Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of where we are up to in the—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all right. We have got very good people here who can keep the time—that is not the issue. The issue is where we had got to with the next speaker. The current speaker—the member for Mitchell will just resume his seat for a second. Was the member for Mitchell speaking in the debate?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are? So the member for Mitchell—and I have had the indication from the member for Sydney—can complete his speech. At which point, the member for Sydney will come back for the allotted time that is there. I now call the member for Mitchell.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a heated matter. In leaving the chamber, the member for Sydney directly reflected on the chair in an unacceptable way, challenging the whole authority of the chair and I would ask her to withdraw that. It goes to the confidence of the Second Deputy Speaker system. It was maybe said in anger.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're trying to find a compromise.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga is not helping.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be appropriate if that was withdrawn, because the Speaker should be honoured at all times.

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

Just to assist you and to move business along, as you have attempted to do, I am happy to withdraw.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sydney and I call the member for Mitchell in continuation, if he wishes to continue.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will resume talking about the debate on education, because these are the debates that the Australian public want us to be talking about—important matters such as education funding in Australia. I again reiterate my central point that, in this debate, the Australian government—the Turnbull coalition government that has been elected to govern Australia—is continuing the trend of Commonwealth governments in this country and state governments from 1987 and 1988 to this year, to increase Commonwealth and state funding for education. During that period we have seen that Commonwealth and state spending since 1987-88 to 2011-12 has actually increased by 100 per cent. When you total state and Commonwealth funding in Australia spent on education just in the last 25 or 30 years, it has increased 100 per cent. So we are spending a record amount of money on education.

So, of course, it is a valuable question to ask why we are facing a situation where we are seeing poorer results in international rankings. Australia has slipped up to 14 places compared to other countries. That is why this government has specific responses to the problems that we are seeing—not just in funding but in other matters in education that require key attention. That is what the experts are saying. They are talking about things like teacher quality; they are talking about effective classrooms; and they are talking about improving STEM. You will see in the policies that the Australian government is bringing forward that they are built on a strong evidence base, ensuring that we have directed strategies that will improve learning outcomes for all Australian students regardless of their school and background.

While funding is absolutely important and central, it is important to remember that, when you have a government in chaos, like the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, who run around negotiating with states money that they do not have—that they have to borrow, that they have no intention of living up to—that it is up to the next government that is elected to office to come forward and realistically deal with the funding mess that was left to us by a Labor government that promised the world without any intention of ever actually funding those increases in education.

Our goals for future reform include boosting literacy, numeracy and STEM performance—and the Prime Minister today spoke powerfully in question time about the need to boost literacy, numeracy and STEM. Sometimes members opposite scoff at these things, but these are core and central to the problems that we are facing in education. Our goals include improving the quality of teaching and school leadership; preparing our students for a globalised world; and focusing on what is most important within the education system.

The Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes plan that the government outlined earlier this year has more than a dozen initiatives: a back to basics focus on literacy and numeracy—and, again, we do not apologise for focusing on literacy and numeracy in our education system, as it is indeed central to this government's philosophy; more qualified teachers in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects; ensuring students complete a maths or science subject before they graduate; and setting minimum literacy and numeracy standards for year 12s. Through the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes policy, I and the government know that the answer will be in highly skilled maths and science teachers implementing teaching strategies that have been proven to work.

We are often criticised by the party opposite for not doing things in STEM. But in December 2015—not this year but over a year ago—we announced $64.6 million under the education and training portfolio as part of a national innovation and science agenda. This included expansion of the University of Adelaide's CSER digital technologies teacher program, with $6.9 million over four years to expand their unique online learning program. We have seen $8 million over four years to provide disadvantaged areas with access to specialist ICT teachers—and this was announced on 21 January this year; $4 million over two years for a pool of digital literacy school grants, expected to fund over 100 projects; and STEM partnerships with schools all around the country.

It does not stack up that all we need to do in our education system is simply spend more money. We must look at what we are doing. We must look at the quality of what we are doing. It is this government that will focus on greater quality outcomes, improving literacy and numeracy in our education system and making sure that the money that we do spend is wisely spent on the programs to lift education results.

