Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The problem with the member for Mitchell's proposition that Labor is just all about money and it is not about reform is that every piece of evidence tells you the exact opposite. If you have a look at the COAG National Education Reform Agreement, you see that it goes through four pages of the reforms that we wanted from states and territories. And who was it that ripped up this reform agenda? None other than the first Liberal education minister under the Abbott government, Christopher Pyne, who said, 'We want to treat the states as adults; we don't want to do the things that are in the agreement,' including improving the preparation of teacher graduates; improving the quality of induction into the profession; enhancing teacher performance and professional development; strengthening the early years of education; extending the Australian curriculum reform; strengthening school leadership; and giving principals greater authority to make decisions.

All of these things were already in the agreements that we had signed with the states, and they were destroyed by the first education minister of the Liberal Abbott government. And now they are wandering around saying, 'If only we had an agenda to reform teaching and learning. Wouldn't it be fantastic if someone had put some thought into this?' The work was done on an appropriate level of funding, and they refused to fund our schools appropriately. The work was done on a reform agenda that would deliver what we know matters, which is the quality of teaching in the classroom.

The flip-flops are manifest. In 2012 we had the Liberals saying, 'I give a Gonski,' and in 2013, 'Gonski has become Conski,' and, also in 2013, on a unity ticket with Labor, 'Not a dollar difference. You can vote Labor or Liberal; it will make no difference to your school.' But, the minute they get into government, $30 billion is cut from education. Years 5 and 6 needs based funding for schools—exactly what every Australian parent thought the Liberal government was going to deliver under Tony Abbott—was cut by $4 billion. In those two years alone, $4 billion was cut from schools. We now have an education minister who is off to meet the state education ministers on 16 December to tell them that they should do more with less; that they should teach better in our schools with a $30 billion cut on the books—with, on average, $3 million cut from every school in Australia. And he is now saying, 'Oh, and, by the way, we would like a reform agenda.' Seriously; if only someone had thought about this some time! It really beggars belief.

This government has been a mess when it comes to school education. It gives no certainty to teachers, no certainty to principals and no certainty to parents and, worst of all, lets down our children by denying them the sort of individual attention that a decently funded school allows. It says money does not matter. Only a government that wants to cut $30 billion would say that money does not matter. Only a government that wants to set state against state, system against system, school against school and child against child would say funding does not matter. Of course reform matters, but you have to have the dollars to pay for that reform. I will tell you who else thinks that is the case. The Liberal Party and the National Party in New South Wales are prepared to stand up and say, 'Yes, funding does make a difference.' The Nationals education minister in New South Wales knows what decently funded schools in remote areas mean for Australian students. He knows that these maths and science results prove that country kids are missing out—and they should not be. That is why National Party members should support needs based funding for our schools.

Those opposite say we do not have the money to fund this—but we can find $50 billion for big business tax cuts. Those opposite say, 'It's just spreading money around.' We actually spend less than the OECD average educating our children. Those opposite say that it is much better to go for tax cuts and that they are really a driver of productivity. The OECD does not agree, economists do not agree and I will tell you who else does not agree—parents, who will be voting at the next election on whether you are going to properly fund their schools.

Education ministers across the country will be meeting on 16 December and they will be sending a very strong message back to the government to say, 'Money does matter. Yes, we are prepared to reform our school systems because we care about the results our children achieve. We care about kids who are missing out.' What are those opposite going to do?

See this speech in context