 2018 and $1.38 million in 2019—so just over $2 million will be cut from Arthur Phillip High School. Parramatta Public School will lose $504,000 in 2018 and faces a cut of nearly $600,000 in 2019. That is $1.1 million less than they would have received if this government kept its commitment in 2013 to fully fund the Gonski reforms. Granville Boys High School has 566 students from some of the most disadvantaged families in our community. It will receive $337,000 less in 2018 and $750,000 less in 2019. It is hard to imagine why anyone on the government side would stand up and seek praise for these reforms, because they do represent a $22.3 billion cut from the promise they made in 2013.

The member for Fisher also said taxpayer fund are not limitless. That is one of their excuses for cutting this money, but you can't on one hand say you can't afford to meet that $22.3 billion promise for schools and on the other hand give a corporate tax cut of $50 billion over the same period—a tax cut that will cost $15 billion per year each year after that. You can't say, 'We didn't have the money to meet our commitments and fully honour the Gonski agreement' while on the other hand give a tax cut of over twice that size to the big end of town. We really are seeing here a government that's taking from the future of our children to fund corporate tax cuts for some of the biggest businesses in Australia. It is not just the government schools, either. Catholic education leaders have been speaking out about this plan to cut funding from the trajectory. When you look at schools like Holy Family and St Oliver's you see that the systemic Catholic schools do not charge high fees, they are not wealthy schools—they need funding clarity and certainty. They have been well and truly speaking out against this government's plans. The government's decision to exclude systemic Catholic schools, even from the consultation process, rang alarm bells. Again, the member for Fisher wouldn't remember that the Gonski reforms took years of negotiating. There were years of consultation when we went out and talked to schools, to parents and to state governments about what schools actually needed.

Under these reforms, as this government calls them, only one in seven public schools will reach their fair funding level after 10 years. They remove the extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018-19, which would have brought many of those under-resourced schools up to their fair funding level and it locks in sector specific payments of 80 per cent for non-government schools and just 20 per cent for government schools. It is the very opposite of a sector-blind movement and the very opposite of what children in our communities need. Any member of parliament who goes out to some of their poorer schools in the most disadvantaged areas will know that the government's plan for schooling is a giant fail. (Time expired)

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

I would like to talk about the Gonski 2.0 funding package and what it will mean to the over 25,000 students and their families in my electorate of Boothby. This landmark reform package overhauls the very messy funding system we inherited from the previous Labor government, which saw 27 individual deals done across Australia. In South Australia we saw one of the worst funding arrangements, with the vast majority of money loaded into the unfunded fifth and sixth years of the deal—money that never existed; typical Labor! Not only did federal Labor fail South Australian students but so did our state Labor government. Their funding decreased in real terms for schools—falling from $2.45 billion to $2.394 billion in 2014-15, a decrease of 2.5 per cent. Thanks to our coalition government and the hard work of the Minister for Education and Training, a fellow South Australian, we now have a stable and uniform needs-based system and funding model that will see over the next 10 years an extra $263 million delivered to schools in my electorate of Boothby alone.

Our school communities in Boothby, including principals, teachers, parents and students, know that our government is delivering a funding model that is fair and equitable. Some of the stand-out examples of better funding for primary school education include Westbourne Park Primary, which will receive an extra $4.5 million, and Edwardstown Primary, which will receive $3.2 million. Colonel Light Gardens Primary, which is where both my grandmother and great-grandmother taught, is receiving an extra $5.1 million in federal funding. Secondary schools in Boothby are also seeing large increases, with Hamilton Secondary College receiving an extra $10.4 million, Aberfoyle Park High School receiving an extra $10.2 million and Brighton Secondary School receiving an extra $14.6 million.

The best story though is that of Suneden Special School, which truly is a very special school. It is quite near my electorate office. This year it celebrated its 50th year of supporting children with the highest needs in our community. These children have very severe disabilities and they need an incredibly high level of support. Suneden will see their funding per student grow from $20,000 a year to $54,000 a year under our funding program. I am so pleased that these high-needs students and their families will reap the benefits of this unprecedented increase in funding. I recently toured the facility with the Minister for Education and Training. We've just supported them with some upgrades to their educational infrastructure, the playground and the classrooms. It is just remarkable. It really is an example of best-practice needs-based support for students who need it most. With such large funding increases across the board, especially for those students who need it most, it makes you wonder how underfunded state Labor and federal Labor were previously leaving these students.

It's not just about how much money we give, of course. Year on year we have been increasing funding to schools but we are still seeing some results decreasing. We understand that it is not just about funding; we need to fix our school education system, which is why we have implemented a number of policies that will ensure we see better educational outcomes for students. We have launched the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes policy, which is evidence based and aimed at ensuring funding is spent in the most effective way. Our ambitious reform agenda will strengthen teaching and school leadership, develop essential knowledge and skills, improve student participation and parental engagement, and build better evidence and transparency. In particular, the key reforms include a year 1 literacy, numeracy and phonics test to assist in early identification of learning difficulties; initiatives to retain teachers—one of the biggest issues facing the industry—and a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I was very pleased to attend last week the launch of a maths conference in my electorate aimed at encouraging maths teachers, who are ambassadors for their fellow teachers and for students, to encourage more people to get involved with maths.

