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

The fixer, the gazelle, is the only one who has said that Labor's transparency and accountability measures are all just red tape, and that schools should be freed from the responsibility of reporting on their students' results—how their kids are doing. We have said that with extra funding we expect Australia should get back to the top five in the world for maths, reading and science. That is where we should be. Ninety-five per cent of students should complete year 12. Students should get more individual attention so that talented kids get the opportunity to extend themselves and make the most of their gifts, and kids who are falling behind get the support they need to catch up. We have said extra money should come with greater investment in selecting, training and supporting the best possible teachers—and more of them—so that we have better resources and better equipment in our classrooms, and more support for students with special learning needs. Extra investment, yes, comes with big changes in our school system. It means that teachers and school communities can do what they desperately want to do, which is treat every child as an individual and meet their needs.

Those opposite will say, predictably—and let us just see what the next speaker says—'Australia can't afford this at this time. Australia can't afford it.' These are the people who are right now arguing for a $50 billion tax cut for the biggest businesses in Australia. The majority of this cut will flow overseas and benefit overseas shareholders. I am sure they will be very grateful. This is about choices and priorities. We choose our children—the individual kids who benefit from this in the classroom—but we also choose investing in our productivity as a nation. We know that the $50 billion tax cut makes—I am struggling not to use a rude word here—very little difference to our economic growth over time: one per cent once it is fully implemented in 20 years' time. We know that where investment in education funding is higher, living standards are higher; the Australia Institute has told us that.

We know that, if, by 2030, we can equip all our high school graduates with the right kinds of basic skills, we could add $44 billion to the Australian economy, in today's terms. That is the OECD. We know that most economists say that Labor's plan to invest in education is much better for the Australian economy than the $50 billion big business tax giveaway. That is the Economics Society of Australia survey. We know that the quality of schooling in a country is a powerful predictor of the wealth that the country will produce in the long term. That is not us saying that; this is the predominant view of the smartest economists in the world. But it does not convince those opposite, because they want to prioritise giving a multinational company a tax cut over our children's future.

To be a nation with a strong economy, Australia must be an education nation. To be a nation prepared for the jobs of the future, we need to be an education nation. To be an 'innovation nation', as the Prime Minister says, we need to be an education nation. That is what Labor backs. That is what needs based funding delivers. That is what those opposite are trying to kill.

Comments

No comments