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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's failure in school education policy, including:

  (a) a cut of $30 billion from schools (Budget 2014-15 Overview, 13 May 2014, page 7), breaking an election promise to match Labor's funding plan dollar for dollar;

  (b) a proposal to cut all federal funding from public schools; and

  (c) tearing up agreements negotiated by the previous Labor Government, that required states and territories to:

     (i) maintain and grow their funding for schools, in return for increased Commonwealth funding; and

     (ii) improve teaching quality, literacy and numeracy; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

  (a) urgently share a detailed plan for future funding of our schools, including the funding each state, system and school will receive from 2018 onwards;

  (b) reverse the cut of $30 billion from schools;

  (c) explain why they tore up agreements that required states and territories to increase funding for schools as Commonwealth contributions increased, and improve teaching, literacy and numeracy; and

  (d) prioritise funding for disadvantaged schools and introduce a proper students with disabilities loading, so all schools and students have the resources they need for a great education.

Every Australian child deserves a great education because it opens up a lifetime of opportunity, and that is why we believe that every school should be funded properly. In contrast, we have got a government that say that, if you give extra money to very large businesses in the form of a tax cut, that will be great for those businesses and it will mean that they perform better, at the same time as they are trying to say that extra money does not make a difference in schools. It is an absolutely logically inconsistent argument. At the very same time as they are cutting $30 billion from our schools, they want to give a $50 billion tax giveaway to the biggest businesses in Australia. They say that money does not matter to schools, but it does matter to big business.

We will never accept the notion that extra funding, particularly for our most disadvantaged schools, cannot make a difference for Australian students, and I will never accept that, because I have seen the difference it makes. At every school I visit, principals tell me, teachers tell me, teachers aides tell me, parents tell me and, perhaps most importantly, students tell me about the difference that those early years of needs based funding has made to schools. Children who have got speech pathology for the first time or occupational therapy, those kids who started school not able to hold a pair of scissors properly or form a sentence, are catching up so quickly to their peers, so they are able to properly undertake their literacy and numeracy studies with their peers and not be left behind.

There has been an enormous amount of confusion from the government about what they actually intend when it comes to school funding. Originally, the then shadow education minister, the member for Sturt, said that Gonski was a gone-ski, and then he was forced, just before the 2010 election, into a backflip as his then leader realised how popular needs-based funding was. The government then came up with, 'You can vote Labor; You can vote Liberal; there's not a dollar's difference to your schools.' In fact, they had the bunting, they had the posters—I saw it on polling day. Sadly, the difference has been $30 billion, not $1. In fact, the average school has a $3 million difference when it comes to school funding because of that broken promise.

The May 2014 budget is the only indication we have of what this government intends when it comes to school funding. That shows a $30 billion cut; it is there in black and white in the graph on page 7 of the budget overview—a $30 billion cut to school funding. We have been told again and again that we will get a concrete proposal that the states and territories can evaluate, the Catholic sector can evaluate and independent schools can evaluate sometime, with plenty of time for consultation. Time is fast running out. The government absolutely must provide detail of what they intend with school funding for the future.

Schools are making decisions today about whether teachers will be on a one-year contract at the end of this year and whether they will have another year's contract next year. They are deciding whether to invest resources in helping their children catch up with their literacy and numeracy. They need to know whether they can offer a catch-up program for one year or whether it will be a multi-year program. They need to know whether to target the kindergarten kids or the older kids who are about to go to high school. These decisions are being made in schools right around Australia as we speak. The disability student loading has been promised again and again by this government, and we still have no detail about what is intended.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Sydney and the shadow minister for education for bringing this motion to the House because it gives me and my colleagues the opportunity to once again correct the record. I must say I was somewhat underwhelmed at the conviction of the member for Sydney's contribution. You would think she was just going through the motion of presenting it and does not actually believe it. Once again, we are dealing with more of Labor's politics of scaremongering and misinformation over education funding.

It is interesting that, in the last federal election, they mounted this campaign, as well as many others. In order to facilitate that campaign, they press-ganged people who were teachers and members of the union into handing out how-to-vote cards at polling booths, despite the fact they did not want to and did not agree with the union's position. But they were told that they had to hand out how-to-vote cards for the Gonski campaign. These people and many others see through this charade; that is exactly what it is—a charade.

