Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am a little perplexed as to the tone of some of the contributions we have had over the last few minutes. In fact, I felt like I was back in the classroom a bit and was about to ban you from any more red cordial, Senator Mason! Forgive me as a new member of this place, but I wondered whether even relevance was something that should be taken into account. The proposition that we are talking to today says:

The Gillard Government’s Gonski school funding model which threatens to slash funding to one in three Australian schools and its continuing failure to provide education certainty for students and parents.

That was the so-called topic, talking about slashing funding to schools in Australia. To do that is based on a completely base motive. All that is trying to do is instil fear—not that those on this side of the House are unused to the fact that it is the main tactic of those opposite to try to instil fear, whether or not it is a gainful, meaningful addition to any decent debate. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions and in many forums that no school will be worse off under the funding model of the Gonski review. How much clearer can you be than that? As opposed to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday at the Independent Schools National Education Forum:

Overall, the 66 per cent of Australian school students who attend public schools get 79 per cent of government funding. The 34 per cent of Australians who attend independent schools get just 21 per cent of government funding. So there is no question of injustice to public schools here. If anything, the injustice is the other way. If anything, the injustice is the other way.

That was not my repetition; that was the Leader of the Opposition's, as you would recognise. So we need to say to ourselves: who is creating the fear campaign here? Who is frightening school parents and school communities? It is not the Gillard government threatening to slash funding; it is Mr Abbott. Rather than trying to embrace the wonderful principles that go behind the Gonski review that were so well articulated by Senator Wright, Mr Abbott is trying to frighten school communities, which I find completely reprehensible.

Why do we need a review into school funding? All of us are representatives of our own communities. All of us know that there are schools in our area that by a sheer fluke of where they happen to be physically placed, the socioeconomic status of the parents who send their children to that school, through the concentration of the number of children who do not have English as their first language or it is not the first language spoken at home, because of the concentration of children in a particular area who may or may not have disabilities, because of the concentration of children who have an Indigenous background—the list goes on. There is a lot of inequity in the system, and the Gonski review recognised that. In fact, the Gonski review found that the way we fund our schools is illogical, lacks transparency and is not focused on achieving the best results for our students, and it recommended a new way of funding for all schools that would include a set amount of funding per student with extra money for students and schools that need it most, including kids from poorer backgrounds, students with disability, remote and small schools, Indigenous students and those with limited English proficiency.

So what is it about? It is about equity. It is about recognising that every one of the children in this country, regardless of where they live or what family background they come from, has the right to a high-class education. I really seriously doubt that senators opposite would refute that. How are we going to do that? If we have a funding model that recognises those inequities across our school system, we need to have a system whereby there is a core amount of funding for each individual student and then a degree of loading on top of that that would also recognise the special needs of those students and the extra resources that have to be put into making sure they reach their potential. Not all of our students come to school from the same starting point. Some students live in homes that are able to provide rich life experiences, they are well nourished, there are no questions about good health, nutrition, sleeping, warm clothing, shelter—all those issues. Some of our students come to school ready and eager to learn. They also often have reading and writing skills and they are proficient sometimes in a second language. They have been introduced to sport, art, dance, drama and they are ready and willing to get into education and thrive. Not all kids have that opportunity.

If that opportunity is not provided by the education setting then it is our responsibility as a country to make sure that we address those inequities through the way we fund, resource and staff our schools. That is all Gonski is talking about. I think it is a principle that anyone who cares about the wellbeing of all Australian children should applaud and recognise.

To question the commitment of this government to education is quite disingenuous because, when you compare and contrast the actions and commitments of the Rudd and then Gillard Labor governments in recent times with the statements we have had coming from those opposite, they are in stark contrast. In my community we are seeing a whole new cohort of people entering trade training in order to get better jobs in the future. The trade training centres are providing a fantastic service to the people in those communities. There is $1.2 billion for 374 projects, which will benefit over a thousand school communities, yet those opposite have said they are going to abolish them.

We are investing over $15½ billion in skills and training over the next four years. We had 90,200 apprentices starting a trade in 2011 alone; yet, over the three years 2005 to 2008, the coalition spent just $6.8 billion, created only 85,000 new apprentices and pledged to cut a billion dollars from vocational training. That is the kind of compare and contrast of a value system about education that we see mirrored in the contributions from people in this place.

But I have an even bigger concern about education. My state of Tasmania relies very heavily on GST revenue. I stand to be corrected but I think figure is as high as $1.5 or $1.6 back from income tax receipts that come from Tasmania. We are looking at a review—coming from those opposite, from statements that have been made in my state and also in the state of Western Australia—that could see that formula changed. If the formula were to be changed to a dollar-for-dollar value in my state of Tasmania, that would see over $600 million per year ripped out of our community, ripped out of our state's profits. What is that money spent on? It is spent on education. My state of Tasmania is going through a period of very tight fiscal restraint at the moment and we do not need to have the spectre of more GST cuts hanging over our head.

I wish the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate were here today because I would like him to commit as a Tasmanian that he will not stand by and see $600 billion—