Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm a strong believer in the power of education to transform lives. Labor, in government, worked to create a school funding system that was based on the principle that every child could get a school education that gave them the same opportunity in life, regardless of background. That's why we created a system that gave the required extra attention and support to the students who needed it most—students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Indigenous students, rural and remote students and students with disability. One of the first acts of this heartless and out-of-touch government was to completely dismantle this approach and cut $30 billion from school funding. And, unfortunately, many Australians took former Prime Minister Abbott at his word when, on the eve of the 2013 election, he uttered the words, 'No cuts to education.' Mr Abbott broke his promise, Mr Turnbull did not honour it and it appears that Mr Morrison does not intend to honour it either, because the school cuts remain. It seems that no matter how divided, how chaotic and how shambolic this government is, they always seem to agree on one thing, and that's cutting essential public services like education.

This government has announced some investments in school education which go some way towards reversing the damage to Catholic and independent schools, but the position they have arrived at now still amounts to a $17 billion cut, $14 billion of which comes from public schools. Are we supposed to thank them for that? Should we thank them for announcing funding for Catholic and independent schools that is basically just replacing the funding that they already cut? Should we thank them for leaving many of the schools worse off than they were when Labor was in government? And should we thank them for their funding announcements for the Catholic and independent sectors when public schools are still being left way behind?

It's often pointed out in this place that this government's policies are continually aimed at attacking the most disadvantaged people in our community. Once again, those on that side have demonstrated this with their school cuts, because these cuts hit public schools the hardest. Eighty-two per cent of the most economically-disadvantaged children attend public schools. Public schools also educate 84 per cent of Indigenous children and 74 per cent of students with disabilities. These are a few of the groups which the Gonski review, after examining all the evidence, said needed extra support in classrooms, and yet they were exactly the groups primarily targeted by this government's $17 billion in school cuts.

Let's look at where this funding could be going. It could help reduce class sizes or employ education support staff, such as teacher aides, offering the ability for teachers to provide more one-on-one assistance for students who need extra attention. These would include not just the students who are struggling and need help but also gifted and talented students looking for extension work to help them reach their full potential. It could help to fund school counsellors, speech therapists, occupational therapists or language assistants—specialised professionals who can ensure that students have special needs or mental-health needs addressed. It could also fund extra professional development for teachers, particularly to build their skills and capacity around issues that are prevalent in their school communities. These are some of the things Australian schools most in need could be doing if it wasn't for the Liberals' $17 billion in school cuts.

Many of the schools that have been hit particularly hard by these cuts are rural and remote schools, and this begs the question: where are the Nationals in this debate? This is just another example of the National Party, which claims to represent rural Australia, simply caving in to their coalition partners, instead of standing up for regional services. I do encourage Senator Martin, as the Nationals' newest senator, to consider how these cuts have affected some of the most disadvantaged schools in north-west Tasmania, where he comes from, and to urge his party colleagues to reconsider their support for these cuts.

As if the government's $17 billion in school cuts isn't bad enough, I've spoken recently in this place about the government's $440 million cut to kinder and preschool by ending the partnership on universal access to early childhood education. As a former early childhood educator who was seeing the benefits of early learning firsthand, this decision absolutely appals me, especially at a time when other OECD countries are investing more, not less, in early childhood education. That's a stark contrast to Labor. We have announced that we will extend the partnership agreement and offer federal funding for two years of early learning. We've seen clear evidence that investing in early learning, as well as investing in disadvantaged schools, will pay economic dividends in the long run. If those opposite are going to question Australia's ability to afford the funding that our public schools need, then I ask this question: with Australia continuing to fall behind on our international performance on literacy and numeracy, how can we afford not to?

On the question of affordability, it's worth reminding Australians that, up until recently, the government were pursuing legislation to give the big banks a $17 billion tax cut. Now, I'm not clear as to whether the government has abandoned that legislation or just shelved it, or whether it officially remains government policy or they'll just revive it after the next election—who's to know?—but let's not forget that this Liberal government were claiming they couldn't afford to reimburse their $17 billion in cuts to schools, yet they were going to give the same amount of money to the big banks, which are currently fronting the royal commission to answer questions about ripping off their customers.

This speaks volumes about the priorities of those opposite compared to Labor's principles. Australians can be assured that Labor will always prioritise better schools over bigger bank profits. A Shorten Labor government will reverse the Liberals' cuts to school funding, which will see an extra $3.3 billion invested in schools over the next three years and $17 billion over the next decade. The majority of that $17 billion will go to the schools that need it the most, which overwhelmingly includes public schools. And, unlike this heartless Morrison government, Labor will not turn our backs on the 2.5 million children who attend public schools. That's two out of every three children comprising the majority of the most disadvantaged students for whom those opposite are providing the least support.

Those opposite, in their predictable fashion, are going to accuse us of irresponsible spending and demand to know how we will pay for our commitment, but we've made it abundantly clear how we'll pay for it—by making tough decisions on negative gearing, capital gains tax and the taxation of discretionary trusts.