Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This very important motion talks about the importance of giving every child everywhere in Australia a very good education. I believe that we do need to be having a very serious debate in this country about how we improve our schooling system.

This motion acknowledges the important work done by David Gonski, who conducted the first review into school funding and school education in almost 40 years. It calls on the House to support the principles that have emerged from this. If we are going to move forward, we need to make sure that there is a bipartisan approach to this important issue.

We learned from the review conducted by David Gonski that we are falling behind. Indeed, over the past decade, Australian students have fallen from second to seventh in reading and from fifth to 13th overall in maths. Those results are measured by the international PISA exam. We can see we are falling behind and we cannot allow this to happen. We can and we must do a lot better. The Australian government's National Plan for School Improvement sets out the goals for Australian schools to be in the top five in the world in reading, maths and science by 2025. It sets out an ambitious reform agenda to help us reach this target.

It is no surprise that a Labor government is taking action to ensure that every Australian child has access to quality education. I am very passionate about this issue and, indeed, this is one of the issues that drove me into politics. I truly believe that if we can give our young people a good education, what it really does is provide them with a passport for the rest of their lives. It gives them a passport that allows them to go into different places, different areas, and different occupations—a whole range of opportunities that would not be open to them if they did not succeed and get a good education. It is very pleasing to me to be part of a government that understands the power of education to transform the lives of individuals—and also the importance to our national economy of having a world-class education system.

It is important to understand that we need to be competitive around the world. We can no longer just focus on living in Australia and think that we are not competing with the rest of the world. There is a global village out there and our citizens need to be educated and to be able to be the best they can be when they compete not just for jobs here in Australia but, indeed, for jobs right around the world. That is why it is so important that we do address this.

It is not like our government has not done anything up to this point when it comes to education. There have been a significant number of reforms that I have been very proud of. I have often been concerned about the opposition and their negativity towards these reforms. Some of the things that we saw in the Building the Education Revolution program not only supported so many jobs in my electorate but have allowed for absolutely world-class facilities at these schools. I have 63 schools in my electorate and I have not been to one school that has said that their Building the Education Revolution building will not transform the way they are able to deliver education—whether it has been for science labs or language labs, or for new classrooms. That has been what many schools in my electorate have used this money for: new classrooms. Many were using demountable classrooms with no air-conditioning and no ability to have innovative space for teaching. The Building the Education Revolution has been an important improvement to our schools. Indeed, a digital education revolution has allowed for curricula to be brought online and be available for teachers—a resource for a whole range of things to enable students to really engage in the digital future. That has been really important.

But we cannot stop and we need to continually improve. We want our school system to ensure that all Australian children have a real chance to reach their full potential. The quality of education a child receives throughout their lifetime will determine the opportunities and experiences that will become available to them. The National Plan for School Improvement is based on some core principles emerging from the Gonski review. It entails a set of ambitious reforms which will help to make the government's vision for a high-quality, high-equity education system a reality. Critically, the plan aims to introduce a new school funding system based on the recommendations of the review, including a benchmark amount per student which is based on the cost of schools that have already achieved great results. Extra money, or loadings, will also be made available to support school students who need it the most, including students from low-income families, Indigenous students, students with a disability, rural and remote students, students at small schools and students with limited English. This principle is critically important because we have heard so many times that there are students who fall through the cracks and they are often those with a disability, those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, or those that do not have access to the same resources as schoolchildren in more populous areas. It is so important that we do not say that everyone should just try and get on with what they have got. It is important that we recognise that these factors make a difference, and that extra funding is directed there to ensure that, no matter where you live or what your circumstances, you will be able to get a very good education.

This government is very committed to this and I hope that the opposition will be part of this, because not only will it be looking at how we direct funding but it will also be looking at a higher standard for teachers with at least one term of classroom work experience before graduation—looking at the training for teachers going into the profession and an annual performance review for every teacher. What we do know—and this has been said by the Prime Minister many, many times—is that quality teaching is critically important.

When I go to my local schools and see passionate teachers really putting in effort I see better results, more engaged students, better welfare for those students and better learning outcomes. I have seen some teachers working in very difficult circumstances without much support, but the quality of their teaching and innovation really help their students achieve. It is really important that we invest in our teachers, and that is why I am pleased that the government wants to deliver training to ensure that teachers get extra help in managing disruptive behaviours and dealing with bullying, so that every child in the classroom gets a chance to learn in a safe environment.