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

The problem with the member for Mitchell's proposition that Labor is just all about money and it is not about reform is that every piece of evidence tells you the exact opposite. If you have a look at the COAG National Education Reform Agreement, you see that it goes through four pages of the reforms that we wanted from states and territories. And who was it that ripped up this reform agenda? None other than the first Liberal education minister under the Abbott government, Christopher Pyne, who said, 'We want to treat the states as adults; we don't want to do the things that are in the agreement,' including improving the preparation of teacher graduates; improving the quality of induction into the profession; enhancing teacher performance and professional development; strengthening the early years of education; extending the Australian curriculum reform; strengthening school leadership; and giving principals greater authority to make decisions.

All of these things were already in the agreements that we had signed with the states, and they were destroyed by the first education minister of the Liberal Abbott government. And now they are wandering around saying, 'If only we had an agenda to reform teaching and learning. Wouldn't it be fantastic if someone had put some thought into this?' The work was done on an appropriate level of funding, and they refused to fund our schools appropriately. The work was done on a reform agenda that would deliver what we know matters, which is the quality of teaching in the classroom.

The flip-flops are manifest. In 2012 we had the Liberals saying, 'I give a Gonski,' and in 2013, 'Gonski has become Conski,' and, also in 2013, on a unity ticket with Labor, 'Not a dollar difference. You can vote Labor or Liberal; it will make no difference to your school.' But, the minute they get into government, $30 billion is cut from education. Years 5 and 6 needs based funding for schools—exactly what every Australian parent thought the Liberal government was going to deliver under Tony Abbott—was cut by $4 billion. In those two years alone, $4 billion was cut from schools. We now have an education minister who is off to meet the state education ministers on 16 December to tell them that they should do more with less; that they should teach better in our schools with a $30 billion cut on the books—with, on average, $3 million cut from every school in Australia. And he is now saying, 'Oh, and, by the way, we would like a reform agenda.' Seriously; if only someone had thought about this some time! It really beggars belief.

This government has been a mess when it comes to school education. It gives no certainty to teachers, no certainty to principals and no certainty to parents and, worst of all, lets down our children by denying them the sort of individual attention that a decently funded school allows. It says money does not matter. Only a government that wants to cut $30 billion would say that money does not matter. Only a government that wants to set state against state, system against system, school against school and child against child would say funding does not matter. Of course reform matters, but you have to have the dollars to pay for that reform. I will tell you who else thinks that is the case. The Liberal Party and the National Party in New South Wales are prepared to stand up and say, 'Yes, funding does make a difference.' The Nationals education minister in New South Wales knows what decently funded schools in remote areas mean for Australian students. He knows that these maths and science results prove that country kids are missing out—and they should not be. That is why National Party members should support needs based funding for our schools.

Those opposite say we do not have the money to fund this—but we can find $50 billion for big business tax cuts. Those opposite say, 'It's just spreading money around.' We actually spend less than the OECD average educating our children. Those opposite say that it is much better to go for tax cuts and that they are really a driver of productivity. The OECD does not agree, economists do not agree and I will tell you who else does not agree—parents, who will be voting at the next election on whether you are going to properly fund their schools.

Education ministers across the country will be meeting on 16 December and they will be sending a very strong message back to the government to say, 'Money does matter. Yes, we are prepared to reform our school systems because we care about the results our children achieve. We care about kids who are missing out.' What are those opposite going to do?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was 19 years old when I finished my teaching degree and went off to teach in country Queensland. In fact, I know how long 19 years is because 19 years ago today I finished my last day of teaching. The reason I give that as an example is that it takes a long time to change an education system—nearly 20 years, especially when you are changing a fundamental funding model, which is what Labor put into place and what the Australian people thought they were getting when they voted for the Abbott government back in 2013. I could use some props to illustrate it but perhaps will not in the current climate. The Australian people thought there was a unity ticket on Gonski.

