Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Turnbull Government's broken promise on school funding.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a mess Mr Turnbull and his government have made of school funding, along with their complete dishonesty to the Australian public and, frankly, incompetence. Remember their commitments, their promises—the unity ticket, the lock-step on Gonski and the dollar-for-dollar matching of Labor's funding—which were on display at polling booths across the nation. That is the commitment they gave, and yet they continue to renege on it. Was it all just a hoax unfortunately foisted on Australian school students who need a better deal, who need a better funding model? Was the government's unity ticket, their step-for-step, their dollar-for-dollar a great big dishonest trick played on Australian voters by Mr Abbott, then by Mr Turnbull, then by former education minister Christopher Pyne and now by Senator Birmingham?

The $30 billion cut the Liberals made to school funding is the biggest single cut to education in Australia's history. Just a few weeks ago Prime Minister Turnbull had a completely crazy thought bubble when he proposed the ridiculous idea of withdrawing all federal funding for our public education system. The Prime Minster followed up this crazy proposal with another crazy proposal—that states could levy their own taxes to pay for the massive shortfall in the funds that withdrawing federal funding for education would create. That would create in our history an absolute disparity between states on something we should have a unity ticket on and something which should be national—that is, school funding. Why should one state, which may have been able to levy higher taxes, have a better system than other states? That is the American system, and their system is a mess; in some states taxes are not levied at all and parents are just left with a very poor school system.

That is what the Turnbull government was proposing. I do not know what the Prime Minister was thinking with this crazy, crazy idea, but every single state and territory rejected the idea—except my state of Western Australia. Why? Because we have a foolish premier in Mr Colin Barnett. Frankly, he has no credibility. He has squandered the mining boom and turned our economy, the great powerhouse of Western Australia, into a cot case. He has slashed and burnt education in Western Australia, to the point that everyone is speaking about what a poor job he is doing. And there he is bailing out a crazy idea put by the Turnbull government.

This week the Turnbull government changed their tune again, making an announcement that a tiny share—just $1 billion—of the $30 billion that they ripped out of education would be restored. Clearly the jokers are in charge when it comes to the Turnbull government—to call this a funding increase! To add insult to injury, today in the Senate it was called 'yet another increase'. The Liberals said at the polling booths that they would match our funding, dollar for dollar. That turned out to be completely incorrect, a lie—a dishonesty that Australian voters had every right to believe in. But when it comes to school education, the Turnbull government, whoever the minister of the day is, clearly cannot be trusted.

What have the states said about this latest thought bubble? In Victoria they said:

It doesn't matter which way Malcolm Turnbull tries to spin it, this is another Liberal broken promise and a bitter pill to swallow for Victorian students and their families.

What did South Australia have to say? They said:

We don't need more commonwealth testing, we need commonwealth funding.

What did Queensland say? They said:

If the Government really cared about literacy and numeracy and prep and year one, then they would put their money into additional teacher aids in the classroom that make a real difference to students' learning.

And the great Liberal state of New South Wales? They have been in lock step with Labor's plan. They want Gonski. I was at the public meeting when the New South Wales Liberal minister announced, 'We want Gonski.' That is what he said.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's not a Liberal. He's a National.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is in the Liberal government. It does not matter. Suddenly they make a distinction: 'Oh, he's a National; he's not part of us.' Well, he is part of you. He is the Minister for Education in the New South Wales government, and he has outlived the succession of education ministers we have had in the Abbott-Turnbull government. He has been the minister for quite some time, and he is in lock step with Labor. What did this minister in the New South Wales Liberal-National Party government, the biggest Liberal-National Party government of all the states, say? He said:

… NSW will continue to advocate for the full Gonski funding in its agreement with the Commonwealth government.

He has said that over and over again, so he is certainly in lock step with Labor, because he trusts Labor on education. He certainly does not trust the Turnbull government's thought bubbles and endless commitments or promises to be broken. As soon as the election is over, those promises will disappear—mark my words.

Meanwhile, Labor has had a detailed policy in the public realm for months, a policy Labor developed with those who know it best: teachers, parents and education experts. Labor will reverse the Turnbull government's cuts to education and we will implement the Gonski reforms on time and in full. Certainly the Liberal-National Party government in New South Wales believe us when we say that, and they back us in on that. Labor's investment will mean more classroom support for students, early intervention programs in schools, additional literacy and numeracy programs and teachers having the tools to better track student achievement.