Between our government's increases in funding and targeted outcome-driven policies we will begin to see Australian students learning more and being better equipped for life in the 21st century than ever before. I am grateful to the member for Fisher for bringing this motion to the House today. I congratulate the Minister for Education and Training on his significant achievements in education funding. As somebody who has a brother and a sister who are both teachers and are married to teachers and a mother and a grandmother who were teachers, I really do understand how important our teachers are, how hard they work and what wonderful support they provide to our students.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose doublespeak and misleading political spin, to oppose saying one thing and doing another, to oppose cutting billions of dollars of funding and then claiming somehow to have invested billions more. When you are elected as a representative, the people of your electorate put their trust in you. So I actually find it quite abhorrent that this government so casually betrays trust with such misleading and Orwellian use of language. Should people be elated or scared if they hear that the government plans to invest in a particular sector? How are the people of Australia to know when a so-called government investment actually means real investment and isn't shorthand for more cuts? So long as this government is in power, there really is no way to know at all. They've thrived on lies and they've thrived on deceit, but the Australian people see through that. That's why the Liberals have been tanking in the Newspoll surveys.

Australians want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care. Australians want a fair go; they want to see active measures in place to reduce economic inequality, not huge cuts for millionaires and big business. Australians really want investment in a quality education system. They want what they were promised. They want true needs based funding—the original funding model that Labor created and costed. That's what the Liberals promised them, not this watered-down scheme that we have got. Let's face it: multibillion-dollar cuts is what they have been given. When Prime Minister Abbott promised the government would 'spend exactly the same over the forward estimates as the Labor Party for school funding' or when Christopher Pyne, the then education minister, pledged that the coalition was 'matching Labor's funding model dollar for dollar, so you can vote Liberal or Labor and you will get exactly the same amount of funding for your school', what they really meant was that the coalition would deliver $17 billion less in funding than Labor.

There is no way to spin this. They outright lied to the Australian people. They knew the Australian people wouldn't take this lightly, of course. That's why they invoked the Gonski brand that Labor had made so synonymous with true needs based funning. There is no more clear representation of this government's desperation, so blatantly attempting to deceive the public. Stop and think for a moment: why else would the coalition refer to their model as Gonski 2.0? It was a blatant attempt to align their lesser model with Labor's promise. The government is cutting billions from what was promised—$17 billion—from schools like Morayfield State School, Tullawong High School, Woodford State School and Burpengary Meadows State School. It is cutting $17 billion from schools like these, deserving schools full of deserving children. Some of these schools had already started to see the benefits from the original Gonski model. This is what's quite alarming—they'd already started to see this.

Minimbah State School, an independent public school, was utilising needs based funding to target the needs of students through targeted professional development in literacy and numeracy for every teacher and teacher aide. They saw the very best NAPLAN results ever. By employing a master teacher to improve classroom practices, they saw their mean scale score improve in all 10 areas. Through gifted and talented activities such as robotics, Minimbah has seen attendance rates rise to the highest level in five years—best NAPLAN, increased rates of attendance and an improvement in the mean scale score across 10 areas. That's what you get from a true Gonski model. The other good news story about Minimbah is that the Gonski plan, as promised, was always about helping the most vulnerable kids, and at Minimbah this translated to speech therapy as well as vision and hearing checks.

Every single student across this country deserves a fair go, including those in my electorate. But, let's be clear: this government would rather take $17 billion of this funding and use it to fund a cut for big business tax. We've grown to expect this behaviour by this government. We should never, ever accept it. Australia deserves a government with its priorities in order and a government that truly values education.

John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion from the member for Fisher in relation to the government's investment in schools. He notes quite clearly that the government's additional $23.5 billion investment in Australian schools over the next 10 years, on top of the 2016 budget, will deliver the real needs based funding that our students need to succeed in the future. It is all about a focus on all students and schools, that they be treated fairly and equitably and that students with the same need in the same sector receive the same support from the Commonwealth government. I also note the motion's important reference to the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools and the Review into Regional, Rural And Remote Education together with the Teacher Performance Assessment. They are items that I would like to contribute to in this debate in the chamber today.

I say this from the perspective of being the member for Groom, centred around the city of Toowoomba, which is Australia's second biggest inland city behind Canberra. Groom and Toowoomba are well known for their educational offerings. We are very much a regional education capital for southern inland Queensland and northern inland New South Wales, at both the primary, secondary and tertiary education levels, as well as at preschool level in our city at the same time. I categorically state, for the benefit of the chamber, that all schools in Groom will receive an increase in Commonwealth funding in 2018. Three examples of additional funding over the next 10 years, which I offer for the chamber today, are St Mary's College, a Catholic boys college, formerly a Christian Brothers college, which will receive $20.1 million; Harristown State School, a very significant school in the south-west corner of Toowoomba, which will receive $17.6 million; and Fairholme, a private girls day and boarding school—a magnificent college—which will receive $16.3 million over that period.