We heard the member for Mitchell saying we are spending record amounts on funding education. I just want to put a fact out there. Nineteen years ago, when I left teaching, there were fewer children in our schools. We are a growing country. Every year, there are more schoolkids in our schools. Lo and behold, that means we need more teachers in our schools and so our budget increases. So it is a misdirection to say that we are spending record amounts on education, because it is not the Gonski model. The Gonski model was all about focusing on kids with low socioeconomic status, Indigenous students and people who live in rural and remote areas. I stress that to the Nats because you have been sold a pup. The Nats way back under Whitlam, in the seventies, understood that funding going into the bush schools can make a significant difference. Adrian Piccoli in the New South Wales parliament understood what this delivered for the bush, either for Indigenous kids or in rural and remote areas. Education funding does cost a lot, but, as Gonski and his expert panel illustrated, this is actually an economic reform. It is not just a group of teachers getting around saying, 'We need to do this;' this is actually an economic model. Why? As the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report and many other reports show, we need to perform better. How do you do that? You invest in schools.

I was waiting for the member for Mitchell in his interrupted 10-minute speech to give some examples from the schools in his electorate as to why the Gonski money is not needed. In fact, I am waiting for anyone opposite to give me concrete examples from their schools as to why the Gonski money is not doing good things in their schools. I can tell you: all 50-odd schools that I am associated with in Moreton, either on the border or inside the electorate, can give me concrete examples of how they are using the Gonski money. I spoke to Dr Greg Nelson from Sherwood State School this morning because there was a school assembly there and he wanted to have a yarn to me about Gonski funding. This is a high-performing school. He said that the school pumps the funding into targeted writing projects, especially for boys. They can finesse it that much at a school level. In science and maths, they are putting money to target boys' writing, something that the member for Lalor, if she was here, would appreciate as a school teacher as well. At Corinda State School, the principal indicated that they are supporting teachers by ensuring that they have ongoing refinement of instructional design and delivery. School communities know how to spend this money and school communities know how to get results. But the government have ripped $30 billion out of this program, when you gave a solemn promise to the people of Australia that there was a unity ticket.

We know it will take time to move the ship of education in a different, better direction, but we need to do it for economic reasons. Do you think the schools in Singapore are sitting around saying, 'You don't need to work hard'? Do you think the schools in Vietnam or China or Taiwan—our neighbours, whom we are competing with—are saying, 'You don't need to invest in education'? This is about improving productivity. This is about improving the economic chances for my grandchildren. This is why the Gonski promise should be honoured, because it will result in better outcomes for the economy down the track. We know that. Gonski, remember, was a banker. He was someone who understood productivity, not someone who was an educational expert, but by the end of it, when he looked at it, he understood that that is where we should be investing our money. I hope that those opposite remember that, particularly the Nationals, rather than betraying the bush, which is what you are doing by backing away from Gonski funding.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to rise to speak on this MPI today. Good education is crucial to the personal development of Australian children and to our progress as a country. In my local electorate I have introduced the Petrie Shield to recognise the good work that students in my schools are doing right throughout the Petrie electorate. It was interesting to hear the member for Moreton speak, a member whom I respect, as I know he is a former educator. When he said that there was a unity ticket at the 2013 election in relation to Gonski funding, he is absolutely right. I ran in that election; I remember it well. We made a solemn commitment to fund Gonski for the forward estimates for four more years, which we have done, so we are 100 per cent on a unity ticket. The member for Mitchell is 100 per cent right when he said that funding has doubled over the last decade. He said it is a hundred per cent increase. From 2013, when we took office, through to 2023, ten years from now, funding doubles; it increases 100 per cent. It goes from something like $12 billion a year to something like $25 billion a year.