Earlier this year I chaired the Senate inquiry into children with disability in our education system. I was really shocked at what poor treatment children with disability have in our education system. What has the Turnbull government done about their education? Nothing. The government system and the non-government system told us absolutely, in clear terms: CPI matched funding is not enough for them. The Catholic education system said that their schools for kids with disability would close. We met with parents who had to fight to even get their kids enrolled. We owe it to children with disability to make sure that they get the education they are entitled to—not the crumbs off the table, not to attend for half a day at a time, not for pressure to be put onto parents to buy the aids necessary to support their education—and that they are treated as learners in our system. That is what Labor will do.

Labor wants all students to achieve their full potential. Our plan is about students, not postcodes. The Gonski review clearly established that our current school funding system, the one the Turnbull government is clinging to, defines school outcomes according to postcode, not student ability. This is wrong, and Labor's education plan will change that. Labor is the only party you can trust on the education commitments we make. Fair education funding is in our DNA, and we will fight for it year in, year out.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter of public importance in the Senate today. I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight, because we hear many mistruths spoken in relation to school funding. We hear many Labor lies in relation to school funding, and we heard a few just then from Senator Lines. We hear this talk that only the Labor Party is committed to school funding and we hear suggestions endlessly from Senator Lines, from Ms Ellis, from Mr Shorten and from others who all suggest that there are somehow cuts and reductions in relation to school funding.

I welcome the opportunity to put on the record, from the first full year of the coalition government to the last year of the budget that will be handed down tonight, exactly how much money is available for schools, which demonstrates that it goes up each and every year. For the record, in 2014 the Commonwealth provided $13.7 billion in school funding. In 2015 we provided $14.9 billion. In 2016 we are providing $16 billion. In 2017 we will provide $17.4 billion. In 2018 we will provide $18.2 billion. In 2019 we will provide $19.1 billion. In 2020 we will provide $20.1 billion. You do not need a particularly high level of numeracy understanding or mathematics to look at those figures and understand they go up each and every year.

Senator Lines finished by saying, 'It's a question of trust'. Well based on Labor's claims that school funding is somehow going backwards, you clearly cannot trust the Labor Party. The facts speak for themselves. The figures that have been paid to schools, that are being paid to schools and that are locked into the budget forward estimates demonstrate that funding goes up each and every year into the future. The funding equation is quite clear. Is the Labor Party promising that it will spend more into the future? Yes. I do not deny that. I also acknowledge that the Labor Party is proposing around $100 billion in new taxes into the future as well. The Labor Party's policy is clear. They can talk about their policy, but they should not mislead about the coalition's policy, which does ensure funding growth and growth that is well in excess of inflation.

Much ofSenator Lines's contribution was based on arguments of what the states say. Well, surprise, surprise: state and territory governments ask for more money. As sure as night follows day, through the history of the federation, state and territory governments have always asked for more money; as sure as night follows day, through the history of federation and into the future, state and territory governments will always ask for more money. What we see is that those opposite are apparently a pushover when it comes to simply handing over more money. They will hand over more money on a whim, regardless of the fact that it requires higher taxes and/or increased debt from them. In fact, what we see is that the Labor Party have found one magic formula. It is the magic formula of having higher taxes and increased debt, because they promise to increase taxes by a lot, then they realise that those tax rises do not raise as much as they promised, and, oops, suddenly debt and deficit levels have gone through the roof. We have seen that just in the last couple of days.

What is the Labor Party's promise in relation to school funding and school spending? They promise over the next decade to spend an extra $30 billion. They go well beyond the budget, because it is easier for them to fudge the figures that way. They promise that over a decade they will spend an extra $30 billion. In announcing that they would do that, they said that they would pay for it by increasing the tax on tobacco. They said that that would raise about $40 billion. That is fine. They say, 'This well and truly pays for our school funding commitment,' and this was the Labor commitment. Just yesterday in the House of Representatives Ms Ellis said that it was tobacco tax that was paying for school funding increases. As recently as yesterday she singled out one tax rise—one only. The tobacco tax was to pay for the school funding increase. Then what do we discover? We discover that Labor's tax rise in relation to school funding only raises half as much as they said. That in relation to the $30 billion that was going to be there for school funding, $20 billion of it will not be there. Two in every three dollars is actually missing. So we get the double whammy: we get the tax rise from Labor, if they are elected, and we also get the reality that we will end up with much bigger deficits into the future, because the tax they promise will not be there, just as it was not there for the mining tax. Classic Labor: higher taxes, higher deficit—higher debt to fuel higher spending. The real problem is that the spending is done with no real idea of how they want to see it used. No reforms are attached to the spending, just a desire to hand over billions of extra dollars to the states and territories.