Another important point of our reforms is more power for principals, like hiring staff and controlling the budget. There is also better MySchool information to make sure that no school falls behind in providing more information for parents, so they can see how their kids are doing. We have heard a lot of negativity from those opposite about MySchool and I think it is their policy to abolish it, but when I speak to parents in my electorate they tell me they find this an incredibly useful tool for looking at schools in their area. MySchool gives them information about schools and it is an important tool about which to ask the principal questions. In terms of transparency and empowering parents, MySchool is a very important tool and I urge the opposition to keep it going if they win government. It would be a bad policy to scrap this tool.

I could keep talking about how important education reform is, but unfortunately my time is limited. This is an important next tranche of reform from this Labor government when it comes to education. It is so important that we pursue this, and I call on the opposition to take a bipartisan approach to education, so that we can ensure that future generations get the best opportunity they can.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can advise the coalition will not be opposing this motion. I agree with most of the context and the sentiments expressed in the motion, as put forward by the member for Kingston, especially sections 1, 2 and 3 which thank Mr Gonski for recognising the power of education over the lives of our children and express support for some of the principles that came out of the Gonski review.

At the onset, I express my pride in representing an electorate that contains some of the most distinguished public, independent and Catholic schools in Queensland. The list is far too long to give, but I specifically mention New Farm State School led by principal Carmel McGrath. The school has produced outstanding results in recent years and is the winner of my annual literacy competition in the primary school category this year. Well done to New Farm State School. Out of the four winners and runners-up, two are from All Hallows' Catholic School, my old school, and one each from Oakleigh State School and New Farm State School. Through this competition I have witnessed first-hand the extraordinary writing talent of some of Brisbane's best and brightest young students. I am amazed by the intellectual capacity of these young individuals who represent the future of this great nation of ours.

It is interesting we are debating this motion as the Australian Education Bill is commencing its passage through the House of Representatives. The Australian Education Bill contains nine pages and 1,400 words. It sets out aspirational goals and essentially achieves the same thing as this motion. They both express the aspirations and the views of the parliament, but they contain no detail. Because of the issue the government has with Gonski, it has not released any detail, so we do not know where the money is coming from and the government cannot outline how individual schools will be affected.

It is all very well introducing bills and motions outlining principles and outlining goals that we are going to strive for, but the reality of the situation is that unless you know exactly, and unless you outline exactly, how the reform is going to be delivered and implemented then the talk will amount to absolutely zilch—nothing. Part 3 of the motion states:

(3) supports the principles emerging from this review which have been incorporated into the Government’s National Plan for School Improvement, including the need to deliver;

(a) a fairer school funding system based on the needs of every student in every classroom;

(b) more support for schools and students who need it most;

(c) quality teaching in every classroom;

(d) more power in the hands of school principals; and

(e) more information about school performance for parents and the community …

I do not think you will find any members of this House who will disagree with those principles. As members of parliament and as leaders in our communities, of course we agree with those sentiments. Who wouldn't? But the devil, as always, is in the detail. How are we going to make sure that those principles equate to action and ground and real change in our schools?

The coalition believe that the current quantum of funds for every school and indexation must be the basic starting point arising from any funding model. No school should lose funding as a result of a new funding model. The coalition also have our own set of principles that outline our values for schooling, including that families have the right to choose which school meets their needs, their values and their beliefs; that all children must have access and opportunity to a quality education; that student funding needs to be based on fair, objective and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic need; that students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling; that as many decisions as possible should be made locally, right on the ground, by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems—school sectors, school systems, must be accountable to their communities, families and students; and every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government; and that schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can plan for the future and not be hit with any surprises.

Parents who wish to make a private contribution towards the cost of their children's education should not be penalised, and nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment. Funding arrangements must be simple so that schools are able to direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.

Let me assure this House that I will fight every day to ensure that not one school in my electorate of Brisbane is worse off as a result of the changes made to education funding. I make this commitment to teachers and to parents of my electorate. Not one school will lose a dollar of funding in real terms under a coalition government—not one school. This is the commitment that I can give to every constituent. I would call on the Labor Party to make that very same commitment.

As we know, the review panel chaired by David Gonski handed the final report on schooling to the government in December 2011. The main recommendation was to implement a new funding model, at an additional cost to all government areas of $6.5 billion per year. The panel's original proposal was that the Commonwealth and the states split the cost of introducing the model on a 30 to 70 basis, and that would require each government to lift their existing expenditure in school education by approximately 15 per cent.