I believe that the member for Sydney has misrepresented the government in this MPI today when she talks about, 'The government's failure to properly fund Australian schools'. The member for Sydney went on to say, 'It's not just all about funding,' but that is not what the MPI topic says, and that is not what she just finished her debate with. All she wanted to do was talk about funding. There is no dispute in relation to needs based funding. The government 100 per cent supports needs based funding, and I have seen the impact of that in schools in my electorate. The member for Sydney said the principals need more say in schools. The results in The Australian today are not great for the overall nation, but in Queensland we are doing quite well, and principals have a big say in their schools. The members opposite from Queensland would know that in Queensland we have many independent public schools that the Newman government set up—and that we have encouraged—where principals have a say, which makes a big difference in their schools.

We are doing a lot. The coalition will have a record increase in funding to $16 billion this year, and it goes up to something like $20 billion in 2020. We know that funding continually goes up, so I say to those opposite: every time they mention the words 'cutting funding', they are misleading the public. They are misleading people in their own electorates. I do not know how they can stand there and look at themselves and say, 'Oh, they're cutting funding,' when funding doubles over the next ten years. Give me a break.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, that's Gonski. They're doing well because of Gonski funding.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you read your budget papers from 2014?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is going up every single year, Member for Longman, and schools in your electorate—and in the member for Moreton's electorate—will be better off for it. I know that in my own electorate, schools are particularly benefiting. I have spoken to the principals, and they have said to me it is great to see the extra funding. Schools like Bounty Boulevard State School, Mango Hill State School, Redcliffe State High School and Aspley State High School have had massive increases in education funding under the coalition. The principal at Aspley State High School, Jacquita Miller, is doing a wonderful job down there.

So I would beg to differ; I would say that school funding is continuing to go up. We know that we took to the last election a plan for growth. It is not just about more funding; we have to make sure that funding is sustainable in the long term. When the member for Sydney talks about a $50 billion tax cut, she does not look at the increased revenue—cutting company tax to make us competitive around the world will bring in extra income tax that will enable us to go into the future. The member for Sydney slurred the government when she said we do not care about kids. Guess what, member for Sydney? I have three children of my own, and the member for Mitchell has one and another one on the way. We do care about kids. I thought that was a disgraceful slur.

I would also say that we are improving STEM. There has been record investment in STEM. We will continue to do that. I have full confidence that the education minister, the honourable Simon Birmingham, will get this right. The opposition should work together with us, rather than be political on this issue, to ensure that our kids have a bright future. (Time expired)

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the 2013 election, the Liberals talked about their unity ticket with Labor on school funding. They went to great lengths to endorse our policy and pledged to match our funding commitments. In government, they have done nothing but cut funding for our schools. Everything this government say about schools must be taken in the context of their $30 billion worth of cuts to schools and their failure to commit to the full Gonski funding. Those opposite are willing to stand here and play politics with the futures of students in my electorate and across the country. Parents, teachers and students deserve better than being used as a political football by this government. The Liberals have tried every trick in the book to distract attention away from their devastating cuts to schools, with every dollar the Liberals cut from schools robbing a child of the opportunity to reach their full potential. Instead of hiding behind the usual Liberal Party blame game, the minister should stand in this place and be honest with families on the Central Coast and across the country about the realities of their unfair policies—that the Liberals are cutting, on average, $3 million from individual schools.

Schools on the coast cannot afford these cuts. Local parents know that cutting $3 million from every school on the coast would be devastating. It would take teachers from classrooms, books from library shelves, software from computers, and dedicated extra support services from students who need it most. The impact of these cuts is very real. The funding would be enough to employ 192 extra teachers every year for the next decade in the Dobell electorate alone. For our students, these cuts will lock in inequality and uncertainty. In the electorate of Dobell around 62 per cent of people of working age did not complete high school. For a young person on the Central Coast who finds themselves without the support they need to finish school, what does the future hold, with a stubbornly high youth unemployment rate sitting just under 17 per cent? We, as local members, have a responsibility to reduce disadvantage, not make it worse; to invest in education, not cut funding; and to support all students towards a better future, not leave them behind.

Just last week this message was driven home to me at my old primary school, St Cecilia's Primary School, in Wyong. The principal, Yvette Owens, told me that I was always welcome at her school, because as a principal, an educator and a mother, she believes girls need to know that women from their school, their suburb, their region can do anything. I was lucky. I had great teachers and great support. My mum is a primary school teacher and my dad taught engineering at TAFE. Great teachers make a difference.