We are committed, as I said at the outset and as I detailed in the figures, to growing school funding every single year into the future—growing it ahead of costs. We are determined that that funding will be distributed according to need. Let me make clear what we mean by that. We mean that schools in low socioeconomic areas should receive more funding than other schools. We mean that students with disability should receive adjustment funding more than other students. We mean that students of an Indigenous background should receive additional support. We mean that small schools in rural and regional areas should receive additional support. We are committed to needs-based principles in the distribution of school funding. That is exactly how we will make sure school funding is distributed into the future—not just when it comes to how a bureaucrat in Canberra carves up the funding, which is what happens at present. We want to make sure that flows through to how the states and territories distribute the money.

What many people do not appreciate, and what I do not think the Labor Party appreciate, is that the model they signed up to when they delivered so-called Gonski funding at the tail end of the Gillard government was actually 27 different funding agreements around the country. It was not a uniform model; it was 27 different agreements, with lots of different special deals built into that with different states and territories and different non-government jurisdictions. And once they write out a great big to cheque to a state or territory they cannot guarantee that the money is going according to need in any event. There is nothing in the way Labor has structured it that ensures states and territories deliver the moneys to schools according to need. The Commonwealth gives the money to the states, and states do what they want with it by and large. That is not good enough, and we will take a different approach to this in the future to ensure that we do fund according to need.

We will also make sure that we fund according to real reform for our schools. Over the last 20-odd years real funding for Australian schools has gone up by more than 100 per cent—it has more than doubled—and enrolments have only gone up by about 18 per cent in that time. So there is a lot of extra funding that has gone into our school system. Yet on good international measures, we see that our reading and literacy standards, our numeracy and mathematics standards, our science measures and our engagement in foreign language studies have all gone backwards. We have been spending a lot more and getting poorer results as a result. So it is not a question of how much money is being spent; it is a question of how well it is being spent.

That is why we have detailed reforms that address, from the earliest years, the identification of reading deficiencies in young children; that ensure intervention occurs at those earliest years; that ensure that students who are completing high school should have minimum standards of mathematics, literacy and numeracy; that ensure that those going on to university are actually required to have ambitions in maths and science and in English and humanities; that, importantly, reward our most capable teachers—not performance-based pay, as some try to mislead in this debate, nor pay based on NAPLAN results or the like, but pay that recognises those most capable teachers, as independently assessed by their peers and by the experts; that ensures they get a reward, an encouragement to stay in the teaching profession; and that provides greater incentives to go and work in the most disadvantaged schools. We want to ensure we get the best teachers into those most disadvantaged schools.

These are real reforms that can make a real difference to lift the outcomes for Australian students. They can ensure we actually turnaround the decline in performance and give us the best possible chance to raise our education standards in the future. It is real change rather than the hollow promises about more spending that we hear from those opposite.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens do not regard education funding as a cost. We regard education funding as an investment. We are proud to take to the Australia people a fully costed, fully funded platform that puts those offerings to date from either of the establishment parties represented in this place completely in the shade. We have said very clearly we will reverse the Liberals' $30 billion cuts to education over the next decade. We have said, and committed, to fully funding year 5 and 6 of the Gonski reforms. We have recently announced a package of $4.8 billion to support students with disability in our schools based on the nationally consistent collection of data which that minister is still sitting on and refusing, with his colleagues from around the country on the ministerial council, to release so the Australian people can have a look at it.

I well remember the infamous unity ticket promised by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott prior to the 2013 election, where he said, in effect, there was not a wafer of difference between the coalition on one side and Labor and the Greens on the other side on school funding. I well remember the actual unity ticket that emerged after the 2013 election, when then Commonwealth Minister Christopher Pyne went back on the commitment given prior to the election by former PM Mr Abbott and attempted to walk away in totality from the Gonski funding.

I well remember the ministerial council that I attended as a Greens minister on behalf of Tasmania, along with my Labor colleagues, a Liberal colleague and even a National Party colleague, when together we formed the real unity ticket on education. We rolled Mr Pyne at that meeting and forced him very soon afterwards to come out and at least commit to four years of Gonski funding on behalf of the Commonwealth. That was the real unity ticket on education. It was a Labor Liberal National Greens unity ticket on education, and that was the unity ticket that at least delivered the Commonwealth to a four-year Gonski funding commitment. It is worth putting on the record that two-thirds of the Gonski funding was due in year 5 and 6, and that is what the Commonwealth have walked away from in the context of the current debate and in the lead-up to this election.