Dozens of technical issues arose once the panel's model was tested by the government. Both the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia reported serious anomalies. Leaked modelling in August 2012 revealed that approximately a third of all schools, both government and non-government, would lose funding. The coalition has consistently maintained that any new funding model introduced by the government should see no school left worse off in real terms.

The government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to redesign various aspects of the Gonski panel's original proposal for a funding model since the report was handed to the government in 2011. None of that modelling has ever been made public by the Gillard government and no formal response was ever provided by the government to each of the panel's 41 recommendations. We have seen various state education ministers, both Labor and coalition, continue to complain that none of this detail—and it is very important detail: it is a huge reform—has been provided. You would think that you would provide some detail, or that there would be some basis, some costings, or some sort of direction on how you are going to implement this once-in-a-generation reform but again, this is a government which designs policy on the run. None of this detail on how this new funding will operate in practice has been provided by the Gillard government. And the same issues keep coming up time and time again. Various education ministers—of all persuasions, as I have said, not just from the coalition—have all complained. Recently the education minister from my own state in Queensland, John-Paul Langbroek, said:

We've had absolutely no detail about numbers. We don't have a model from which we can work. We also don't have any idea about what state contributions are supposed to be let alone whether we can afford them.

You would think that some degree of detail would be released out there so that state and territory governments could move forward with the government in advancing the Gonski review and the Gonski recommendations.

All sides of this House want our schools to be the best in the world. Who would not want that? We all want the best quality education for our children and for future generations. We want our students—and I see that the member for Moreton is opposite. He was a former schoolteacher, is that correct?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, for 11 years.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure he would have wanted all of his students to be at the top of the class and we want the same thing—we want all of our students to do well. However, until this government releases details and until it releases modelling, then all of the aspirational talk in the world about being the leaders in school education will come to nothing. We need the detail. We need to know where this government is going and how it will advance these once-in-a-generation reforms.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion that has been brought to this House by the member for Kingston. In doing so I would like to highlight the fact that the member for Kingston is totally committed to education and to ensuring that every child gets a really good quality education.

Education is the nation's future. If we cannot ensure that all our young people get a really quality education that prepares them for life in the 21st century then we are failing them. What we need to do is invest in education for the sake of our economy. If Australia is going to compete in the global market, we need a well-educated workforce—one that is prepared for the future. The government recognises this. We know just how important education is and that is why the Gonski review took place—the first review of the school system in 40 years. The opposition had a chance to instigate a review of the education system when they were in power and they did nothing. Since then, we have undertaken this review and we have made a commitment towards investing in schools. That commitment comes via the National Schools Partnership Program and the National Plan for School Improvement. Those are plans that will put Australia at the forefront of education internationally. They are plans that will ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn. The member for Kingston realises this when she talks about funding a fairer school system, more support for students and for schools, quality teaching in every classroom, more power in the hands of school principals, and more information about school performance for parents and the community. I know that, as a parent, more information is something I always wanted. Then you know how to work with your children to help them improve.

Over the past decades, Australian students have fallen behind, and that has led to the government deciding that we were going to act now to significantly improve our performance in key learning areas. The National Plan for School Improvement is a new school-funding program that is based on the recommendations of the Gonski review. It will mean around $6.5 billion a year in today's figures—that is the ballpark figure recommended by Gonski—and now we are negotiating between the Australian government and the states. We have the Australian government investing in schools, whilst in New South Wales we have the O'Farrell government ripping $1.7 billion out of the school system. I think that that is not a very good state of affairs.

In Shortland electorate there are around 20,000 students in 49 schools. Nearly $90,000 was invested in BER projects. There are libraries, multipurpose halls and science and language centres. There have been 7,589 computers installed under the Digital Education Revolution. Over $15 million has been approved for two trade training centres benefiting 11 schools. There are 11 schools participating in the Smarter Schools National Partnerships program. Eleven schools in the Shortland electorate are eligible to receive funding and are receiving funding under the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program.

In addition to that, the Australian government invested nearly $6 million under the capital works program in Floraville Public School, and that was greatly appreciated by all the teachers, parents and students at that school. That compared to the Howard government investing in a flagpole and insisting that someone from the government come along and officially launch the flagpole. On one hand you have nearly $6 million invested, and on the other hand you have a flagpole. This government is determined to invest in our future by investing in education and making sure that every student gets a quality education.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this motion about school funding. The Prime Minister, as we have heard so often, has made much of her personal commitment to education, citing it as a 'ruling passion' of her life and stating that the 'education revolution' would be a 'national crusade'. However, as Thomas A Edison so famously said, 'Vision without execution is hallucination.' Given that the Prime Minister is so fond of recounting the facts in question time, let me go through a couple of facts in the short time available.