Other examples across the region outside Toowoomba include Mary MacKillop, a Catholic school at Highfields, where my wife has been a teacher in the past—$10.4 million. Pittsworth State High School, one of the leading agricultural high schools in the country, let alone in Queensland—$4.4 million. Oakey State School—$3.4 million.

I note the compliments from the Brisbane Catholic Education Office in months past in relation to the government's package, and I myself have had very constructive conversations, for example, with the Toowoomba Diocese Catholic Education Office, which covers most of south-west Queensland. I am a former board member of it myself, so I can appreciate the challenges, in terms of quality education and funding that education, that such boards have right across such regions.

In terms of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools, the Turnbull government has locked in a new funding system that certainly boosts per-student assistance by an average of $2,300 so schools and teachers will have the support and resources that they need to focus on programs that are best suited to their students. But money alone is not enough. To measure success, the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools is underway as well. That review, headed by Mr Gonski himself, will report back to the Prime Minister and the education minister, Simon Birmingham, by March 2018. My experience in Queensland is that recognising the ability of schools to tailor their requirements to their students and their local communities is very important for the jobs of the future. The Review into Regional Rural And Remote Education complements what's already underway in terms of government assistance to the tertiary sector for rural, regional and remote students—under-represented students as well—such is the case with USQ in my city of Toowoomba.

I'm particularly pleased with the Teacher Performance Assessment. I'm surrounded by teachers: a couple of brothers-in-law, my sister, my wife, a daughter who is now a secondary school teacher and one studying primary school teaching as well. They are passionate and professional and they, like the rest of us, are focused on professional development. I very much encourage the government to continue its focus on improving educational outcomes and quality.

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

I thank the member for Fisher for bringing this motion to the House, as it gives us the opportunity to discuss the very vital issue of school education in Australia. Unfortunately, I must start by correcting an error in the member's motion. The government is not investing an additional $23.5 billion; it has removed $17 billion. Neither I, nor the member for Fisher, were in this place in 2013, but I am sure that he remembers the member for Sturt, who was then the coalition's education spokesperson, promising Australian parents there would not be one dollar difference between the coalition's and Labor's education plans. It was such an ironclad promise, the coalition even had corflutes made up, which were brandished with abandon at election booths. After the election, the coalition sought to break its promise by trying to cut $30 billion in school funding, which Labor and the Senate blocked. Now the government expects praise for cutting just $17 billion and not the $30 billion that was formerly proposed. If the funding you legislate is less than what you had promised, it is a cut. So, if we're going to debate an issue, we should at least start with the truth.

I am delighted that the member for Fisher is pleased that three schools in his electorate are, between them, to receive an extra $76.6 million over the next decade. It's a less happy tale in Tasmania, where public schools will receive $60 million less than they were promised by the coalition, and that's just over the next two years. And it is, of course, public schools and Catholic schools that do the really heavy lifting in Tasmania—educating three-quarters of the state's children, including most children with a disability. It is beyond comprehension that the new funding formula also strips Tasmanian schools of $10 million targeted at students with disability.

It is public schools and Catholic schools that need the most funding, but apparently that's not the case under this government. The exclusive Friends' School in Hobart, where high school tuition can cost parents more than $20,000 a year, is getting an extra $19 million from the government's changes to funding formulas. While kids in Bridgewater, Campania and Westbury and Evandale get less for their schools, Friends' School gets a few million extra.

Those opposite will often accuse Labor of waging class warfare, but the fact is our funding model would have ensured that no Australian school would have been worse off, whether it were public, private, Catholic or whatever. Our formula was based on need, and that formula would have seen more funds directed to public and Catholic schools, where the need is demonstrably greatest. The government's model, on the other hand, skews public funds markedly to wealthy, high-fee-charging, independent schools. Caulfield Grammar in Melbourne, which charges $29,000 a year, will get $34.8 million more from taxpayers over the next decade. Wesley in Melbourne charges $30,000 and gets $22 million more. Presbyterian in Melbourne charges $30,000 and will get $18 million more. Kings in Parramatta charges $34,000 and gets $19 million more. Newington and Santa Sabina in Strathfield, which charge $32,000 and $22,000 in fees, get $19 million more. It is not Labor waging class warfare; it is the coalition waging warfare on public education funding.

Anyone who says school funding is not relevant to education performance is kidding themselves. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is right up there in importance. On all the education indices, my electorate of Lyons is behind the eight ball. Many in my electorate do not aspire to university; they see it as either out of reach or irrelevant to their needs. Just 5.5 per cent are university graduates. I'm sad to say, just 6.8 per cent have a diploma or a trade qualification. That's a huge percentage of people without any formal qualification beyond school. That means these people are automatically behind the eight ball when it comes to better employment prospects, better pay, better working conditions and more social mobility. Education is where it starts, and it starts in primary school, and that is where these cuts are having the worst effect. The silence of the four Tasmanian Liberal senators has been deafening on these cuts, while the meek surrender of the Liberal Premier of Tasmania has been, frankly, pathetic. That is why we need a state Labor government in Tasmania.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:40 to 16 : 00