Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The most important productivity driver, wealth creator, improver of living standards and launchpad for economic growth is, without a doubt, education. It is now well accepted that there is a direct correlation between a person's quality of life, the strength of the economy and the educational standards of a nation. This government's budget has smashed our education system: from kindy to professor education standards in Australia will suffer because of this government's budget. At all levels of education, from kindergarten right through the highest levels of university, funding has been removed, programs have been cut and, most importantly, it will be more difficult for poorer Australians to get an education.

In early childhood education we know the value of early intervention. All of us understand that the value of early intervention for kids with disabilities and kids with learning difficulties can achieve remarkable results in their educational standards. To make early childhood education beyond the reach of many, particularly low-income Australians, is unconscionable, but that is exactly what this budget does.

There are cuts to a number of programs that ensure access to early childhood education, in particular, cuts to the outside-school-hours care program—$450 million cut from that. The Indigenous child and family centres program—$78 million cut from that. Universal access to preschool—almost $500 million per year discontinued from that. The JET program, the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program—places cut. The Community Support Programme—$157 million cut from that. The HECS-HELP benefit, which includes subsidies for early childhood education degrees—$87 million cut from that. That is just an example of some of the cuts to early childhood education that have been undertaken by this government.

In school education the government simply do not understand the connection between good educational standards at school and proper funding for school education. They have abandoned our neediest kids in this budget—kids who are struggling in our schools. The kids who are performing badly in literacy and numeracy have traditionally been the forgotten pupils in our school education system when it comes to funding, and they are going to be worse off because of the government's approach to schools funding—the ideological view that all kids have the opportunity to thrive if they apply themselves at school and work hard.

That is an approach that is enshrined in the old socioeconomic-status model, which has not worked and has resulted in a reduction in our educational standards. It is misguided and it is unfair to our kids. It is also out of touch with reality. That was the whole purpose of the Gonski reforms: to put money in where it is needed. David Gonski made some comments in a speech last week, which perfectly highlighted the deficiencies in this government's approach to education. He said:

This is unfortunate. I sincerely hope that in the period between now and 2017 the Federal Government will change the presently budgeted position.

He went on to say:

To say that many of the schools in the state systems needed further assistance, both in money and tender loving care, is to me an understatement.

…   …   …

There needs to be a commitment to a properly funded needs-based aspirational system and a failure to do so will be to our detriment.

That is the view of David Gonski, one of the most respected business people in this country, who undertook the most comprehensive study of our school education system. That is an indictment of this government's approach to education in our schools, which completely blows the reforms out of the water.

In university education we are seeing a two-tier system develop: those who can afford to get a university education and those who cannot. The government is deregulating fees and that will push them up. What that means is the more popular courses will be out of the reach of poor kids. The government is saying that you will be able to afford it because you do not have to pay up-front, but you do not see poor people driving around in Lamborghinis or buying $300 million houses. Why? Because they cannot afford the mortgage, and low-income people will not be able to afford the debt that comes with a popular university degree. (Time expired)

See this speech in context