Those opposite pretend there was all this money for education in 2017-18 and 2018-19. That money never existed because it was never budgeted for. I can say to those opposite who are listening: those schools in Queensland that I represent are $800 million better off under the coalition government than they would have been had Labor got re-elected in 2013. When I go and talk to the principals in those state schools, they are very thankful for that extra money. We have worked very hard to continue to ensure we can grow education funding for our schools. We on this side of the House recognise how important it is that our schools are properly resourced. In that regard, the coalition government have provided record levels of funding to schools across our country—some $69.5 billion in total over the forward estimates in all states and territories.

In my state of Queensland alone, the Australian government has increased funding for schools by 29 per cent from 2014-15 to 2018-19. There are no cuts to school funding, and the coalition will continue to build on the existing base of school funding from $16 billion in 2016 to $20 billion in 2020.

Unless those people opposite cannot read a budget paper, and 2016 was the most recent budget paper, it shows that funding for schools continues to increase every single year. The most important thing is that it is funded. Unlike those opposite—who like pixie fairy dust and want to sprinkle it everywhere and promise people money on the never-never—this coalition government is actually promising to deliver the funding. You never, ever funded the additional funding. Unlike Labor, this government has a plan and a purpose for education funding, and that is to continue to grow the quality of education in our schools.

We have tremendous teachers in our schools. I meet with them on a regular basis. It is the resources that we have given them under a coalition government that have allowed them to do tremendous things in some of our hardest, low-socioeconomic schools. We have committed to them that we will continue to build on that funding base, through our Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document.

We are currently in discussions with the various states around funding models for the years to come, because we understand that they need that certainty, and I accept that. I have had that discussion with my principals.

It is a coalition government that is going to deliver the funding and the support necessary for our schools to continue to grow and prosper.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You hear some extraordinary things in this place, but the assertion that the previous speaker, the member for Forde, just made that this government has a plan for school education is right up there. Minister Birmingham has shown, in more than a year of being responsible for this critical area of Commonwealth government responsibility, that he is not so much concerned with the three R's when it comes to schools but his own three D's—dissembling, distraction and disingenuousness. The one thing he has consistently shown is he has no plan for schools and no plan to look to Australia's future. That is something that I think government members should reflect on when they talk up their willingness to engage in this debate.

The history is tragic. There was, finally, before the 2013 election, a commitment from then Minister for Education Pyne to a unity ticket on school funding. Promises were made at every polling booth around the country that, whether you voted Liberal or Labor, you would get the same in school education. The Liberal Party and the National Party then paid lip-service to needs based funding of our schools—lip-service to Gonski. What a cruel hoax this has turned out to be.

I do not want to go into the distractions, the comical, Ali-style homage to his minister that the member for Forde ran through, but just one point needs to be explored: this notion that Labor did not fully fund the National Plan for School Improvement. The proof, again, is in the 2014 budget papers—the $30 billion save that was claimed and continues to be claimed by this government.

Turning to the government's plan, they had a few ideas before the last election. One was that the Commonwealth would simply withdraw from funding our public schools. What a great idea that was! It was very quickly abandoned. Since then, though, we have not had a plan. We have had two meetings of education ministers, each preceded by media drops orchestrated by the minister, each followed by no plan and no proposition for school funding whatsoever from Minister Birmingham—not in September and not in December.

Uncertainty is compounding inequity. This just is not good enough. When we look at the challenges Australia faces and when we look at the challenges of sustaining living standards into the future, giving every child every chance to succeed at school is fundamental. It is fundamental on a moral basis, recognising that talent is evenly distributed in the population and it is only barriers that prevent kids from getting every chance to succeed in school. It is also fundamental to meeting our economic challenges. This is why the failing of the government in this area is so egregious.

There is a clear choice when it comes to school funding and it carries enormous consequences—enormous human consequences that I and my colleagues see every day in the schools we visit in our electorates and some of the schools I have been fortunate to visit as I have gone about my work supporting the shadow minister, the member for Sydney. These wider economic consequences need also be attended to. It goes to Australia's future as a high-wage, high-skilled economy. We are turning our back on that future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I turn your attention and the attention of members present to paragraph (2)(d) of the motion that is before us because it bells the cat in a couple of really important aspects. Firstly, it talks about prioritising funding for disadvantaged schools. This is something Minister Birmingham is very keen on talking about but is completely oblivious to doing something about. He is unconcerned with supporting our most disadvantaged schools. He knows that. If the truth were otherwise, he would put a plan on the table and he would treat Australian schools, their principals and school communities with the respect they deserve.