We have costed our Gonski at $3.5 billion over the budget out years, over and above the coalition's current school's budget. That is about making sure that our kids who go to school have the supports they need, the resources they need and the investment in to teachers and school leaders that is so critical to delivering improved educational outcomes in Australia. But we have also committed $4.8 billion to students with disability in Australian schools, putting in the shade the just over $100 million recently announced by the Commonwealth in the lead-up to the budget and, quite frankly, the pittance of $375 million over the budget out years that Labor are offering students with disabilities.

We want to invest in extra supports for students with disabilities, but we do not regard this as a disability policy; we regard it as an ability policy. Our goal is to allow students who have a disability to maximise their ability, so that they can achieve what they have dreams to achieve in their lives, to maximise their potential, to maximise their abilities and to give them every opportunity to put back into our community and to be constructive members of our society and of our economy.

This is an investment unprecedented in Australian political history that the Greens are proposing to make. It is the single biggest investment into supporting students with disabilities and we are absolutely proud that we will back those kids and the people who teach and support those children in our schools to maximise their abilities.

This funding will assist with the provision of teacher assistance, which parents of students with disabilities will know is an absolutely crucial way that schools can support students with disabilities. But it is not just about extra teacher assistance. It is not just about training up teachers. It is not just about training up school leaders and ensuring that school communities and school associations understand the challenges and the potential solutions for those challenges. It is also about ensuring proper infrastructure in our schools. That can be anything from wheelchair accessibility around a school through to accessibility for transport for students with disabilities.

We are proud to have announced that funding. I was proud to announce it with our leader, Richard Di Natale, a few weeks ago in Melbourne. It is important because the NCCD data on students with disability has identified 467,000 students with disability across Australia. On the most recent figures, which are 2013 figures, 190,000 students received extra funding for their disabilities in Australian schools. That means we are currently directly supporting less than half of the students who have been identified through the NCCD process as needing supports due to their disabilities. Less than one in two students across all schools sectors in Australia are being recognised and appropriately resourced by governments. That is a shameful statistic. It is a national shame that we are not supporting those students to the degree that they need and deserve.

It is worth pointing out that nine out of 10 students with disability attend a mainstream school in our country and around three out of every four attend a public school. Nearly one in two come from families that live in or near poverty in Australia. They are 33 per cent more likely not to study beyond year 10 than students without a disability and they are nearly twice as likely not to complete year 12 than students without a disability. Again those are shameful statistics. It is truly a national shame the way we do not support students with disabilities to the extent that they need and deserve in our schools.

We are also proposing the development of a national strategy to improve the education of students with disability. That has been recommended by a Senate inquiry. The key features of our proposal around a national strategy include recognising all students with disability as learners, ensuring all students with disability benefit from evidence-based, best-practice programs, having best-practice ongoing professional development for teachers and school leaders—that is a critical part of our package, and funding announced in our $4.8 billion can be used for the professional development of teachers and school leaders—and, crucially, including students with disabilities and their parents and carers in the development of individual education plans for students with disabilities.

We have put together and released to date the most comprehensive funding commitments of any party represented in this Senate—much broader and more detailed than the establishment political parties represented in this place. That is because we do not regard funding education as a cost. We regard it as an investment not only in the future of our country but in the children and the families that have students in our schools today. We are proud to take these policies to the Australian people at this election. We will debate any time anywhere representatives of the establishment parties in this place. We will put up our policies before the Australian people and ask them to give them due consideration as they consider how they are going to vote in the election, which is coming up in a couple of months time.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Turnbull government's broken promises on school funding. What is it with this government? They cannot make up their mind from one day to the next. As was said on ABC's Lateline recently, 'Between lunchtime and Lateline this government changes its agenda.' Whether it be on workplace relations, the economy, tax policy or education, all the government care about is theatrics. They are not interested in governing and they are not interested in ensuring our children get a quality education that will set them up for the future.

The Turnbull government's inaction on the economy and taxation has been alarming. Last weekend we also saw alarming inaction when it comes to education. I might add that the only plan or strategy that Prime Minister Turnbull has is for his own re-election. With the election quite literally around the corner, let me remind those on the other side about the promise that they made to the Australian people at the last election. I suggest they listen because this is a really good one.

