Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 introduces a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses up to a maximum of $750 for children undertaking primary studies and $1,500 for children undertaking secondary studies. The coalition supports this measure by the government to provide some relief to parents in meeting some education expenses.

However, the coalition has significant concerns about the extremely limited scope of this bill. The coalition believe that choice is fundamental in a quality education and that education is fundamental to a prosperous economy. When the coalition were in government it was our express aim that Australia should have a world-class, high-quality education system. The Labor government’s education policy is a slogan: the ‘education revolution’. But what the Labor government is delivering up under this slogan is not what is needed in our education system. Rhetoric and empty promises do not achieve the quality education that parents want their children to have access to in this country. Quality in education is the coalition’s main concern. Throwing money indiscriminately into computers under the cover of a slogan will not improve quality. It is through values based reform measures that quality in education will be achieved.

This bill refunds parents for only a limited amount of expenditure on information technology related goods. It does not address in any way the underlying financial issues faced by parents when choosing how and where their children will be educated. The real day-to-day costs of schooling, as any parent knows, extend far beyond simply providing a computer at home. Parents are faced with costs for uniforms, fees, textbooks, excursions and extracurricular activities; the list goes on. This bill does nothing to assist parents to meet the costs of these school education related expenses.

Additionally, the bill does not cover the entire costs of a computer, meaning that parents will still be faced with expenses in providing a computer for their child’s use at home. The bill limits eligible education expenses to laptops, home computers and associated costs, computer related equipment such as printers and disability aids, home internet connection computer software, school textbooks and other paper based school learning materials and tools of trade as prescribed by the course. But the point is it covers only a small proportion of the costs of a computer. It does nothing to address the basics of a good education. It does nothing to support families with the day-to-day costs of schooling. It does not encourage any choice. It ignores the fact that parents pay fees to independent schools and Catholic schools. It ignores the contributions that parents make to local state government schools. It ignores the costs of uniforms. It ignores the extra tuition that many children need in core subjects or the additional classes that children undertake to develop their abilities. It ignores the realities of buying a computer, such as the real cost and the unlikelihood of buying a new computer every year. And it is a concern that it does not cover all families and children.

Specifically, the bill fails to cover all families and children because entitlement to the education refund is dependent upon fulfilling a series of requirements, meaning that some families and children are not going to benefit from this refund. The requirements are that they are entitled to a family tax benefit part A payment for a child, in receipt of certain other prescribed payments for the child that would otherwise preclude them from receiving family tax benefit part A payments for that child, or the student is entitled to certain prescribed payments and is assessed as independent for the purposes of the payment and the student is enrolled. Families and children who do not satisfy the above requirements are not entitled to this government rebate.

In contrast, the coalition policy we took to the last election was to provide a rebate which supported all families with children at school. In fact, that coalition’s policy was called ‘Helping families to provide more education opportunities for their children’. It proposed to introduce a new refundable tax rebate of 40 per cent for education expenses including school fees for every student from preschool—or kindergarten, as it is called in some states—until the end of secondary school. The coalition’s policy recognised that enabling parents to choose the best education for their children often requires them to juggle not only their priorities but also the costs associated with educating their children. The policy explicitly listed the following items as being included in such a rebate scheme: government and non-government school fees; preschool fees and expenses; school uniforms; textbooks, stationery and calculators; camps and excursions; laptops, broadband and software; and extracurricular school activities such as sports, music, dance and drama. Under the coalition’s policy, the rebate for secondary school was up to $800 annually for each student; for primary school and preschool, up to $400 annually for each student. And that was without the limitations that are being imposed by the government’s policy in relation to entitlement to family tax benefit A payments and the like.

In looking at the contrast between the policy contained in this bill and the coalition’s policy, it is worth remembering the coalition’s investment in schools when in government. It was at record levels, and made possible by the coalition’s record of economic and financial management which saw sustained economic growth, falling unemployment, the paying off of $96 billion of government debt inherited from the previous Labor government, and successive budget surpluses. How the Prime Minister must thank the day that he became Prime Minister with the economy in the condition he inherited, given what is happening in global financial circles. It was this record of economic and financial management which allowed the coalition to increase investment in schools by 172 per cent. That was a record level of funding. Under this Labor government, forecasts in the budget already show slower economic growth, slower employment growth and increased unemployment. How does the government expect to maintain the record level of funding for schools achieved by the coalition if it is not able to manage the economy effectively, if there is slower economic growth, slower employment growth and increased unemployment?