That paragraph in the motion also goes on to talk about introducing a proper students with disabilities loading. This is the key piece of Gonski that remains unfinished. The minister promised the work on the loading dataset would be completed by 2016. It has not been. We are not serving the interests of students with disability or their parents. We are letting them down. We have not done enough to make sure that every Australian counts when it comes to school education.

This motion should be supported by all members of this place. The minister should be called upon to do his job, to do his duty, and to do the right thing—to commit to genuine needs based funding and offer schools certainty and students equity. The minister has not been listening to the experts, to the teachers, and, most importantly, he has not been paying regard to the interests of Australia's students.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the second time in less than seven days we are debating this issue. We debated this issue in a matter of public importance in the House of Representatives only last week and we are here today in the Federation Chamber debating it again. Labor's conduct in this debate is typical of their conduct generally. They have been misleading and deceptive on 457 visas. They have been misleading and deceptive on Medicare. They have been misleading and deceptive on Centrelink. They have been misleading and deceptive on tax cuts. Now they are misleading and deceptive on education funding.

A number of times Labor have made the allegation that there has been a $30 billion funding cut to education. Just because they keep repeating the allegation does not make it true. You would expect me as a member of the government to say that Labor are not telling the truth here, but you do not need to believe me on this point. You can believe that well-known, right-wing mouthpiece, that well-known centre of conservatism, the ABC. ABC Fact Check has denounced Labor on their continued deception. It has said: 'The government did not cut $30 billion from schools. Labor is spouting rubbery figures.' Let me say that again: 'The government did not cut $30 billion from schools. Labor is spouting rubbery figures.'

Other independent experts have said that Labor is wrong to say that it was going to spend an extra $30 billion on education. They never guaranteed the funding. Let us go back to 2012-13, when we were in the death throes of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, and provide some background to this phantom $30 billion. The Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education and the Labor Party were facing their worst defeat at an election since 1975. We knew they would lose, they knew they would lose and the Australian people knew they would lose, so what did they do? They played politics with education funding. They played the worst sort of politics. They played gesture politics. The worst part about gesture politics is that it always hurts those who it is designed to help.

So they did two things. First, they dreamt up an education budget in which all the expenditure was in the outyears out to 10 years, where they knew there was no chance of them being in government, and they made a range of predictions they would never be able to meet along with their own fiscal targets. They were as likely to meet these predictions as they were likely to deliver a surplus. But do not believe me on this point; believe some independent experts—believe people like Professor John Wanna from the Australian National University, who said:

Mostly funding envelopes running out 10 years are fiction. No-one knows what the circumstances will be so far ahead.

Or Professor Sinclair Davidson, of RMIT:

A 10-year forecast is very likely to be overtaken by events, given Australian governments only have a life of three years and the budget must be reframed and recast every year.

So you have independent expert looking at their claim and saying that there is no truth in it.

Then they came and cut a range of asymmetrical deals with different states and education systems, which created a mockery of the so-called needs-based funding system. They did these different deals with different states. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was education minister, was so desperate to get anybody to sign up to things that he would give anything away. Some schools, as a result of this particular funding deal that he had done, do not attract their needs-based funding—and that is what they say is the benefit of the fair funding agreement—for over a century. That is not a good education policy. That is not good education funding reform.

Their funding arrangements are not only unfair; they do not deliver performance improvements. Again, do not believe me: on this point, believe the independent, respected education policy analyst and former departmental secretary, member of the Gonski review panel, Ken Boston. This is what he said about what Labor implemented:

… this was not what the Gonski review recommended. It was not sector-blind, needs-based funding. It continued to discriminate between government and non-government schools.

He went on to say:

… Shorten hawked this corruption of the Gonski report around the country, doing deals with premiers, bishops and the various education lobbies. These bilateral negotiations were not a public and open process, as would have been achieved by the National Schools Resourcing Body; they dragged on for twenty-one months up to the September 2013 election; and they led to a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation: agreements with some states and not with others, and – among participating states – different agreements and indexation arrangements.

That is not me: that is Labor's own hand-picked expert for the Gonski funding panel, Ken Boston.