This was a promise that we all saw plastered in polling booths around the country during the 2013 election. It was a promise that the Liberals have ignored for the past 2½ years. The promise that the Liberals made was to match Labor on education funding dollar for dollar. That was the election commitment that they gave in 2013 and the reminder they gave people as they went into the polling booths. But this was, quite frankly, a lie. At the first opportunity the Liberals cut funding for our schools by $30 billion. It was the biggest single cut to education in Australia's history.

The community may be a little confused if they had listened to the contribution by the minister in this chamber a little while ago. They no longer trust this government when it comes to education. They no longer trust this government when they are looking to the future of their children. They do not trust this government. They know the government will not fund their children's education and make sure that the levers are in place to ensure that our economy grows in the future.

Over the weekend and as recently as yesterday Mr Turnbull and his Liberals changed their tune once again. This is what we have learnt: one, the Turnbull government does not have an education policy; two, if voters vote for the Liberal Party Australian schools will receive $3.5 billion less by 2020 than if Labor is elected; and, thirdly, the Abbott-Turnbull government cut $30 billion from Australian schools. Then on Sunday they went, 'Oops,' and they promised to reverse that funding cut by $1 billion. Surely not even the learned, agile 21st century Prime Minister could not possibly think that the Australian community are going to be fooled and sucked in to believing that that $1 billion reversal is going to wipe away the other $29 billion that they took out of education.

This is an arrogant out-of-touch government that cannot help themselves. The minister had ample opportunity in this chamber a little while ago to clarify where this government is heading and to reassure the Australian community, but he failed. This government has no policy and no agenda for anything more than getting themselves re-elected, and that will be borne out. I guarantee those listening and those who are in the chamber that tonight's budget will do nothing except try to buy them enough time to get themselves re-elected. That is what this budget will be about. But the choice at the election is going to be so clear. What the government say today and what they will deliver tomorrow will be extremely different. We know that, because that has been their track record. This is not just what we are saying; it is what they have delivered over the last 2½ years.

If the Australian people are, as I believe, concerned about their kids' future, they will vote Labor at this election—because they know we will deliver. It is a historic fact that Labor always delivers to the Australian people when it comes to education. We put people first. We put kids first. What we will not do is cut education funding. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great joy to stand in this chamber and be very, very proud of my government's commitment to the future of our young people here in this country through the investment we are making into their education, into their improved literacy and numeracy standards, into improved engagement with STEM and into the skills and knowledge that will provide us a strong foundation for our future economy—because, Senator Polley, we actually care about young people and their futures. It is about the future the deserve.

What those of you who have been listening to the debate have heard thus far from the Greens and Labor has been about the battle for the hearts and minds of the AEU and United Voice—'Okay; the election is coming up and we need a little bit of mullah here and we need a little bit of help on the ground; who is going to win the hearts and minds of the AEU, the NTEU and United Voice?' That is the battle here. But what I think we should be inserting into this debate are some facts. I do not think some facts ever hurt a good debate in the Senate, and I am very, very happy to provide the chamber with some facts around this issue going forward.

What we have in this country around the debate on education and investment in our children is a national dialogue that is completely split. The research internationally shows that, if you actually want to make a difference, you get on the same page; you do not use the future of our young people as a plaything to score cheap political points. You will not win on this issue. That is what the research says. That is how Finland did it. If we want to argue about how they did it, that is what they did.

I go to the campaign that the Labor Party are running out there about Gonski. They take that man's name in vain. They take David Gonski's name and what he attempted to do in vain day after day at school gate after school gate. What did David Gonski want? He wanted a needs based funding model. That is what he suggested. But, instead, the Gillard government delivered 27 different models across different sectors and different states, buying votes here and buying union support there. Ultimately that experimented failed, because—hey, sorry—we won that election.

We are absolutely focused on ensuring that we focus on the facts and that we use the very best research, international research, about what works. It is not tipping a bucket of money; it is actually targeting funding. Senator McKim mentioned investing in our children's future. I am sure somebody on the opposite side will use the word 'investment' at some point in the debate. What you have to remember about investment is that it all about your return, Senator Polley. The return on investment is the important factor when you are putting money into an investment. If I want to focus on return on investment when it comes to education funding, when I invest in a young person's education, I want to ensure that, when they leave school, they can read and write. I want to ensure that, when they stand in front of a camera and do some rounding of numbers, there is not a $20 billion dip in those numbers. I want to ensure that our young people are numerate and literate. That is exactly what we are doing. We are focusing our funding where the facts and the research tell us to.