Mr Helyard, my year 12 chemistry teacher inspired me and furthered my love of chemistry. He entering me and fellow students into the NSW Schools Titration Competition. While many people in this place may not be familiar with this competition—it is a set of acid-base titrations to determine the unknown concentration of a weak acid—we need make sure that girls are given every opportunity to be involved in STEM subjects and exposed to a world that for too long was not open to them.

Only through proper education funding can we ensure that schools have properly equipped laboratories to allow as many students as possible to be involved in the sciences and have experienced teachers to nurture intellectual curiosity. Whether it is the Grattan report or the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study report, one thing is clear: the government needs to do better. Australia is lagging behind other nations, with government funding for schools lower than the OECD average. Our children cannot do better if we don't given them a chance. Australia's results will improve only if the federal government properly funds our schools. If the Liberals continue to rip money out of schools, every child in every school will be robbed of the opportunity to reach their full potential.

We need to be removing the obstacles and barriers—the social determinants of education—that make it difficult for students to get a quality education. The modest amount of extra funding that had started to flow in the first year of Labor's plan to fund our schools properly was starting to work. With needs based funding students get more individual attention—talented students get the opportunities to make the most of their gifts, and students who may need more help get the support they need to catch up. There should be a focus on every child's needs and more individual attention for students. We need experienced and passionate teachers in every school— (Time expired)

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Turnbull coalition government is a government of innovation and enterprise, of supporting the individual and setting people up to be set for their future. Investing in education is one of the best ways to do this as it equips students to be as prepared as they can be for whatever path they choose to take. Programs like the National Innovation and Science Agenda and increased funding to the science, technology, engineering and maths sectors demonstrate the government's commitment to maintaining a relevant and adaptable funding focus for Australian schools. The government has a long record of supporting school funding. Indeed, school funding has been increasing for decades.

This debate cannot be about funding levels, as the figures prove simply that this is not the problem. Australia has the fifth-highest level of education spending in the OECD and it is quite clear that the problem is not the amount of funding; it is the use of the funding and the quality of our institutions and educators. It is a well-established fact that to solve a problem you cannot simply throw more money at it. It is also acknowledged that while needs-based funding is an important aspect of how education is funded, Labor's claim that they introduced needs-based funding with Gonski is false—it is misleading and it is an over-simplification of an answer that does not solve the question. Commonwealth needs-based funding has been in existence since the 1970s and the states have needs-based funding also. This does not address the problem that was raised in the media this morning.

Unfortunately, Labor's corrupted funding model has meant that we are six years behind and have spent a lot for little gain in this direction. I am proud to be a part of a government that has recently committed an additional $1.2 billion over four years and is working to link further funding to reforms that will not only be needs-based, but, more importantly, outcomes-based. These reforms focus on minimum literacy and numeracy standards for school-leavers and ensure our teachers are properly trained, prepared and proficient in fundamental areas before they set foot in a school. I must add that the Minister for Education and Training is doing a tremendous job in bringing about these reforms.

The education and schooling system is not a one-size-fits-all system. The federal budget committed an additional $118.2 million over two years for additional support for school students with a disability. I was pleased to speak to all the schools in my electorate, via letter, shortly after the election to inform them that the funding guaranteed by the coalition government would be delivered. I have four special development schools in my electorate—Frankston SDS, Mornington SDS, Naranga School and the Nepean School—and I am thrilled that they are not forgotten when it comes to education funding. I am also thrilled to commit to local schools through my Dunkley Shield, which I deliver to all schools across Dunkley, recognising the student in each of those schools who has performed excellently and to high standards.

This is an area where we must have cooperation with the state and territory governments. Education is a shared responsibility, but these reforms can eventuate only with the financial effort of the states and territories. I note that the Victorian Minister for Education, the Hon. James Merlino MLA, last week introduced ATAR entry standards. The federal government has this as a measure under our teacher education ministerial advisory reforms. This is a coalition idea. So, Labor talks but never delivers.