The truth is there are no cuts to education. School funding under the coalition between 2014 and 2017 has been at record levels, and it is projected that Commonwealth school funding grows year on year from $16.1 billion in 2016 to $20.2 billion in 2020. I am pleased to oppose this motion.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the private member's motion moved by the member for Sydney and Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the government's failure in school education policy. The member for Berowra says that the worst kind of politics is the politics of gesture. I would say that the worst kind of politics is the politics of deceit—saying that a vote for the coalition/Liberals is the same as Labor on education. We heard that loud and clear. The bunting was everywhere in that election. I say to you that that is the worst kind of politics: saying to the parents and children of Australia, 'A vote for us is the same as a vote for Labor on needs-based funding.' Clearly it is not. Again, I pick up on the member for Berowra's point that funding has increased. Of course it has: the population increases, inflation increases, teachers' wages increase. That is not the same as a unity ticket on education. Let's be absolutely clear: this government does plan to cut $30 billion from school funding—breaking that election promise to match Labor's Gonski funding dollar for dollar.

In my electorate of Paterson it will mean $43 million. Let me say that again: $43 million. The very fact that schools in my electorate have benefited so greatly from the first years of Gonski means that they will be hurt so greatly by the cuts in coming years. Gonski funding has meant so much to so many. For this government to go back on its words and rip the funding out of schools is shameful. For example, my old school, Kurri Kurri High, has received $244,000 in Gonski funding to date. With that they have employed a full-time teacher to work with Aboriginal students. They have seen writing results improve by 200 per cent. The employment of two experienced HSC markers and retired teachers to work with every individual HSC student has doubled the number of band 5 results its students attained in the HSC and resulted in a 75 per cent reduction in the number of students not completing the HSC. An extra deputy principal has been employed to focus on creating world-class teachers who learn from professional development and the latest research, and this has led to an introduction of an innovative project with year 7 working in hubs to increase their engagement.

So Kurri Kurri High has had $244,000 in three years, and that has dramatically boosted Aboriginal performance, improved HSC retention and HSC results, and improved learning for year 7s. Because this government has gone back on its word to deliver the full Gonski rollout, Kurri Kurri High School will miss out on $1.1 million. Imagine what they could do with that. Maybe that is all they will ever get to do.

Another school in my electorate making great leaps and bounds for students with Gonski funding is Rutherford Public School. Rutherford Public, to date, has received $595,407 in Gonski funding and has invested in substantial additional professional learning for teachers. Through the employment of extra staff it has provided innovative transition programs for students entering kindergarten and for students moving from year 6 to year 7. We all remember what it was like thinking about going to high school; it really can be a traumatic time. They have employed additional literacy and numeracy teachers to help students with those critical skills. The Gonski funding has contracted health professionals, including a speech pathologist to work with teachers in language development. It has employed a community liaison officer to promote school attendance, parent inclusion and community engagement. It has been able to fund extracurricular activities such as a gymnastics program, a school band, physical education and student welfare programs.

With its $595,407 Rutherford Public School has invested in its teachers, in programs to help students transition between stages, worked on literacy and numeracy, engaged a speech pathologist, engaged a community liaison officer and funded student welfare and extracurricular activities. Unless Gonski funding is fully rolled out, Rutherford Public School will miss out on $2.7 million. Imagine what they could do with that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I could be here all day telling you all the important steps forward that have been taken under Gonski in my electorate of Paterson, but time does not permit it. What I do want to say to you is: we cannot afford to miss out. These are not just large sums of money; they are opportunities for us and our country to prosper.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to be up here, speaking on this motion. I commend the speeches that have been made by my colleagues the member for Forde and the member for Berowra. They certainly put into context the debate that we are having today. It is important, though, that I also put on the record, in support of my colleagues' and the government's position, that as we promised at the last election the coalition does continue to provide a record investment in our schools to the tune of $73.9 billion over the next four years. Education funding under this government will increase from $16.1 billion this year to $20.2 billion in 2020. So there are no cuts—let's be very clear on that. The funding under this government to education is increasing over the forward estimates.