Fact No. 1: in the 14 months since David Gonski delivered his final report to government on school funding, the government has been silent on each of the 41 recommendations. Typically, a report of this size and significance would receive a detailed response from the government. Typically, we would see modelling done of different funding options, and we would see that modelling released, discussed and debated, but so far we have seen nothing at all.

The key recommendation in the Gonski report is $6.5 billion of additional funding. That is not over the next 10 years; that is each and every year—$6.5 billion. And yet the government cannot answer very basic questions as to where this funding will come from. What is the split going to be? We heard of a 30-70 split in the Gonski review, yet the government has not said whether this 30-70 split with the states will be the funding model. Moreover, the government has not answered basic questions as to how it will fund the Commonwealth aspects of that funding split, no matter what that figure ends up being. We simply do not know.

The government provided around $5 million in the budget towards another review. That $5.8 million in the budget was for further research into school funding changes. So despite the fact that they say this was the most significant review and that it had all the answers, and saying, 'We need to deliver Gonski,' they needed to spend another $5.8 million to conduct yet another review. Time is up—the government need to answer some questions.

Fact No. 2: the government has indeed spent quite a significant amount of money—they say—towards education. They have spent more than $16 billion on school halls and yet according to the government's own review, the Orgill review, there has been significant waste and mismanagement of that money—that money has not gone to achieving better educational outcomes for future Australians. In fact, according to many media reports, that money has been wasted. We believe more than half of it has been wasted.

Fact No. 3: we know a little about what the government and the Prime Minister in particular think about education and the significance of it because she exposed that in her recent reshuffle. Why is it that the Prime Minister continues to insist on putting failed ministers into education? First we saw it with the member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett, who was the minister responsible for pink batts. Now we have seen it with the member for McMahon, who has been responsible for our border protection failures. These two are now going to be leading lights in education, which the Prime Minister claims to be so critically important to her government.

Fact No. 4: this government governs with the support of the Greens. The Greens have a very clear policy when it comes to education funding. They do not want to see one dollar of funding go towards a student who is attending an independent school. They said this very recently in their manifesto, which appeared publicly on their website—although surprisingly in this election year that manifesto has now come down off the website.

We need to deliver funding security for students and teachers and our schools so that they can deliver the best educational opportunities for all young Australians. This is what we on this side of the chamber believe. This is certainly what I believe as the member for Higgins with more than 39 schools in my electorate. I know it is critically important that we do not rip away funding from some students in order to redistribute it according to the government's own designated formula of what is 'fair'. We know what this government thinks about 'fairness'. It is about taking money away from some students to waste it in other areas and the government's record stands very clear on that.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise proudly to speak about the national plan for school improvements. I have had to endure five minutes from the member for Higgins. I would like her to list, at the first opportunity, the 39 schools in her electorate that wished their school halls would be torn down. I would like her to list the 39 schools in her electorate that do not appreciate the computers that have been given to them or, if she has any National Partnership Schools, to list the schools that have found that scheme to be not worthwhile. I look forward to her informing the House at a later date.

I have listened to two speeches here today and the hollow words coming from those opposite about what they believe in on schools. Everyone loves kids. I was a schoolteacher for 11 years. I am yet to meet a parent or anyone in the community who says we should not put more money into schools. Those are easy and simple words. I am sure we will hear more from the member for Forde once he gets up. Btu the reality is that it is not what people say they should do for schools; it is what they do for schools.

We are in the third iteration of school funding models. For most of my time as a teacher I had the earlier scheme and then the SES scheme under John Howard and now we are moving towards this Gonski model. Let us look at what these do. Everyone knows the SES model was a flawed model right from the very start. That is the reality. The funding maintained a number of schools. I taught at one of those funding-maintained schools. I taught in a Catholic school. I taught for three years in state schools and eight years in the Catholic system, so I understand the compromise that was made. I particularly understand the problems associated with getting the model right in terms of not taking a dollar away from anyone—which is the commitment the Labor government has given, I remind readers and listeners.

