House debates

Monday, 26 May 2014

Bills

Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014; First Reading

10:10 am

Photo of Bill ShortenBill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Abbott government's decisions, since being elected, to underfund the education of our children will create a permanent underclass in this country. These decisions to underfund education at the national level will divide communities. These decisions to underfund education at the national level will increase inequity and unfairness. Labor, historically and today, remains and is the best party to look after education in this country.

This bill is consistent with Labor values. This bill constructively seeks to remedy the bad decisions—before too much damage is done to the educational opportunities of millions of Australian schoolchildren. The reasons why we put this bill forward are several. In part, we put this bill forward because our parliament has always taken an interest in education at the school level. In part, we put this bill forward because we already see the damage that some state jurisdictions are doing because they are not required to fund schools in the same manner in which the Commonwealth expects good state jurisdictions to do so.

This bill is also more urgently required than ever, because the budget brought down a fortnight ago is nothing short of a calamity and a disaster for Australian schoolchildren, for their parents and teachers, and for people who love education in this country. It is also the case that this bill should be passed by the House, because to do otherwise is to sell the future of this country short. And, most importantly perhaps, this bill should be passed because the finest minds in education, the many parents of Australian schoolchildren, and the hardworking teachers in our schools know that unless we fund education on a needs basis, we will create an underclass in this country.

Turning to the first of the reasons why this bill should be supported, and in moving this bill, we reject this latest argument of a promise-breaking and deceitful government: that somehow schools are not the responsibility in any fashion of the national government. I believe that most fair-minded Australians, when they watched the so-called Minister for Education—I would use that as a very loose term—and he said, 'It is not our responsibility to take a role in the schools of Australia.' We reject that abysmal rewriting of Australian political and education history. We acknowledge that the Constitution of Australia provides the states with a significant role and responsibility with regard to the schools of Australia. But there are many well recognised constitutional heads of power which allocate a responsibility to the federal government of Australia. Section 96 of our Constitution—and those faux conservatives on the other side who always believe in tradition seem to neglect actual constitutional history in this country—and other sections of our Constitution have been appropriately relied upon for many decades as the basis upon which the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth parliament take an interest in the schools and the children of Australia.

Indeed, this year is the 50th anniversary of a 1964 piece of legislation called the States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) Act. This was a decision by the Menzies Liberal government to provide capital grants for science laboratories and equipment in secondary schools.

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Great decision.

Photo of Bill ShortenBill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

The member opposite says 'great decision'. It is just a shame that they have forgotten their own history. In 1969 there was the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act. That was for financing library facilities—again, a federal government supporting schools. In 1972, there was the State Grants Act for broadening capital expenditure; in 1970, recurrent funding for non-government schools; in 1972-73, a Labor government ensured that there was recurrent spending for government schools; in 1974, targeted programs to assist with special education needs, professional development and, indeed, support for disadvantaged schools.

Members of the House: one of the bases upon which this government seeks to reject this bill is that it says there is no role for the federal government in the funding of schools and making requirements. What a pack of hypocrites! How ignorant of their own history that they would now turn their backs on 50 years of support for government and non-government schools through the Parliament of Australia. I remind this government, who was so quick in its ideological desire to create extreme and unfair policies for this country: ignore your own history at your peril. This parliament is the custodian of the right of Australian children to have a good education. The right to a good education is now in the care of this parliament. Unless this parliament acts upon it, unless we continue to fight for the right of children to have a good education in this country, we will realise to our cost—not only to the cost of the children of Australia and their parents but to the cost of the future of this country—that the right to a good education will be more easily lost than it was won.

We will fight hard to defend the right to a good education in this country. We will fight hard to ensure that we do not see the creation of a permanent underclass in this country. It is appropriate that we guard jealously the sensible use of Commonwealth funds. Since this government was elected and made its offering to pay some money to the states and territories, we have seen some states and territories take their own funding out of schools. We have seen the looting of schools in the Northern Territory by their own administration. We have seen the sacking of teachers and educational assistants in Western Australia by a state government that is freed of the leash of any requirements. What happened is that the Commonwealth government, which would hold itself up as some sort of guardian of fiscal prudential interests in decision making, wandered along to the state governments, with what the state governments could only have believed to be their good luck—and said, 'You can have the money, no strings attached.' Sorry, did I say 'no strings attached'? There is one string attached. Only a government with obsessive detail to the irrelevant and who ignores the important would say on the one hand, 'It is not our responsibility to tell states how to fund schools'—except when it comes to chaplains. Why didn't we recognise that this party is no longer the party of Menzies, no longer the party of ensuring that the Commonwealth takes an interest in the education of our children? Of course, there is always one exception to prove their complete hypocrisy. They have made it clear when it comes to school chaplains that we do not want psychologists and welfare workers who are not attached to religious organisations. The government have put this requirement to the states of Australia. They are saying on one hand that we are not going to fund you properly in the future; but, on the other hand, we will make sure that your chaplain belongs to a religious organisation. The state governments scratch their heads when they deal with this government.

In this budget, which emphasises even more the need to pass this bill, we have seen the states realise the anti-education party of the government. State Premier Campbell Newman—someone whom I am not normally in agreement with, thus proving that even a stop-clock can be right twice a day—has said:

We’re all in agreement that what the government is doing

that would be the Abbott-Hockey government—

in relation to health and education is not acceptable.

Mike Baird, perhaps not in the most elegant of prose but certainly pithily, described cuts to education in New South Wales as 'a kick in the guts to the people of New South Wales'. Victorian Premier Dennis Napthine, no doubt feeling the hot breath of an election in September on his neck, in November said of these education cuts:

These are simply unaffordable and unsustainable, and those who will be affected are ordinary Australian families …

This is why this bill should be supported—because we will not stand idly by and watch the education system of Australia be attacked, looted and robbed.

I remind this House, in closing, that many Australians put a high value on education. Many people without money depend upon a well-funded public education system not as a luxury like Foxtel but as something that is a doorway to opportunity for their families. I commend this bill to the House.

Photo of Mrs Bronwyn BishopMrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.