When I spoke on school funding in the MPI only last week—I certainly look forward to speaking on future MPIs on education more generally, but I am very happy to speak on the specifics on school funding as well as my own area of vocational education—what I said was that of course the quantum of the funding for education is important, but it is just as important, if not more so, that we are very aware and conscious of how that funding is actually being used. If I could just pause for a moment to pass on my congratulations to the principals, teachers and all staff at our schools around Australia, who have done a fantastic job in the past and I know are very committed to improving the education outcomes for our students in Australia. That is what my government—the Turnbull government and the coalition—is committed to: ensuring that the education outcomes for our students increase.

We all know that when we look at Australian students' performance and compare it to the outcomes of a number of overseas countries, our performance is not where it should be. We have turned our minds to what we can do to improve our performance and make sure that the students of Australia have the opportunity to compete globally because, quite frankly, that is the market that our students, now and into the future, will be operating in. We know that that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We have already commenced work on the plan that we put in place some time ago to ensure that our students are at world standard as soon as we can possibly deliver that for them. We have made an announcement; we have presented our Quality schools, quality outcomes paper and we have focused on five key areas. I will not go through them because of the time available today, but I certainly do commend that document to those opposite, so that they are fully aware of what the government's program actually is.

In the brief time that is remaining, I want to talk about the skills of the future that we know we need to develop for our students, and they are particularly in the STEM field: science, technology, engineering and maths. I listened to the former chief scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, speak on many occasions about the need to improve the STEM skills of our students. The statistics that he used are particularly important. He talked about the statistics over a 20-year period from 1992 to 2012. He looked at year 12 students over that time frame. In 2012, there were 30,800 more students in year 12 than there were in 1992, but there was a significant decrease in the number of students who were studying maths and science subjects. Of that 30,800, there were 8,000 fewer physics students, 4,000 fewer chemistry students and 12,000 fewer biology students. Of that significant increase of 30,800 year 12 students over that 20-year period, we saw an unsustainable decrease in students who were studying maths and science subjects.

As a government, we have recognised that and taken some action to address that issue. We have provided over $64 million in initiatives to improve the teaching and learning of STEM in the early learning areas and schools under the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which we announced just over 12 months ago. This is in addition to the additional $12 million that was previously allocated to increase the uptake of STEM subjects at school. This government is committed to producing outcomes.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on education funding. Let's be clear: there is no longer a unity ticket on Gonski. The funding for year 4 and onwards that schools would have seen is not going to happen under this government.

I will never forget the man who stopped me a few months ago as I stood outside Windsor South Public School with Gonski flyers in my hand. He had not paid much attention to me as he walked his young son into school 10 minutes earlier, but on his way out he stopped. South Windsor is in one of the most disadvantaged areas in my electorate, with higher unemployment than average and lower income levels. But, like every community, it has families who want to see their children do better than they did. This dad definitely wanted it for his young son. He told me that his son had been struggling to read, but the extra resources that Windsor South Public School had been able to invest in, thanks to Gonski, meant his son could now read books. I think we both had tears in our eyes as he described the joy he felt at being able to read a home reader with his son.

Gonski funding results in nearly $5 million more in school funding than my local public schools would otherwise have seen in the current school year. For Richmond High School, it has meant $1 million more; for Windsor Park Public School, it is $400,000 more; and Freemans Reach Public School, which celebrates its 150th birthday later this month, is a quarter of a million dollars better off this year thanks to the New South Wales government getting in behind the Gonski funding model.

The stories of the difference that the early years of needs-based funding have made include extra teachers at Hawkesbury High School, which let teachers pair up and learn from each other. They have been able to employ Aboriginal support officers to help with literacy and numeracy skills. At North Richmond Public School, Gonski funding means every student, from kindergarten onwards, learns computer coding. At Oakville Public School, speech therapy and new maths and reading programs for children, sometimes with one-on-one teaching, have transformed children's educational futures.

In the Blue Mountains side of my electorate—where, I should add, we have more teachers per capita than any other part of Australia—the examples of Gonski go through every single school, but I am just going to talk about one. Katoomba High School has seen student engagement soar. Katoomba High has a diverse school community with a mix of low-SES and medium-income families, and 10 per cent of the students are Aboriginal. The initial 2015 extra Gonski funding was only about $120,000, but that led to a host of programs that the school has subsequently built on. A bush regeneration project has turned two hectares of eucalyptus forest into a classroom. Called 'Birraban', the project was originally an alternative to sport as a way to connect Aboriginal students to their culture and heritage, but it is now used across the curriculum to teach art, science, poetry, geography and maths. This could not happen without extra staff, and there is also a full-time teacher who runs a learning hub for kids with emotional and behavioural needs. All in all, these programs are turning school from being something that a lot of kids did not want to be anywhere near into a place where they look forward to coming. There may not be a highlight in every subject every day, but Birraban means that there is part of a day where students really connect with their teachers and other students.