Just as the Labor government are attempting to rewrite the economic history of this country to hide their failures and seeking to ignore the successes of the coalition government, they are trying to rewrite the educational history of Australia as well. In a recent speech, on 11 September, the Treasurer stated:

Education reform—especially school reform—has been proposed in this country for a decade.

Half-hearted attempts have been made, but they have not been backed up with the leadership and conviction needed to deliver structural change.

Our predecessors never succeeded in navigating Australia’s future—and there is no better example of this than the former Treasurer’s failure to invest in the education of our children.

This was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The record funding by the federal coalition government to all schools is a case in point.

Some of the coalition’s more fundamental and important reforms came about by taking unprecedented steps of attaching conditions to the increased funding that was provided to state governments. This had not occurred before. Whilst the Labor government at a national level seeks to ignore the efforts of the state Labor governments around the country in education, it is worth reminding the House of what we were able to achieve against the objection of those state Labor governments and the education unions. We were able to ensure that plain English report cards were provided to assist parents to know how their child was progressing at school. We sought greater consistency in educational outcomes across the states. We insisted that principals of schools have more say in what happened within their schools. We required the explicit teaching of values. We introduced measures to reduce bullying at school and we introduced compulsory physical education in every school. The coalition when in government also made it a condition of funding that schools publish a range of information such as the percentage of students achieving national benchmarks in literacy and numeracy, average year-12 results, school leaver destinations, staff and student retention and absentee rates, teacher qualifications and value added measures of student performance. It was in this way that the coalition government was able to increase transparency and help parents to access better information about school performance.

I cannot let a bill on education pass without mentioning the coalition government’s Investing in Our Schools Program. This made over $1 billion—almost $1.2 billion—available between 2005 and 2008 to all schools, not just to those teaching years 9 to 12, as the government’s education revolution focuses upon. The Investing in Our Schools Program was for all schools, primary and secondary, and for a range of purposes, not just for computers. Under the Investing in Our Schools Program, schools received funding for computers. They received funding for information and communication technology related purposes such as upgrading the power supply. Others received it for a range of priorities, whether it be musical instruments, science laboratory equipment or sporting equipment.

The coalition’s record compares favourably with Labor’s promise to pay for a lot of new computers, because Labor has had no regard for the additional costs that it will now impose on the actual needs of each school under this digital education revolution. What the federal Labor government is doing is sending a direction from ALP central to schools telling them that they must order their priorities in the way that the Labor government wants them to. It is not up to the schools to tell the government what their priorities are and seek funding, as they did under Investing in Our Schools. Under the digital education revolution, the government dictates to the schools what their priorities and needs are.

The government introduced this digital education revolution without any analysis of the costs of the program to the state governments or to the schools. The promise of a computer for every year 9 to 12 student was unachievable for the budget, and we now know that it is not for every student in years 9 to 12. The educational value of the scheme was highly questionable. The OECD report relied upon by the Labor Party during the election pointed out that this sort of program which just relies on more computers and nothing else will not improve academic performance, will not improve teacher quality and, indeed, could even harm it. This view was supported by other research, including research commissioned by our own Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

The government made a lot of noise about this education revolution in the lead-up to the election and has also made a lot of noise about it since it was elected, but today in Senate estimates the education revolution has been disclosed as a sham. In the additional budget estimates today, the government was asked about total costings of their computers in schools election promise. The government refused to provide the estimates committee with these estimates on the grounds that their estimates are ‘in the nature of advice to the government’. So before the election the Labor Party was prepared to announce a $1.2 billion package that promised a computer on the desk of every child between years 9 and 12, and because of the reports about the gross budget overruns in order to supply such a program the government is now refusing to release additional costings. Clearly, if a department has provided an advice to the government it does not follow that the advice is in any way immune from disclosure, and costings of government programs are certainly not top-secret national security information. So the failure of the government to provide answers to questions on the total cost of the education revolution package is just hypocrisy behind belief.

It is apparent that the government has grossly underbudgeted its education revolution. We know that the government budgeted $1.2 billion for the program. However, we also know that the state and territory governments estimate that it will cost far in excess of that and that the independent schools and the private sector estimates point to the fact that the true cost of this government policy is in fact $2.5 billion. The $2.5 billion figure is based on the universally accepted ratio that the cost of the actual computer is only about 20 per cent of the total cost, with the other 80 per cent going towards installing and maintaining the computer over its four-year life span. So the government’s policy to put a computer on the desk of every student—or of every other student, depending upon which day it is—in years 9 to 12 was in fact just to deliver a computer in a box to the school. There were no other costings budgeted for. So, if a computer costs $500, all the other one-off and ongoing costs will add up to $2,000—a total of $2,500 per computer.

