Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It has been an interesting debate, in which a lot of claims have been made. There is the suggestion that if only we would 'stop playing politics' with this everything would be all right. But of course those who make that claim expect you to agree with them, and the only position they claim is valid is in fact their position. I think Senator Lambie made a good point earlier today, when she said that, if the government was serious about getting genuine reform through, it would actually consult with the opposition and it would genuinely consult with the crossbenchers. Instead, what we have seen is simply a decision of government to make savings.

I also heard Senator Hinch earlier today suggest that there are no cuts being made, because the commitments that the Labor Party made were fictitious and were not actually there and, therefore, there could be no cuts. That does not then explain how the government's own documents talk about savings being made by these reforms. According to the government's own figures, these proposed changes represent a $22.3 billion cut to school funding, compared to the existing legislation and agreements put in place by the former Labor government in 2013. This difference is clearly detailed in the government's briefing document circulated to journalists on 2 May 2017. The document states that 'the legislation will see savings of $6.3 billion over four years'—that is the 2018-21—'and $22.3 billion over the 10-year period. That will be achieved by the government's plan.' So their own figures—Senator Hinch, and anyone else that is interested—demonstrate very clearly that these are savings and, therefore, they must be cuts.

But these things just cannot be done in isolation. As if people think that the federal government is simply picking arbitrary figures out of the air and apply that to school funding. These school funding agreements are agreements made with the states. They rely on commitments of states to match certain funding levels to that of what the Commonwealth is matching. So states have budgeted for this money. They have agreements in writing with the Commonwealth about the funding share that should proceed. These are in place. They are there. What this government simply seeks to do is reduce their share of the funding and expect the states to live up to their commitments, which they want to do. The Victorian government, incidentally, was not invited to appear before the Senate inquiry into this, and none of the state governments were. You would think that the states, being the biggest providers of education in this country, would have been invited to give some evidence before the Senate committee. Nonetheless, they made a submission.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

You would think you would hear from them, Senator Brandis. They are the major player in education in this country, and they do not even get an invitation to appear before the committee.