At Winmalee High School, lower down the mountains, a similar concept of a learning hub has been developed, and what it means is that kids can turn up with whichever subject area they are struggling with, so high school kids from year 7 through to year 12 have a place where they can go just to get help from teachers. You cannot do that without extra funding, because you can have a space but it is of no use without one or two teachers there to help. This is what Gonski does. It is really practical. All I have heard from the other side is ideology; I have not heard any practical examples of where they think schools could do without funding. It absolutely appals me that those on the other side can be ignorant of the difference that this needs based funding is making to our kids, and I do wonder how they can deny them the continued benefits of Gonski.

This is why we need to see a reversal of the $30 billion cut that is coming from schools, for the government to urgently share a detailed plan for future funding and to explain why they tore up agreements that required the states and territories to increase funding for schools. All of these things need to happen now.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do enjoy talking about education, because education is very dear to my heart. I must say that there were some people who are great at maths when it came to education. There were some people who were great at English. There were some people who were great at theatre—everyone has their own passion. But I remember, on a cold June day, handing out how-to-vote cards and my Labor opponent—and I might point out that there are only 15 Labor members in the seat of Mallee—was handing out how-to-vote cards and she was saying: 'Health and education. Health and education.' I thought, 'Well, that's very good, and I said, 'Health and education, border security and lower taxes.' And do you know what? It actually worked.

This is the great irony of the debate: whilst you guys know about literacy—you do it very well—we know about numeracy. Numeracy is called making provision for the things that you want to spend your money on. Numeracy is about being responsible and saying, 'I want to fund $30 billion more, so I'm going to make provision in the forward estimates to fund that.' But they did not. They come in here and talk about a cut, but they never put the money aside and, unless you put the money aside and put it in your forward estimates, it is phantom money. It is a mystery. It vanishes. They say that 87 per cent of all statistics are made up, and I guess I am being a little hyperbolic there, but I am pointing out that what we are doing is arguing about fluffy air that was never dedicated to education.

In contrast, in 2016 the government I am a part of spent $16 billion. In 2017 we are going to spend $17 billion; in 2018 we are going to spend $18 billion. By 2020, it will be $20.2 billion of federal money into education at the same time as our state governments, whose job it is to administer and also to contribute, have been declining in their contribution to education. Not only have they been declining; but they have been forgetting about regional areas. I represent a third of the state of Victoria, some of the toughest areas, some of the areas that have as many problems as anyone, and you reckon that the state government can actually get the money to my patch? No, they do not even know it is there. I cannot recall when the Minister for Education for Victoria was even in my patch.

You come in here and talk about cuts. What I see is reality and what I see are state schools that are administered by the Labor state government of Victoria full of white ants. So I do not like to be lectured to when in real terms we are making provision in our budget and increasing the money year on year on year. There was no $30 billion cut, because you never put the money aside. You are great at literacy. You are great at spinning a line as opposed to us who have put the money aside. If you are going to make a commitment, make a commitment where you really put the money aside and account for it.

There are three things that deliver great education, and they are not just money. They include whether a child has a good home life. One of the things I am passionate about is seeing more breakfast programs in our schools. I have the 10th-poorest electorate in Australia and I see children coming to school without breakfast. The second thing, I think, is the culture. We have some really hardworking, dedicated teachers—teachers who go over and above what they should be doing. It is the culture of our schools—which is largely forgotten by the state Labor government, I have got to say—that really drives home education. The third thing, of course, is the infrastructure, but it is only part of it.

I have got to say real solutions to real problems have been addressed by our schools, because they are rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it. They are delivering breakfast programs at their own cost with very little help from the state government. They are delivering a great culture of education and they are putting up with white ants eating schools. So don't come in here and tell me about a $30 billion cut. When the state Labor government continues to increase education at the same rate that the government I am a part of, I will stand by and say, yes, there is a future for it. But the government I am a part of is spending $16 billion, $17 billion, $18 billion and, by 2020, $20.2 billion on education. This is what real government delivers for real people.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.