The reality is, we have to look at what people do. I will stack up our 3,000 libraries against their 3,000 flagpoles any day. When I am sitting back in my rocking chair and saying, 'What did we do as a government, especially when the financial crisis hit?' I will know that we poured money into education facilities. I see, time after time, these people who are lions in parliament and mice in their electorates standing in their school halls and saying, 'This is a fantastic educational institution.' These things contribute to the curriculum; that is the reality. Interactive whiteboards, the NBN and all of these things will give high schools a path for the future. That is what Labor has invested in. It is not just simply saying, 'We love kids.' We all love kids; everybody does. That is what society is geared to do—invest in the future—but it is how you do it. With the National Partnership scheme we are making sure that those who need the most support get it. That is the trial that has worked so well.

Then there are those other difficult things. I saw the Leader of the Opposition today talking about the fact that 50 per cent of the Labor caucus come from union backgrounds. I am one of those people. For five years I worked in the Independent Education Union. I am one of those union thugs, I guess. I see the great work that goes on in our schools, not just private schools like The Murri School in my electorate, which is run by the Indigenous community. My electorate has well-to-do schools, Catholic schools—poor Catholic schools and Catholic schools that are doing a little better—and everything in between. I know what wages are like in these areas. I know how difficult it can be for parents to make sure that their schools are well resourced.

Do not judge the Labor Party by what it says or the Liberal and National parties on what they say. Judge them on what they do. I can proudly say that, since we were elected in 2007, the education budget has doubled. We have invested money, at every possible opportunity, to improve the lot of schoolchildren. That is what the Gonski report is all about: working with states. They keep saying, 'Where is the money?' The reality is, we are a federation. We have this thing called the Constitution. It means we must talk to state education ministers. We do not run many schools—it is a bit hard to change the Constitution. We need to work in collaboration with the state governments. It is hard to believe, but they are not necessarily willing and able to be led. They tend to be their own people.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moreton for his contribution, as usual. It is always a pleasure to follow this member, my esteemed colleague on the football field on a Thursday morning. I too rise to speak on the member for Kingston's motion on the National Plan for School Improvement, and I do thank her for bringing this motion to the House. We all, on both sides of politics, readily agree that education is an enormously important part of people's lives.

Nelson Mandela once said that education is the most powerful weapon you can use to change the world. As we have heard from the contributions today, I think everybody would agree with that sentiment. Everyone should have the opportunity to secure a quality education. Education is liberating. It gives us the knowledge and tools needed to live a prosperous life. As Benjamin Franklin once said, 'Investment in knowledge pays the best interest.'

The disappointing thing about this debate today is that it is focused on money. In the discussion and focus on money it has overlooked some key aspects of what we are really seeking to achieve with education—that is, an improvement in the outcomes of our students. We seek to improve their knowledge and skills as they enter the workforce after leaving school, to allow them to compete in a new global economy. In this regard, education is an essential foundation and a building block for our society to thrive and prosper in that global economy.

It is interesting to note that it was over 60 years ago that education was declared a basic human right for every person and preserved in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Yet today there are millions of children around the world missing out on education. More than 72 million children of primary age are not in school, and some 759 million adults are illiterate and do not have the awareness necessary to improve both their living conditions and those of their children.

While these are global numbers, it is sad to say that there are people in this country who fit into those categories. If students cannot read, then they cannot learn. The ability to read is in itself fundamental to the development of any young mind—and the ability to acquire knowledge, develop their imagination and learn to dream. It is through the ability to exercise that imagination and see genuine hope for the future that they have the motivation to go to school every day and continue to learn, grow and develop.

Thankfully, while we have pointed out various flaws and concerns in this debate over this past half hour, we do, for all intents and purposes, have a decent education system. But it has not been the thriving revolution that was promised by the Prime Minister and this government. The plans to improve basic literacy and numeracy have failed despite some $540 million being spent in this area over the past five years. The independent performance audit concluded that the literacy and numeracy program has yet to make a statistically significant improvement to literacy and numeracy in any state.

Recently, we conducted a survey in our electorate. We surveyed over 1,000 people, and 930 of those responses were that the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic were important. Yet we seem to have ventured off course somewhere because, instead of returning to these basic, fundamental building blocks of education, this basic structure that will improve education outcomes for young people, we have focused on new buildings or a competition and discussion, as we have heard today, about the difference between flagpoles and new buildings. Yet nowhere in this debate have we touched on these fundamental building blocks for the future of the students in our system.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 13 to 16 : 00