The federal government is indeed providing a record $73.6 billion for school education over the budget and forward estimates. We inherited 27 different complex and inconsistent funding arrangements across Australia that have left us with inequitable outcomes. This is why education reform is so important—not only the way funding is distributed but also how it is implemented and what conditions it is linked to. The proposal of those opposite to extend the existing arrangements for in excess of 10 years would entrench and exacerbate the inequities, at the expense of our children, including my own little daughter.

We have to move on from debating funding levels and instead focus on how the funding is spent. We in the Turnbull coalition government have been making terrific progress in ensuring this. I commend the Turnbull coalition government on its investment in the future of our young people. They are our future and we must support them.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is on a matter of national importance and it is close to my heart. I have three kids in school. My oldest, my son Oscar, is mad into chemistry. In fact, he was trying to get me to help him with some titration the other day. I am now going to draw on the member for Dobell for some expertise in that space.

I know from experience, and I see in my community, that schools are at the heart of community life and the way in which school education shapes the lives and opportunities of young people. The proper funding of schools is essential because school education builds on the foundation of early childhood education, and in so doing it is the great determinant of full social and economic participation in Australia. It should be the mechanism for delivering equal opportunity and for reducing inequality but it has not been. That is why the former Labor government pioneered a new approach to school funding, a model that was based on evidence and rigorous analysis through the work of the Gonski review panel, a model that would see increased school funding and funding allocated according to need. That is important, because the task of properly funding schools is both a matter of how much and how. This government, sadly, is failing on both fronts.

Labor's historic needs-based funding reforms are based on the recognition that certain schools and certain students need more funding. Dr Carmen Lawrence, one of my predecessors and a member of the Gonski review panel, explored the connection between education and inequality—the way in which poor education leads to lower outcomes in terms of employment and other general measures of wellbeing and the way that children from disadvantaged backgrounds perform less well at school.

In 2009, the OECD noted that the correlation between a student's socioeconomic background and their educational attainment was stronger than in other comparable nations, and that is a shame. The fact is that Australia is becoming more unequal, less egalitarian, and this is reflected in our education system. As Dr Lawrence has pointed out:

As economic inequality has risen, so has educational inequality; each feeds off the other in a cycle of ever-decreasing social mobility. It’s no accident that the most unequal developed nations spend less on education, and have the most segregated education systems and the poorest educational results.

It is a vicious circle. It should not be. It does not need to be. That is the driving imperative behind needs-based funding. It can take us closer to the point where education delivers both a real equality of opportunity, which is far from the case now, and, as a consequence, it can reverse the trend of rising inequality.

But the Abbott-Turnbull government is undermining and winding back that work and those reforms, and it is felt sharply in my state of Western Australia. Western Australia receives the lowest average federal funds per school, at $694,000, and the lowest funding as a percentage of the per-school Gonski funding benchmark. That inadequacy is compounded by the approach of the WA Barnett government. Analysis released in September—which I encourage all members to go and look at, because it is based on the federal government's own My School data—shows that between 2009 and 2014 the WA government slashed funding to public schools by 10.6 per cent and failed to pass on Gonski funding. Funding to Catholic schools rose eight per cent and for independent schools it was 12 per cent. Whereas enrolments in public schools across that period between 2009 and 2015 grew by 22 per cent, as Western Australia grew, full-time equivalent staff only increased by 14 per cent. It is public schools that do the lion's share of work in this area.

Next week I will attend the graduation ceremony at Aubin Grove Primary School. It is the largest in Western Australia. It has 900 students. Though it has only been open for six years, this week Aubin Grove was recognised as the WA primary school of the year and its principal, Frank Pansini, was named as the WA principal of the year. I congratulate Aubin Grove.

I also acknowledge and pay tribute to Port School, whose graduation I will attend in the following week. Port School's entire focus is on kids trying to finish high school against a background of profound disadvantage, including homelessness, substance abuse and family trauma.

