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

at a time when revenues are declining, whether it is company tax receipts or income tax receipts, and when expenditure is a challenge. The Labor Party will not help us with that challenge either here or in the Senate. The government has cut $26 billion out of the budget since the election but, of course, had more savings stymied by the irresponsible approach of those opposite to fiscal management.

We are putting forward a bill for education that will increase education funding by $18 billion. Of course, Labor say that they want to want to do it by an almost unquantifiable amount more for every single school without the ability to attach the real money to it. I think that, when people examine this debate and they look at the individual outcome for their school, they are going to see that this government's approach meetings the expectations of the community.

We have heard a lot about the different debates in the systemic systems around the place, including in the Catholic system. I can record that certainly in my community, in Western Sydney and the Parramatta diocese—having dealt with the Parramatta diocese extensively—the system and the model for the Catholic system in Western Sydney works very well. There are not challenges in funding for the schools in Western Sydney, and the Parramatta diocese knows it. So it would be good to see if the member for Macquarie can point to a Catholic school where there has been a reduction of funds. That would be good to understand from her point of view—as she shakes her head. So please name one.

If you go to government schools, independent schools, Christian schools and the Catholic system throughout Western Sydney you will see increases in funding under this model, as you would expect from any fair model put forward by a government. So I would encourage all parents to not listen to the rhetoric of the Labor Party, who are seeking to create pure political mileage out of opposing something that they know is a substantial increase for schools, almost across the board. Even in my own electorate I find that there are only two schools that are losing money over the decade—and, indeed, they are the schools that you could point to in my electorate that have historically been the most overfunded.

I look at the endorsement from David Gonski himself. I will quote him, as the member opposite challenges my assertion. This is David Gonski:

I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report—

That is David Gonski, saying that we have accepted the fundamental recommendations of the 2011 report—

particularly regarding a needs-based situation … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future … when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that.

That is not me—that is David Gonski, who presented his report. I know you are in denial about this. I know you are shaking your heads, but you can check it. That is an accurate quote. He has endorsed all of the elements of the government's plan as in line with what David Gonski recommended.

If members opposite would think about it in the real sense of what the government is trying to do, I think that is a sign that this is the right way to proceed with education funding in Australia. It will, of course, deliver a better outcome, a fairer outcome that will remove Labor's 27 separate agreements. It will certainly be welcomed by many of the sectors. I have pages and pages of endorsements, whether it be from independent Christian schools, from independent schools in general, from the Mitchell Institute, from the Grattan Institute, from the Secondary Principals' Council. There is page after page of endorsements that the government has received for its plan because it is a fair plan.

We are going to hear rhetoric from the opposition. We are going to hear some members attempt to persuade their individual schools that they are losing money, when in fact they are gaining real money. That is the purpose of the bill that the government is presenting. I think it is disingenuous for Labor members to get up and stand that this is a bad plan, when they actually know this is a good plan. The Gonski posters have come down out of the member for Macquarie's office, because they really have a problem in handling what has happened and in dealing with the challenge that David Gonski himself, who was regarded as the arbiter of what is fair and necessary for our education system, has himself endorsed the government's changes. He is a man of integrity. He would not do so without his complete and utter confidence that what the government was proposing was a national resourcing standard that he agreed to and a national needs based model that truly reflected his 2011 report.

I commend this bill to the House. I say to my electorate that I look forward to these funding increases being passed by the parliament, because it will ensure that education in my electorate, our state and our country continues to be well funded and well serviced by the Commonwealth.

See this speech in context