Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

The MPI before the chamber today raises once again the failure of this government to actually honour its election promises and its obligations to the 3½ million students in this country, not just the current generation but future generations. What has occurred in the recent gyrations of the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister is that this government has abandoned its commitments made prior to the election to honour its election promises and to actually make sure that it had a unity ticket with the previous government in the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see real reform of Australian schools.

What we have seen as a result of those gyrations designed to meet an immediate political objective—that is, to cover the gross embarrassment that the Minister for Education has caused the government by his ineptitude and his failure to actually articulate a clear case for why the government is abandoning its election promises—is a government's attempt to scramble, to cover up its embarrassment. Through a breakfast meeting the government, without reference to the cabinet, produced a further position on school funding, which of course sums up the position of the government in its confusion most eloquently—that is, schools in this country are going to be abandoned to the cost shiftings of the states because there will be no conditions imposed by this government on its relationships with states.

I quote directly what the minister himself said just yesterday. After his backflip, after his U-turn, he said there will not be conditions attached to the way in which the Commonwealth approaches school funding. Conditions will not apply to Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. However, in an act of incredible faith rather than any reference to experience, he says:

… we would expect those signatory states to commit to those previous promises. But at the end of the day, that is a matter for those sovereign jurisdictions.

What we have noticed here is a complete debacle by this government, and it shows above all else that the people of this country cannot rely upon the word of this government. Their credibility is in tatters. They have broken promises on school funding and they have not been able to provide any substantive government guarantee whatsoever that students in Australian schools will not be worse off as a consequence of their policy positions.

What we have seen is that they have failed to commit not just to the abstract principles of school reform but to the specifics of the funding model, which secures the funding that goes to the students that most need it. That was a fundamental premise of Labor's school reform program—a school reform program which was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure quality teaching and quality learning; to empower school leadership; to ensure that we are able to meet, as a nation, the needs of the most disadvantaged people in this country; and to provide the transparency and accountability required in the funding that should flow to those students most in need.

We have seen a return, in a most inept fashion, to the old Howard days of ensuring that the most wealthy and the most privileged get the most advantage. Senator Abetz made the point yesterday and again today that there is no need for schools to be worse off—but there is no guarantee that they will not be. He said, 'You might actually find some schools are worse off courtesy of various state government decisions.' We have a dodgy deal being done with Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory with what we call interim agreements. Under those circumstances the states are given a blank cheque. We have no assurance whatsoever that the Commonwealth money will not be substituted for state government expenditures.

The government of this Commonwealth under the Liberal Party has rewarded the governments of Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory for not putting additional money into their schools program. It is very clear that, in terms of the amount of money that was offered under the previous Labor government to the governments of Western Australia and Queensland and what it is now asserted has been accepted under the present arrangements, far less money is provided. These governments refused to sign up to a proposition where the governments of Queensland and Western Australia were actually required to spend more money under the terms of the agreements entered into under the Labor government. The states were required to maintain funding and increase their funding.

In July last year, the Queensland government cut $23 million from its education budget and the Queensland schools commission proposed the closure of 55 schools in that state. In this year's budget the Western Australian government cut 500 teaching jobs and capped teacher numbers for 2014 at the present levels. They cut the schools support program—the schools support resources allocation which tackles behavioural issues, literacy and numeracy—by 30 per cent. Extra time allowances were cut, additional levies on schools were introduced and a 1.5 per cent efficiency dividend was also imposed. At the end of October it was revealed that the Northern Territory government was cutting 71 jobs from its schools. These jobs included class support roles, English as a second language teachers and behavioural support staff. These are not incidental questions. This is not about whether or not there would be reductions at head office. It is not about whether or not you take away the tea ladies. None of those sorts of cliches can be applied here; these are front-line services that directly affect the quality of education for students.

We see a sharp contrast in approach by this government as opposed to the previous government. The Labor government required that additional money be provided to schools on the condition that the states put extra money on the table and that that money be spent in a way that would secure greater equality of opportunity for Australian students, greater quality of education and greater scope for real reform and improvement for Australian students. Under the Abbott government Queensland will receive $794 million. Under the Labor government they were actually offered $3.8 billion, because the Labor program was for six years, not four. Where two-thirds of the money was to be spent in years 5 and 6, this government has walked away. In Western Australia they have been offered $120 million by this government but under the previous government they were offered $920 million.

Why would a state government walk away from that level of investment by the Commonwealth? The simple reason is that under Labor they were required to spend more money themselves and under this government they are able to walk away. They do not have to maintain commitment, as they say they lost the command-and-control features of the program—by which they mean that states will be able to turn their back on Australian students and they will not have to have any accountability, they will not have to maintain effort, and while the Commonwealth pours money into the bucket from the top the states can rip it out from the bottom. It is the age-old question of the way in which the education system in this country has operated. The states seek to shift their costs to the Commonwealth; the states refuse to maintain effort unless they are required to as a condition of funding. That has been the basis of the state schools grants bills in this Senate for as long as I have been here. That principle of conditionality of funding has been a principle of schools funding for a very, very long time because it was necessary. But what has happened under this government? There is a movement away—a movement to allow conservative governments around this country to walk away from any social or economic commitment to justice in any way. (Time expired)