House debates

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Matters of Public Importance

Education

3:13 pm

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

It is great to see the member for Kooyong, the

Turning to a much more serious issue today: we here on the opposition benches, the Labor Party, when we were in government took a very serious look at our school system. We did that because we could see that our results in Australia—a country that had, 10 to 15 years ago, been one of the top performing countries in the world when it came to maths, reading, science and so on—were slipping. So we asked David Gonski and a panel of distinguished, eminent Australians to have a really good look at our school system. They came up with a proposal for a schooling resource standard and loadings for kids with particular needs that those on those benches opposite at first ridiculed and then denied. They pretended they could not support it. They finally realised that it was politically popular, so we saw the gazelle, the Leader of the House, the fixer, finally say at five minutes to midnight that they were on a unity ticket on it with us. What have we seen when it comes to schools since those opposite have come into government? We have seen $30 billion worth of funding cut from our schools—an average cut of $3 million from every school across Australia.

I think members on both sides are regular visitors to their schools, and many of them have seen the enormous need for extra resources in classrooms and in school communities. Frankly, the idea that they can go into those schools and face those children, principals, teachers, parents, school aides and teacher aides, and say, 'This school doesn't need any extra resources,' shocks me. We know that even the modest amount of extra funding that has started to flow in the early years of the needs based funding system has made an incredible difference in our schools. When we visit our schools, they tell us the difference it has made. Our Lady of Mount Carmel is a fantastic school in my electorate. When I visited Our Lady of Mount Carmel the most recent time—I have been there many times—their fantastic principal told me that with the early Gonski funding they had been employing speech therapists and occupational therapists, particularly to work with their kindergarten children so that those kids start their education with a love of learning. It has been such a success. How can those opposite genuinely say to the parents and teachers at Our Lady of Mount Carmel that money does not matter?

What did Eagleby South State School in Logan—I am sorry that the member for Forde has left—do with their extra funding? They hired and trained extra reading aides, and the percentage of their year six and seven students reading at age level went from 50 to 70 in a very short time. Can those opposite genuinely say to those children, teachers and parents and that school community that money does not matter? They cannot pretend that it does not. Merrylands High School in the shadow Treasurer's electorate, which is a school with 80 per cent low-SES background kids and 70 per cent non-English-speaking background kids, lifted their HSC results and in just three years actually doubled the number of students receiving an invitation to attend university. This is the difference that needs based funding, properly applied, can make. Those opposite cannot say to those students at Merrylands High School in Western Sydney that money does not matter.

The truth is that these arguments—and the more recent attempt to set state fighting against state, school system against school system, Catholic schools against public schools—are simply a cover for the fact that those opposite have ripped out $30 billion from our schools over the next decade. I think everybody in this place remembers their best teacher. Teachers change lives. Teachers are the inspiration for so many young people to pursue their dreams. We know that one of the most important things we can do as a government is actually make sure that every child in every school in every school system in every state has the opportunity to experience that great teaching. That is why we wanted to invest this extra money in our schools. But those opposite also say: 'You can't just pour in money. Because money doesn't matter, if you just pour in money, nothing will change.' That has never been the proposition from this side. The only person who has ever said extra funding should be with no strings attached was the former Minister for Education.

Comments

No comments