So the Rudd government’s proposal is only for the cost of the computer. It plans to provide for one million computers, the number of students to whom it has promised a computer, and the total for the program is $2.5 billion. That is how it adds up. Therefore, $1.3 billion is missing from the government’s analysis. It has underbudgeted by $1.3 billion or it is going to have to find $1.3 billion in the budget or it is going to pass on the costs to the state governments, to the independent and Catholic schools or to the parents. This is a major embarrassment for the government. This flagship election promise, this much overhyped education revolution, will cost more than twice as much as the government budgeted for. This is an absolute farce. The government was out there telling the parents of Australia that its education revolution would deliver a computer for every child or for every other child in years 9 to 12 at a cost of $1.2 billion. We find that on state government and independent and private sector estimates it is $1.3 billion short. I ask the government: who is going to pay the shortfall?

This bill reveals the government’s true colours, because it takes away choice from parents. It is dictating to parents what they must spend their money on. It is dictating to parents the government’s view of the world. This is Labor Party belief, philosophy. This is typical Labor Party. The government knows best. The Labor government believes that the best way to spend money on a child’s education is only on computers and that the government’s view is superior to the view of the parents. The government’s view is superior to the view of the schools. As we can see from the botched digital education revolution rollout, with a $1.3 billion black hole in the funding analysis, this budget overrun, this black hole, is imposing costs that will presumably have to be picked up by schools and parents. Somebody will have to make up the difference between the $1.2 billion budgeted for and the extra $1.3 billion that it will cost. Somebody will have to make up the difference between the costs of the program and what the government budgeted for. This gives us no faith at all in this government’s ability to implement any significant program. If it cannot properly cost and implement a program to put a computer on the desk of every student or every other student in years 9, 10, 11 and 12, how on earth will this government ever be able to implement an emissions trading scheme? How will this government ever be able to implement an unlimited bank guarantee for deposits?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been given a very wide licence by the chair on this bill, and I would ask her to come back to the bill before the parliament.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will end there.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. When addressing an education bill, I cannot avoid the chance to remind the House that in February 2007 the then Prime Minister, John Howard, issued a press release indicating that the Investing in Our Schools Program was not to continue after 2007.

This landmark bill is part of the $55 billion working families package contained in the Rudd Labor government’s first budget—a package aimed at not only easing the squeeze on working families in very difficult economic times, but also allowing working families to build on the skills and the education of their children that will enable them to make the most of their future. This package involved almost $47 billion of tax relief over the next four years. It involved increasing the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and paying it quarterly at a time when working families need the money, at a cost of $1.6 billion. It included a $2.2 billion package to start to address for the first time, from this parliament’s perspective, the housing affordability crisis that had been building for several years. It involved a Teen Dental Plan at the cost of almost half a billion dollars. It involved tax relief for working families through a fairer Medicare levy surcharge threshold—tax relief opposed by the opposition in the other place.

But for these purposes, it particularly involved the introduction of an education tax refund to help parents with the costs of educating their kids at a cost of $4.4 billion over the next four years. Contrary to the contribution by the previous speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it does not mandate that parents spend their money on computers. It states quite clearly in the bill that parents can spend money on a range of materials used in their education—computers and related materials such as internet connections, printers, paper, educational software, but also school textbook materials, prescribed trade tools, a range of educational tools not related, in my experience, to computers needed by children today to make the most of their schooling. This working families package has only become more timely given the economic circumstances confronting Australian families now.

This bill is where the two virtuous circles of the education revolution and the working families tax package overlap, and that is the particular beauty of this bill. This not only delivers tax relief to working families, but it helps working families start to build on meaningful education for their children. This is part of an education revolution. I note there has been some debate about that recently. This is an education revolution. In 11 months this government, from a national government’s point of view, has delivered more by way of educational reform than the previous government did in 11 years. We will be rolling out a universal preschool entitlement for four-year-olds across Australia. In South Australia we have been lucky enough for many, many years to have a universal preschool entitlement—15 hours paid by the state government per week—for all four-year-olds, but I know that in many states, including the home state of the member for Bonner—Queensland—there has not been such an entitlement. For many years now we have also seen the research that demonstrates that the first five years of a child’s life are the most important years in brain development. Our government, the Rudd Labor government, is the first government to exercise the responsibilities of a national government in making sure that the sorts of benefits that we have had in South Australia for many years apply across the continent.