Another little fantasy line that Labor and the Greens like to trot out is that there are cuts to funding. What a joke! It just shows that Ms Macklin's faux pas at the front doors today was not the only innumerate statement that those opposite want to make. They say there are cuts. Let's go to the figures and see whether there is a cut. In 2014 it was $13.7 billion—

Senator Polley interjecting—

Wait for it, Senator Polley. In 2015 it was $14.9 billion. I reckon a year 3 maths—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I cannot hear Senator McKenzie's excellent contribution about the budget through Senator Polley's interjections.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly and speakers are entitled to be heard in silence.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take a point of order. It is also in the standing orders that it is against standing orders to mislead the Senate, as the good senator is doing with her contribution.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley again shows her inability to read a budget paper and inability to actually understand numbers. As to funding put forward by successive governments, Senator Polley—not just my government; your former government as well—the Commonwealth as a proportional funder of state education in this country has improved education funding year on year. You might not think it is enough, but to say there have been cuts is a downright lie—an absolute lie. So, if anyone is misleading the Senate, it is anybody from the opposition who has spoken on this particular motion before us.

As I said, despite the rhetoric that you hear in this place, the states and territories are the major funders of state schools. They are also the majority funders and governors of recruitment direction, employment of teachers and accreditation. They are the ones getting the increased money from the government. When you look at Commonwealth government after Commonwealth government, budget after budget, pouring more and more money into and focusing on state education, I would argue that the states have been derelict in their responsibility. In my home state of Victoria, nearly one-third of our schools are non-government and 36 per cent of all students attend them. It is a higher proportion in years 11 and 12. I call on the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, who was wrapped to announce a $9 billion surplus over the forward estimates, to choose to invest some of that money into state schools, to choose to spend more of that money educating the 36 per cent of Victorian students who do not attend a state school, and to invest in their future, skills and knowledge that our state will need going forward.

Quality schools and quality outcomes mean improving literacy and numeracy, increasing engagement with STEM, enhancing teacher quality and ensuring students leave school equipped with the skills necessary for the jobs of the future. Our economy in the 21st century needs that type of citizen. I might also say that is exactly what parents want. They expect that when young people leave our schools they have been engaged and enriched and can read and write. It is not rocket science, but the sad fact in this country is that so many cannot. When you talk to employers about why they have to knock back young people and, indeed, even knock back people who are a little older, it is the lack of literacy and numeracy skills. So that is what parents want, and I would argue that it is absolutely what our Australian students deserve.

We have developed a needs based funding model. We are improving quality educational outcomes. We are seeking to make sure that we get a return on our investment, as our parents want, as our students deserve and as our economy needs. The total Commonwealth funding in my home state of Victoria will increase by $390.7 million by 2019-20. That is a 28.7 per cent increase. Sorry about that! Get you calculators out and work it out. It is actually an increase. Senator Polley, for you to stand up and claim that I misled the Senate—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter—is an absolute joke and just shows how much Labor is prepared to treat our students and our education of them as a political tool and a political football. It is not good enough. They deserve better.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on this matter of public importance on the Turnbull government's broken promise on school funding. I know the government senators do not like to be reminded of what happened prior to the last election. I know they do not like to be reminded that they said that there would be no cuts to education. I know they do not like to be reminded that they also said that they would match Labor on education funding dollar for dollar. They also said, famously, that they were on a unity ticket with Gonski funding. That is the reality; that is the truth of what we are talking about here today.

It really saddens me that the government senators, including Senator McKenzie, have stood up in their contributions and tried to say that this government is actually increasing education funding. It is absolutely a falsehood to assert that. It is absolutely wrong. We only have to look at the New South Wales state minister, who is up in arms about the cuts that have been levelled at his state. We only have to look at my home state of Tasmania, where the state minister is also crying out about the funding cuts to investment in education. That is what is happening. If we look at Tasmania, $660 million has been cut from schools in Tasmania. These are the facts. It does not matter how loud you carp on or shout about what you say you are doing in government, you have, with this new funding arrangement, cut $29 billion from the commitment you gave that there would be no cuts to education, and that you would match Labor dollar for dollar. Quite frankly, I think you knew from the very outset, when you said it in the election campaign, that you were never going to meet it. You had no intention of ever meeting that.

And then we have Mr Turnbull, who does not even want to put any money into public education. It is an absolute disgrace. The policy you put together on education is an absolute disgrace. Of course, we have heard in the contributions from this side that this is seen as a bandaid measure to get those opposite through the election. I would like to say that you are better than that, but, actually, you are not. It took a moment's notice for you to go back on your commitment during the last election, and this time around you have cobbled something together that is not about investment in our schools. It is not about investment in our children and it is not about investment in our teachers; it is about getting you past the next federal election. The mums and dads out there are not going to fall for it. They know that you committed to Gonski. They know that this policy is a short-term political fix.

