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

I was so interested a few weeks ago, towards the end of May, when the Prime Minister spoke at CEDA about the top marginal tax rate and the reason the government has to give millionaires a big tax cut on 1 July. Do you know what he said? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you paid a lot of attention at the time. He said that this would be a success tax—that cutting the tax paid by millionaires and multimillionaires would be a success tax. Someone earning $1 million a year would pay $16,400 less tax a year and a bank CEO would get a tax cut of $171,000 a year from 1 July. I thought it was interesting the way that the Prime Minister was justifying this. He said that to not do this would be a success tax.

The people who teach kids to read are a success. I think nurses are a success. I think the police, who keep us safe, are a success. I think carers, who are home looking after family members, are a success. I think ordinary people working hard every day are a success. It is offensive to suggest that the only people who are successful are those earning $180,000 a year and that the way we measure success in this country is simply by your pay packet. If that were the case, every corporate crook in Australian history would be a great success, wouldn't they?

I mentioned teachers because one thing that has distressed me so much about the education debate this week is the sanctimony from the Prime Minister. He says, 'It's all about the children.' We had the Minister representing the Minister for Education this week confirm that Northern Territory public school children will get the worst deal in the country if this legislation passes. They will not even keep up with indexation. This deal is not needs based when Northern Territory public school children get the worst deal and Tasmanian public school children get the second worst deal. It is not sector blind when the government says it is going to pay only 20 per cent of the cost of educating a public school kid but will pay 80 per cent of the cost of educating a private school kid. Even a school that has fees of $30,000 or $40,000 a year will still get 80 per cent of the cost of educating a child. In effect, that means that, while public schools will lose funding and small Catholic systemic schools will lose funding, some of the wealthiest schools in the country will see an increase in their funding.

You only have to look at the state of Tasmania to see the actual effect at a micro level. It is a bit hard when you are talking about billions of dollars to really understand the impact of this. The Prime Minister admitted the other day in question time—it took me three days, mind you, to get him to admit this—that students with a disability in Tasmania will lose a third of their funding next year. It took me three days to get him to admit it, but he did admit it. They will lose a third of their funding.

There are beautifully resourced schools. The Friends' School in Hobart will get a $19 million increase. St Michael's Collegiate in Hobart will get a $11 million increase. The Scotch Oakburn College in Launceston will get a $22 million increase. Launceston Church Grammar School will get a $15 million increase. The Hutchins School in Sandy Bay will get a $19 million increase. They are very well resourced schools already.

I compare those to the schools I visited on my last trip to Tasmania. Campbell Town District School has a fantastic principal and dedicated teaching staff. I asked them what they would do with the extra money. What did they tell us? They told us: 'We'd make sure that the kids had sporting opportunities. We'd give them more access to a few computers. We'd make sure that we could help with homework because a lot of these kids are travelling a long way to come to school and are working many hours on the weekend to support the family budget. We'd help them with their homework. We'd give them some opportunities to participate more broadly in the community of Northern Tasmania and Central Tasmania by maybe travelling to Launceston, and getting a bit more vocational education.' They knew how they would spend the extra money if they got some extra needs based funding. Well, guess what? Public schools in Tasmania will lose $68 million over the next two years alone. Disability students will lose money, small Catholics schools will lose money and public schools will lose money.

See this speech in context