For the first time, we are implementing a national program to equip Australian students with the skills that they need for the future. For the first time there will be a National Curriculum Board ensuring that students in South Australia study the same maths and history and language and science and other curricula that are studied in New South Wales. It makes no sense to Australian parents—and to Australian employers for that matter—why students in one state or territory are studying different curricula to those in another state or territory. This is something which the previous government either was not particularly interested in or was not able to achieve progress on. We are particularly making an attempt to improve maths and science education. I know that in a number of schools in my electorate the maths and science education has slipped, not only because of the range of other subjects that are on offer that are perhaps considered more attractive by students today but also because teachers are finding it difficult to keep up with the advances. This is true of teachers of the sciences in particular. Teachers who might have been trained to deliver physics and chemistry curricula find it difficult to get up to speed with the demands of nanotechnology, biotechnology and a range of other sciences that are really the cutting edge nowadays.

We have trades training centres in schools and in response to a question I asked of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, I was pleased to see the announcement of a trades training centre in Seaton High School in my electorate. In visiting a number of trades training centres while a candidate for and now as a member of this parliament—it is some time since I have been in a ‘tech study centre’, as we used to call them—I saw that they had not changed in the 20 years since I was at school. The same lathes and other equipment have been there since the mid-1960s. So the work we are doing to update the trades training centres in schools is critical.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent a good deal of her time in this debate talking about the digital education revolution. We obviously have a difference of opinion about this because we see this as the centre of the education revolution.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the member for Fowler think about it?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I encourage the member for Sturt to be patient and wait for the contributions of other members, if he is interested in them. I am glad the member for Sturt is here for my contribution on the education debate because I note the member for Sturt still has to correct the public record after having told listeners to ABC radio in South Australia that I attended Pulteney Grammar—a besmirchment of my character!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never said such thing.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did so! I have the transcript, but I corrected the record.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You must be thinking about somebody else.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will talk about it later. Returning to the topic at hand, I have had the privilege of attending a number of schools which are going to benefit very shortly from the digital education revolution and to receive a very good number of new computers. In spite of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s contribution, I note that those schools are without computers of a functional nature, in some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of South Australia. To the extent they have computers, many of them do not have USB portals and there simply are not enough computers to deal with even the year 12s, let alone other years. I have been to Ocean View College, to Findon High School and next week I will be attending the Islamic College in my electorate. All of those principals and teachers are terribly grateful for the computer packages they are going to receive through the digital education revolution.

This bill, as I said, constituents the overlap of the two virtuous circles—the education revolution and the working families tax package. We must equip schools, and some of the things I have talked about already tonight—the digital education revolution and the trades training centres—are about equipping schools. It is only part of the equation because families in my electorate, no matter how much they are going to benefit from the sorts of school reforms we have talked about, also need help equipping their students at home so as to continue their education doing homework. The most obvious example of that is the computers that are catered for under this bill. There are many more education related expenses which families incur, which will be covered by these refunds—laptops, home computers and associated costs, a home internet connection, printers and paper, educational software, school textbooks, materials and prescribed trade tools. Those are the sorts of items which will continue to equip school students of the 21st century for the sorts of jobs they will be seeking after they finish school.

It is well known, for those who have read this bill, that the amounts envisaged in the bill are around $375 per child in the pocket for parents of a primary school student and $750 in the pocket for parents of a high school or secondary student. Even assuming that these amounts are fixed for the next 12 years, a typical working family with two children about to start school, over the course of those two children’s schooling, will benefit to the tune of $14,250. That is assuming that those amounts are not increased at some time—we hope they will be—over the next 12 years.

The procedures for obtaining these refunds are straightforward. Working families will obviously be required to keep receipts, but it will be a relatively straightforward matter to make a claim in the 2008-09 tax return. If the parents in question are not required to submit a tax return, then there will be a very simple form available from the Australian Taxation Office which can be completed for the return to be paid to the parents. Where families have shared care arrangements for the children, there will be an arrangement very similar to those applying to the family tax benefit part A to ensure that the refund is shared in the same way between the parents who are subject to the shared care arrangement.

In conclusion, the rollout of this policy demonstrates the benefits of a very early and open disclosure of election policies. The response by the community of Port Adelaide to this policy has been incredibly enthusiastic. After being elected on 24 November 2007, it was one of the most common inquiries we received over the summer period as parents prepared their children for the 2008 school year. The detailed advice that was available from the minister was a credit to her and a credit to her office. As early as December 2007—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You Lefties all stick together.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You bet we do, as you do in South Australia—we were able to provide very detailed advice to the constituents of Port Adelaide about what they should do when expending money on their children for the 2008 school year. I commend the bill to the House.