Senator McKenzie talked about investment in literacy and numeracy, which really galled me. She could not be further from the truth about what their policy is. It is not about investment in literacy and numeracy. The Labor Party policy is an investment. It will mean more classroom support for students, it will mean early intervention programs in schools, it will mean additional literacy and numeracy programs and it will mean that teachers get the resources and tools to better track student achievement.

And we need this. This is what we need: we need to enable our children with this investment so they are able to have every opportunity to achieve. What we have from the government is a mean-spirited, short-term fix to get them through an election. It is a disgrace, and they should be ashamed.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is certainly one area in this place where there needs to be investment of the money—particularly in mathematics—and that is in the Labor Party, their leader, their shadow Treasurer, the assistant shadow Treasurer and, of course, Senator Carr!

I always start with the famous $100,000 degrees. The very renowned Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, Professor Paul Johnson, made the comment that there would not be more than $16,000 needed per annum for the cost of degrees. Now, for a three-year degree, that is 16 times three. If our Labor colleagues could only get out their calculators and take their socks off they will see that it is only $48,000. Sixteen times four, as my good colleagues know very well, is $64,000.

My good Western Australian colleague, Senator Pat Dodson, on his first day and in his first question was drawn into the $100,000 degrees. But that was not enough, was it, because we have only learned in the last 24 hours about the $20 billion blow-out! Of course, the $20 billion blow-out has blown out all of Labor's money for what they said they would have been doing. They go on about Gonski, but they never ever funded Gonski—we all know that.

And then I come to the Gillard memorial halls and Building the Education Revolution. This was the one that was going to cost about $13 billion or $14 billion. Senator Ruston here remembers it quite well. I was on that committee with Senator Cash and it was not until we started putting a lot of pressure on the government of the day and pointing out their financial errors to them that they actually appointed Mr Brad Orgill to have a look into the squalid waste that went on with the Gillard memorial halls.

The principals were saying, 'We don't need new classrooms, thank you very much. We want toilet blocks.' The answer was, 'No, you're getting new classrooms! Rip the old ones out and away you go!' That is the pattern of the Labor Party. And now we have come to a point of congratulations, in my view, to Senator Birmingham, because he has been able to lay out so clearly where the government is increasing its investment in education.

In 2012-13 I chaired a Senate inquiry into teaching and learning—not the Gonski-level stuff, but why kids are not learning and why teachers cannot teach. I remember that the predecessor of Senator Simms was on that committee—Senator Wright—plus Senator Gallacher and, of course, my excellent education colleague, Senator McKenzie. The areas that we came up with were really interesting: engagement of parents, particularly from the youngest age; the actual capacity of the universities to turn out competent graduate teachers; the need for literacy and numeracy assessment of teachers—new teachers and others; professional development of teachers themselves—developing the excellence of teachers; and literacy and numeracy in the children—back-to-basics.

As I recall, this was indeed a unanimous report in its recommendations and added rural, remote and regional students to those disadvantaged, along with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, lower socioeconomic groups and disabled children. I am very proud to say that in government we have seen the recommendations of that report find their way into the coalition's policy on education.

So what do we have today? We have remarkable figures. I will just concentrate on those from our own home state of Western Australia, if I may, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson. Commonwealth funding to government schools across Australia will grow by $1.9 billion by 2019-20. That is an increase—an increase!—of 33 per cent. That is for government schools across Australia. For non-government schools it will be a growth of $2.2 billion by 2019-20, a 22.7 per cent increase. In the case of Western Australia, of which I am very proud, we will see total Commonwealth funding to all schools increase by $600 million between 2015-16 and 2019-20. That is a 38 per cent increase. Where is the decrease in funding to education?

Let me break that down a bit further, if I can. For government schools in the West there will be an increase of $367 million by 2019-20, an increase of 65 per cent—65 per cent! And for the non-government school sector there will be an increase of $229 million, or 23 per cent. These are the sorts of statistics that we are talking about.

