House debates

Monday, 22 October 2018

Private Members' Business

Economy

6:03 pm

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I'm particularly pleased that it was the member for Chisholm who put this debate on the Notice Paper. In considering my remarks, I'll go back to the very start of hers. She began her contribution by saying this:

As a very proud member of the Turnbull government I am delighted to move this motion this morning.

Well, quite a few things have changed since then, and I hope I'll be able to conclude my remarks by referring to the member for Chisholm's conclusion as well. Quite a few things have changed in this building, including over the weekend, since the member for Chisholm put this motion on the Notice Paper. But regardless of her recently acquired more independent attitude and lack of confidence in the direction of the Morrison government, I am deeply concerned by the views that she has set out here, views which are echoed by members of the government more broadly. It is telling, when I consider the contributions made in this debate so far from the government side of the House, that government members continually insinuate that there is only one choice open to Australians when it comes to managing our economy and that there is no alternative to their one-point plan for economic growth. But, in the discussion of this motion, it's also offensive that government members so often seek to tie their blinkered and ideological view about economic management to those services Australians cherish and so often rely on.

But, of course, there are choices, important choices, facing Australia and Australians as they consider an election that we so desperately need. We can reject neoliberalism and trickle-down economics. We can invest in those things which will secure economic growth that is inclusive. I am going to talk a bit about some of Labor's platform, but I want to be very clear in saying that the Australian Labor Party under the Leader of the Opposition is not an outlier in this regard. The sorts of things that we are talking about that will set us on the pathway to inclusive growth are things that are being recommended by bodies like the IMF and the OECD and by most significant international economists. These are not just choices that are open to Australia; they are choices that Australia must make. Fundamentally, the Australian government must change tack and show more confidence in the Australian people and their capacity, which is exactly what Australian Labor has been doing, particularly in the week since the member for Chisholm introduced the motion that is the subject of this debate.

I want to talk about two policy initiatives in particular. The first is the announcement by the member for Kingston and the Leader of the Opposition about providing certainty for four-year-old preschoolers, something this government should and must do, rather than relying on year-by-year rollover on its commitment, and extending preschool for three-year-olds. This is about the best investment we can make in Australia's future. By investing in young Australians at a time when their brain development is greatest, the return on the investment will be greatest. That's what the academics have been telling us for quite some time. There are few policy announcements which have excited me quite so much as this one, and I urge government members to reject the views of some that this can actually reduce the IQ of children participating in three-year-old kindergarten or similar programs, as was suggested absurdly. Instead, embrace what the evidence tells us; ensure that the benefits of three-year-old preschool are enjoyed not just by a select few but by all Australians. There could not be a more significant investment in growth and, indeed, in equity for the future.

The other issue around securing inclusive growth that I want to touch upon is getting our schools funding right. Now, the government does deserve a tick for eventually recognising that it was short-changing Catholic and independent schools, and we have welcomed the fact that the government has made good, admittedly too late, its cuts in the Hockey-Abbott budget. But there is more to be done. Eighty-five per cent of the cuts to schools came from our public schools—2.5 million Australian children deserve fair funding so that they can reach their potential and our country can realise its potential more broadly.

In conclusion, I just want to go back to what the member for Chisholm said near the end of her contribution:

Australians can rest assured that the Turnbull government has a plan …

Well, we know how that has ended up. I can only urge members of the now Morrison government to look at a plan B.

Comments

No comments