Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is worth reminding people that today is the eve of the federal budget. Indeed, it is the first parliamentary sitting day since an extended recess—when senators were not on holiday; they were working in their constituencies. So the Labor opposition in the Senate had various options today when it came to question time. It could have attempted to present an alternative economic plan for the country, but it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's very, very successful response to the energy crisis, but it could not and it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's historic media reforms that were announced just days ago, but it did not; it could not. Instead, we have had a very lacklustre campaign to try and undermine the government's historic, much-needed reforms to Australia's education system.

If you want to listen to people who are informed on this debate, then you cannot go past my Western Australian colleague Senator Chris Back, who, in his very wise and tempered contribution, talked about his firsthand experience having been on the Western Australian Catholic Education commission for a long period of time. It is unfortunate that Hansard does not capture screeching and loud voices, because what we have heard thus far in this take-note debate is screeching, is loud voices—but I am sorry to inform senators on the other side that loud voices, screeching voices, do not make weak arguments stronger.

Let us get to the substance of the issue. There are two particular points that, in the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight. The first is whether or not the previous Labor government did in good faith reflect David Gonski's education reform aspirations, and the answer to that is no. Secondly, I would like to reflect on a part of the world that I know quite well, the federal electorate of Cowan—indeed, Madam Deputy President might know it well—in Perth's northern suburbs, and just detail for people what are the real dollar advantages to be achieved on the ground in local schools in a pretty tough part of Western Australia, I might add. When I go through those schools, some of them are Catholic schools, and they absolutely benefit.

I will speak briefly, if I may, to the accusation that this government is not living up to the David Gonski ambitions when it comes to education reform. I want to turn briefly to an article that Glenn Savage has written in The Conversation. Those of you who know Glenn Savage will know that he is from the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, based at the University of Melbourne. What does Glenn Savage have to say? He says:

The new reform is good policy for two main reasons.

First, it seeks, in principle at least, to correct some of the compromises and corruptions—

his words—

that marred the original Gonski reforms, leading to many different deals being done across the nation and to a highly inconsistent application of the SRS.

He goes on to say:

Second, states will only get funding if they agree to use the money for reforms proven "to support better outcomes for students".

This will broaden the focus from simply debating how much schools get, to the equally important question of what schools do with the cash.

Glenn Savage goes on to respond, specifically, to the issues around what the true aspirations and ambitions of David Gonski's education reforms are for our country. Glenn says:

The original Gonski review was designed to introduce a fairer, more transparent and needs-based federal funding model. If such a model had actually been produced, over-funded non-government schools would have lost some money.

But this never happened. Instead, early in the review process, the Labor government promised that "no school would lose a dollar" as a result of the reforms.

Instead of a "needs-based" model, Labor delivered a model that injected significantly more money into schooling, but also protected the vested interests of Catholic and independent schools.

There is simply no denying this fact. As original Gonski review panellist member Ken Boston recently put it, "the Gonski Report was filleted and the flesh thrown away", leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements.

The Gonski report was filleted and the flesh thrown away, leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements. That is why this government has taken upon itself to embark upon not just a historic reform but a historic reform that delivers fairness, transparency, equity and a needs based approach to public education. (Time expired)