But in our inquiry, when we looked at teaching and learning we went to look at what Finland was doing. Our committee, which included my colleague, Senator Bilyk, the now Deputy President and Senator McKenzie—

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

I never went to Finland!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We went up to China and spoke to people in the primary, secondary and tertiary education sectors. When you examine closely the performance of those who are excellent in their delivery of education services you see that it is not just money. It is not just a question of throwing extra dollars. It is a question of parental engagement, it is a question of motivation of children and it is a question of teachers in front of children who themselves are qualified in the discipline that they are teaching, and that they have adequate resources to actually undertake that teaching. Do we know that these children and their teachers must be literate and they must be numerate before those children are going to learn? That is where the incentives are and that is where the needs lie. Just throwing money as a solution never works, as we know. It did not work in the Gillard memorial halls, as we know, and it certainly will not work if—well, Labor do not have the $20 billion now that they thought they had because it went up in smoke last night!

What we need to focus on is just where the coalition is taking education in this country. In the few moments left available to me I will just refer the Senate to Dr Jennifer Buckingham from the Centre for Independent Studies. She has praised the work that Senator Birmingham is leading in early phonics checking. Children who are deaf cannot learn: if you cannot hear you cannot learn. Only in the last few days, the Independent Schools Council of Australia—Ms Collette Colman—welcomed the coalition's plan. She said it ensured the ongoing affordability and sustainability of independent schools. And, of course, the National Catholic Education Commission executive director said:

… future funding that reflects real costs for schools.

The cost of educating a child in a Catholic school is 10 per cent less than in a government school. Where is the difference in that performance? It is not money, it is quality.

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

At the last election, at polling booths across the country, the Liberal government erected corflute posters saying, 'Liberals will match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar.' They went out of their way to say that they were on a unity ticket with Labor. We know that that was untrue. We know that they have comprehensively broken that promise. In fact, their promise on education was broken at the first opportunity. I suggest that maybe the government was not serious about school funding in the first place. After the election, Mr Turnbull's government decided to dump the Gonski reforms and rip over $30 billion from our schools. It is really interesting to sit here and listen to the contributions from the other side. They were out there saying, 'Gonski is evil, Gonski is bad, Gonski is no good. But they said they were on 'a unity ticket', and the corflute posters said the Liberals would 'match Labor school funding dollar for dollar'. I do not think the people of Australia are likely to forget that.

What does $30 billion ripped from our schools mean for my home state of Tassie? Over 10 years, it will mean $682 million will be ripped out of classrooms in Tasmania—$295 million in the greater Hobart region, $116 million in the electorate of Franklin, $154 million in the electorate of Bass, $142 million in the electorate of Braddon, $178 million in the electorate of Denison and $90 million in the electorate of Lyons.

Yesterday's announcement by the government was truly pathetic. We have had so many thought bubbles about education. They said, 'We're not going to fund public education.' It might not be parliamentary to say this, but I was gobsmacked by that. Both of my kids went through the public school system in Tasmania—a state primary school, a state high school and the University of Tasmania—and they had an absolutely great education. My son has worked overseas for a few years. He came back and, a few months later, was able to pick up work. My daughter has never not worked.

I am astounded that the government could have so little regard for public education that they would actually say, 'We won't fund public education.' But then, oops-a-daisy, they realised what they had said. But I do not trust them not to do it. That was a little slip of the tongue, but my big concern is about what they will do in cutting money to public schools if they are re-elected. Having decided to rip $30 billion out over the next 10 years, they have committed to return just $1.2 billion over three years and they are trying to claim that they are heroes. It is absolutely astounding. It is not a genuine attempt to properly fund schools or education. It is a cynical attempt to make them look like they are providing extra funding to education when they have really walked away from it. They have walked away from the funding commitments that they promised the Australian people at the last election. It is an utter betrayal of the 81,132 students in government schools and the 39,798 students in non-government schools throughout Tasmania and their parents and their carers. Those opposite should truly be ashamed.

The failure of the Turnbull government to fully fund years 5 and 6 of the Gonski education model is going to have a devastating impact on Tasmania's budgetary position and educational outcomes for all of Tasmania's school children. Even the Tasmanian education minister understands the importance of this funding, the short-sightedness of the Turnbull cuts and the need for it to be maintained. I think there is a bit of angst happening there between the state minister and Mr Turnbull, because the state minister has said that he will actually fund it. That is money he is going to have to find somewhere that he will be cutting out of other services—and where that goes is anybody's business. But he will have to find the money and, obviously, that is money Tasmanians will not have to spend on health care or other essential services.

Mr Turnbull's belief that Australians will not notice the $30 billion cut if they return $1.2 billion is condescending and it is arrogant, which is pretty typical of what we have come to expect— (Time expired)