All these public schools need greater and better funding. That is what Labor's needs-based funding reforms were created to achieve. That is the only way to ensure we provide equality of opportunity and reduce inequality, especially for those who face the greatest disadvantage, and that is precisely why this government is failing.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, I wish to make a brief statement that some of the members on the Speaker's Panel have made. So I can properly represent my constituents, and advocate for my community, I will continue to exercise my deliberative vote. To that end, it is my intention to leave the chair before any division takes place. I thank the House. That statement has been made by other members on the Speaker's Panel as well.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I begin my speech I wanted to ensure—just in case the member for Fremantle was not aware—that, indeed, there have been 16 new schools built in Western Australia since 2014. It is a well-known fact that Western Australian teachers are the highest paid in the land. So I think the Barnett government is doing a sterling job in terms of educating the people of Western Australia.

Turning to this ridiculous MPI, given that the Turnbull government is spending more money on Australian schools than ever before, the substance of this MPI really is an untruth. It is an irrefutable fact that the Turnbull government is spending more money on schools than at any time during this nation's history. We are focused on ensuring our young people are equipped with the skills they need to go out into the global jobs market—a competitive, ever-changing jobs market—and win jobs on their own merit. The Turnbull government is facilitating this through innovative programs that aim to encourage young people to access a changing jobs market and encourage well-rounded and employable young people to go on to higher education and skilled training.

We have introduced the Youth Jobs PaTH Program, which is designed to make young people who have finished their training job-ready with internships and placements. This is part of a broad program from this government to properly fund our schools, fund our higher learning institutions, provide pathways for young people and get them job ready.

It is worth noting that we have fixed the shambolic VET FEE-HELP program—initiated by those members opposite—which blew out to an incredible $2.9 billion with student loans programs covered by the scheme increasing a whopping 792 per cent. I bet that was not in the speaking notes for those opposite. We are decluttering the process for Indigenous Australians to access federal programs to help them attend university. And speaking of university, the Turnbull government is currently investing $16 billion in university funding.

There has never been a government more committed to properly funding Australian schools. But it is not just about the billions of taxpayer dollars flowing towards them; we are also switching the focus onto greater efficiency and onto achieving a greater bang for our buck. Despite what the member for Sydney and her colleagues have said we already have needs-based funding, with funds already flowing towards those schools that need it the most. The issue is that the funding model this government inherited from those opposite is broken and flawed, and we are not seeing the expected return on our investment that we should.

We are changing the focus from raw funding to a focus on teacher quality and on effective classrooms, and there is also a focus on effective curriculum. Regrettably, we have heard today in the media that we are lagging behind places like Kazakhstan and Slovenia in terms of our science, technology, engineering and mathematics rates. This is deeply disturbing. We need to change the conversation around this issue towards a more constructive one, focusing on how best to spend the hard-earned taxpayer dollars, not necessarily increasing funding.

This is especially alarming for me, as often in my electorate many of the best jobs require a firm understanding of these subjects. Just last month, I visited Geraldton Grammar School and opened their new STEM building, providing four general learning areas, two science laboratories, two staff areas, two offices and a store room. This will help equip young people in Geraldton and the surrounding region with the all-important STEM skills needed as our economy transitions to a more innovative and mature, skills-based economy.

Those opposite introduced this matter of public importance, and I think we all know that it is blatantly a falsehood. How can we be underfunding schools if they are seeing more money than ever? We should ask ourselves that. By that logic, schools were also underfunded under those opposite. Yet what did they do about it? Where was their responsibility? Where was their accountability?

This government is delivering a strong, holistic package aimed at providing support for schools and training right around the country. But most importantly, this government is delivering for regional and remote Australia, and providing needs-based funding to the schools that need it the most. I am particularly pleased to note that students in rural, regional and remote Australia have never had better access to higher education—something that those opposite did not care about and did nothing about during those six long, dark years when they were running the show. But thanks to this government, another $152 million has been invested in the regional students' access to education package. This package will help more kids from my electorate in the bush to gain access to tertiary education, and it is thanks to us.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is now concluded.