Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sorry, the Prime Minister. We have had the Prime Minister come in and not show too much of an interest in these discussions up until now, but he thinks that he can solve the problem in one fell swoop. One of the things he has put to this House is that this arrangement with the states does not matter anymore; what is important is what is coming from the Commonwealth. This is very important, because what it represents is that the minister for education in the other place and the Prime Minister are walking away from a fundamental part of the Schooling Resource Standard—that is this principle that it is the total amount of funding that matters.

Of course, given what I said at the beginning of my introductory remarks today, I have taken a very keen interest in the education debates and a lot of the very excellent research that exists about what drives good outcomes for children in schools. The Prime Minister and other members of his cabinet are very fond of coming into this House and fond of going out to the Australian people and saying, 'Oh, well, Gonski wasn't such a problem, because it's not really the amount of money that matters in education.' It is true that a lot of the research that we can find about school funding and what drives great outcomes for children is about teacher quality. But the idea that school funding is in some way irrelevant to the question of teacher quality is one of the silliest things that you could possibly posit in education. I would say, having been part of public policy debates for quite a long time now, that it is only really from people who have never had to worry about money before that you hear this notion that money is not important. Anyone who is seriously engaging in the debate about quality school performance in this country admits that it is expensive to build a brilliant school system. This is an investment, and we reap the rewards of that investment for years to come. But that is not what the government are saying to us; they are saying that money is not the driver of performance. Again, I will just say that that is wrong.

Under what the Prime Minister is proposing, some 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level by 2027. That is eight years from now. Under Labor, by 2019 every underfunded school would reach their fair funding level and by 2022 for Victoria. Now we have a new proposal before us, proposed, supported and voted for by those on the other side of the House, which will leave 85 per cent of public schools without a fair funding level up until 2027.

Labor proposed providing 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools. Under the model that is being proposed, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes to public schools. It was not a mistake—not some sort of error—that Labor fell into by focusing on public schools in the school reform proposals that we implemented and put forward. That is because we know that public schools in this country are educating seven out of 10 children with a disability and that they are educating seven out of 10 children from a language background other than English. Many of the constituents in my electorate come from such a background. We know that 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are being educated in the public system and that eight out of 10 kids from low-income households are being educated in the public system. This is a core part of what makes our country an equitable one and yet we have before us a funding model which will rip $22 billion out of schools, with a particular focus on taking money away from the schools that need it most in that public system.

I want to talk about some of the impacts of this legislation on my electorate of Hotham, because the cuts to the schools around my electorate are going to be very significant. I mentioned before that the $22 billion cut means an average of $2.4 million from every school in the country. And we have pretty good data on what is going to happen to our schools in Victoria that has been provided by our state government. I will note that is not the case for some of the states where the government has been a little more quiet on opposing some of these changes.

I have spoken to parents and I have spoken to school principals, who are very concerned about some of these changes. Tucker Road Primary School, for example, is going to lose $300,000 over 10 years. Valkstone Primary School is going to lose $300,000; Coatesville Primary School—I host my school leadership awards there every year—is going to lose between $300,000 and $400,000; and Westall Secondary College—an extraordinary school that has educated generations of migrants who were living in the Westall hostel, just across the road—is going to lose $400,000. It is outrageous. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish I could take you to this school and just show you that these kids have so much get up and go. They are so keen to succeed in life, but a lot of them come from rather difficult backgrounds and they do need that extra support. And here we are, standing in this House trying to argue against the Liberals, who want to take that away from them.

Oakleigh South Primary School—I was at their school fete a couple of weeks ago—will lose between $400,000 to $500,000 under the proposals. Cheltenham Secondary College will lose $600,000, and the list goes on and on. Bentleigh Secondary College, a fantastic school that has recently had a Victorian principal of the year, will lose $700,000. I will just pick on one more school: Keysborough Secondary College is an amazing school. They have just opened a new STEM facility down there. They are going to lose $1.6 million. This is a regional secondary school, educating some of the most disadvantaged students in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and under this proposal they will lose $1.6 million. It is absolutely outrageous.

I want to make special mention of special schools, because there are some very concerning things in the bill before us regarding those schools. The bill before us would change the disability loading for schools so that eligibility is assessed using a new national definition. We have no idea how this bill will support students with a disability. I cannot stand before you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and say with confidence what is being guaranteed and what is not being guaranteed for students with a disability. When we are talking about vulnerable students, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not need to point out to you that students with disability face incredible barriers. We know it is a good investment to help them, especially in those early years, to get onto a good path with education. I have a number of special schools in my electorate. I will just mention Bayside Special Developmental School and Southern Autistic School. Again, I was just down at the school a couple of weeks ago. They will be $1 million worse off under the Liberals' plans. This is not a bill I could possibly in good conscience vote for. Funding that supports the most disadvantaged schools and most disadvantaged kids in my electorate is being ripped away from them. It is absolutely outrageous.

It is even more frustrating when we see where the government's priorities sit. What we have is a Prime Minister who comes into the chamber and cries poor when it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and cries poor when it comes to school funding. He cries poor when it comes to so many crucial national issues, and yet when it comes to something like funding a big business tax cut that is going to cost $65 billion, somehow the Prime Minister finds that he can find money for this urgent national priority. I will just say that those do not reflect my priorities as a member of parliament and they do reflect the priorities of the good people who sit on this side of the House and the good people who will be standing up for their local schools and the children who live in their electorates by opposing the bill before us.

I will not get the time to talk about Catholic schools, but that is another area of concern for us. I am thinking of schools like Resurrection School, St Peter's, St Catherine's, St Marks in Dingley Village, St Anthony's in Noble Park and Sacred Heart in Oakleigh South, which I am going to visit in a few days. We are very concerned that the government's funding model penalises Catholic schools. Again, that is not good enough.

Labor wants better schools, better results, and better support for our great teachers. That is what we implemented in government and that is what is being ripped away with this legislation. That is why we will not be supporting it in the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context