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

It is a pleasure to rise on the Turnbull government's Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. The amendments that the government is proposing will introduce real needs based school funding and increase the investment as part of a new initiative that will give Australian students the quality education they deserve. If the member for Bendigo wants to trade quips about education and the lack of some of the subjects that she was mentioning on our side, I would say that it always frightens me that our school system has not taught people the value of money and financial prudence. In her speech, the member for Bendigo continued to reveal that, if you do not understand where money comes from, what money is and how you pay for things, you will never be able to govern this country properly. What we have heard from her today is actually a recording of the fact that the government is increasing the amount of money we are spending on education again. In fact—and the member opposite shakes his head—the government is committing an additional $18.6 billion for Australian schools over the next decade. At the moment the case that the Labor Party is making is that $18.6 billion is not enough of an increase—that they would somehow, theoretically, increase it by much, much more. I will get to that shortly.

Of course, the one thing that the Labor Party does not talk about in this House and will not address in this debate is performance. Why is performance declining when funding is increasing? The government is growing record levels of recurrent funding. You will see $17.5 billion in this year, 2017—a record level of recurrent funding—and over the decade that will increase to $30.6 billion. That is a record increase by a Commonwealth government. It grows in real terms by 15.4 per cent over that decade. Of course, compare that to the states—their funding growth is only nine per cent. The member for Bendigo did not address that, because her Labor chardonnay socialist mates are in government in Victoria. But they are only growing state school funding by nine per cent over the decade, when the Commonwealth is growing it by 15 per cent over the decade—again, not mentioned by the Labor Party. This is money that is budgeted for, that is paid for, that is a real increase and sees a truly national model for the first time, delivering on the Gonski promise.

I am glad to see that the member for Macquarie is here. Her office is near my office and, I have to say, at the beginning of this sitting fortnight I walked in early in the morning and noticed that there was a Gonski poster in the member for Macquarie's office. I invite all members here and those listening to go past the member for Macquarie's office right now—you can walk out of here, go down the corridor and go past her office—and in the window you will see four pieces of tape where the Gonski poster used to be. There is no Gonski poster anymore. What happened between the Monday of this sitting fortnight and now? Gonski is gone-ski in the member for Macquarie's office. It is important to note that David Gonski has endorsed the government's plans, because this is truly a national model that is for the first time ripping away Labor's 27 separate agreements.

I was in this chamber, unlike, I think, both Labor members opposite, when these agreements were done. I remember the unedifying spectacle of the then Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard running out to the states, offering them as much money as they would accept. It was not a traditional Commonwealth-state negotiation or bargaining deal. She was offering any deal she could put on the table to get them to sign it. What did the state premiers do? They all ran around and signed because the Commonwealth was offering a blank cheque. There was no money there. There was no revenue stream that could possibly ever pay for it. There was no intention of ever paying for it. Those premiers signed on to those 27 separate deals at a premium price that would never have to be accounted for by the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard or a Labor government.

Every time a Labor member stands at this dispatch box and says, 'The government is taking away this money from schools,' it is absolutely and utterly not true. You can theoretically offer any amount of money for any purpose in this Commonwealth if you have no intention of ever meeting that commitment or funding that commitment—that is really phoney money. Those opposite know that almost every school in the country is getting a substantial increase in funding over the decade. They know that it is a needs based model that we are producing—and I can point to my own electorate in this regard. My electorate does have some big non-government schools. I have only two schools losing money over the decade, and they are the biggest and perhaps the best of schools in my electorate. There are only two in my electorate that are losing money. But the most pleasing thing as the local member, who has been elected for 10 years and has worked through, as all of us do, the great challenges in helping those with disabilities and most in need, is that every single one of the schools in my electorate that specifically provides services for students with disabilities is getting not a small increase but a massive, a substantial increase over the decade. I look at that and I think: 'Here is what Gonski was talking about.'

Why would the member for Macquarie take down the Gonski poster when what David Gonski's model and his report say is that you have to provide needs based funding, and the people who need it the most are students with disabilities? It is the whole case for the taxation system; it is the whole case for government to take so much money out of people's pockets. It is to help those most in need and those with disabilities. It is starting at that point. I will speak to my electorate. In my electorate—and it will be the case in your electorate, member for Macquarie; I am happy to go through it school by school with you—those schools that help with disabilities will receive the biggest funding increase over the decade.

See this speech in context