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

I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members’ business notice No. 36 relating to the Parliamentary Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014 standing in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 4.30 pm on 27 March 2014.

We seek to suspend standing orders because there can be few issues which are more important than the proper funding of our children's education. We need to suspend standing orders to debate this legislation because the Abbott Liberal government have broken the promise on education that they made before the last election. There are no other words to describe it. They are a government of promise breakers when it comes to the education of our schoolchildren of Australia.

There are very important reasons to suspend standing orders. In the event that our bill is not successful, Western Australian children, in particular, will be the first to suffer. Furthermore, the reason that this bill should be heard and that standing orders should be suspended is that the Abbott Liberal government are a government of twisted priorities and cruel cuts. They have twisted priorities, and there is no better illustration than the betrayal of the Better Schools program. The government—the Abbott Liberal government—are to education what book burning is to literacy. They are engaging in a funding race to the bottom in our schools across Australia.

They are a broken-promise government. Before the election, on 2 August last year the then shadow minister for education, now Minister for Education, said that you could vote Liberal or Labor in education and you would get the same deal. They made it clear. It was their, sort of, Liberal red-spot special: you can vote Liberal or you can vote Labor and you get the same deal; there is no difference. The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, took it further—as he tends to do, as we saw yesterday. He said that no school would be worse off anywhere in Australia. This Prime Minister loves to use the word 'honour'. He said, 'We will honour the agreement.' Whenever this Prime Minister uses the word 'honour', we know it means that someone is about to get it in the neck.

They said there was an 'absolute unity ticket' on education. The only unity ticket in this country that the Prime Minister is on is the unity ticket with Premier Colin Barnett to cut education funding. This Prime Minister goes to Western Australia; he is all things Western Australia; he is a 'Perth-onality'; he is your man in Western Australia; he is going to deliver education for Western Australia. But then he also says, showing his usual deft touch for the issues, 'I want to be like Colin Barnett. When I grow up and become a Prime Minister, I want to be like Premier Colin Barnett.' The only problem with that is that Colin Barnett is the education Premier from the Dark Ages. Only Liberals, who do not believe in education, would cut $183 million from the school system—350 teachers and 350 school assistants. You know that, when the Liberals come to town on education, it is time to start getting nervous—very nervous, indeed.

When we look at how they say they will honour their promises, they have broken their promises on education like this: they said there would be a no-strings deal for all states. This is why we must suspend standing orders. What they are proposing to do is take hard-earned Commonwealth taxpayer money in the front door of the education system, or, for instance, Western Australia, and allow their cronies in the state government to take state money out of the system.

The beauty of what Labor believe in education is that, if the Commonwealth is going to encourage greater funding in schools, we are not going to reward anti-education state jurisdictions to take money out of the system. That is not an increase; that is a cut. They also say that they are going to do exactly the same as us. Everyone in Australia who follows the education debate, which immediately eliminates half the gene pool on the other side of the parliamentary chamber—

An opposition member: Only half?

All of them, yes. I meant that half of the chamber. We promised in our funding system that there would be five and six years of funding—not four. There would be a fifth year and a sixth year and, indeed, this budget needs to determine the funding for the fifth year.

If you are going to be doing the same thing on education as what Labor was doing, you would have not four years or five years but six years of funding. Of course, those tricky shysters of education opposite us—those bargain basement short-changers of our children's future—recognise that they have promised a total of $2.8 billion in extra funding for schools across four years. We promised, in conjunction with requiring states to fund education, $14 billion. Now, of course, the Minister for Education glibly—as is his style—says, 'More money won't make schools better.' Come and visit poor schools around Australia. Only someone who was out of touch could say that to children who are not getting access to the language classes, the language labs or the music lessons. What is amazing about the government and their wrong priorities is they will not keep to the six years of funding and they will not require states to keep their funding. They are not committed to the student resource model. They have already made cuts in the Northern Territory, with $47 million worth of cuts and 130 teachers gone. In Western Australia, they have already made $183 million worth of cuts, with 700 educational professionals gone.

What is amazing about the government is their wrong priorities. We have that clumsy Attorney-General Brandis, who must have some of the more intelligent members of the government slapping their heads. He will fight for the right for bigots to have speech; he just will not fight for schoolchildren to have speech lessons. In further considering why standing order should be suspended, we look at their other proposed wrong priorities. We have a government who are taking Australia backwards, not forwards. They have given new life to the term 'anachronistic'. I think it was the member for Chifley who said, as surely as knight follows dame, what we see here is education funding going backwards in this country. The Labor opposition is not greatly interested in the day-to-day travails of the government—their watering down of racism laws and hate laws. We are not greatly interested, frankly, in all their amazing kerfuffle about knights and dames. We are interested in what happens to the children of Australia. We are interested in what happens to the teachers in Australia. We are interested in what happens to the future of this country and where the good jobs come from.

Australia can take either a high road or a low road in the future. That is why we have to suspend standing orders. We can decide to compete with the rest of the world by cutting wages, by cutting services and by lengthening the unemployment queues—and we can also compete by having the best honours list in the world. Or, alternatively, we can take the high road. We can be in competition with the rest of the world to have an educated workforce—a smart workforce. Who on earth in the government thought it was a good idea to cut trades training centres? I bet we will not find anyone. All they try and do is attack learning in this country.

We also believe it is important, when it comes to our schools, that we give our kids the best start in life. There have been a lot of attacks by the government on the Gonski plan and on the efforts of Labor in terms of education. But when it came to them starting to rip up the unity ticket, boy oh boy, did they stick their hand in a pencil sharpener, watching the reaction of state governments who had deals! Yet again this government have the wrong priorities. They want to walk away from six years of education funding. Hello, over there: children do not stop existing after four years; they keep going and they have a right to have certainty in their schools.

Quite often this government attack the teachers. They do not like the teachers' representation—'Teachers might be in a union; therefore, that is a reason to attack the education system.' Let me put on record why we think this government have the wrong priorities in education, why we think they should back our bill and why we should suspend standing orders. It is because our teachers put in a great deal of effort every day. There is a great deal of discussion about teachers from those opposite, who somehow think teachers have special conditions. Our teachers in this country are underpaid; they are not overpaid. Our teachers work harder than they get credit for from the government. They are not taking time off—as some in the government would have you believe.

So there we have it, for members of this House of parliament: we should suspend standing orders, because we have a bill which will make sure that the Commonwealth does not just give money to the state with no strings attached. This bill does not cost a cent. All we are saying is that, if you are going to use scarce taxpayer dollars, make sure when you hand it to the states they do not take money out the back door and make sure that we have a commitment to a national approach in education and a properly funded student resource standard. We want to make sure this government keep their promises.

There is no doubt, from what we have seen this week, that this is a government who struggles to keep its promises—certainly in education. The government will not tell us what is in its 'commission of cuts', because we know that that might damage its performance in the Senate election. There is nothing this government does which is not about politics first, politics second and politics third. That is why we should suspend standing orders. We on this side believe that education is too important to leave to the government alone, to mishandle. We cannot afford to waste three years of this government. The education of our children is too important. (Time expired)

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the government on this motion to suspend standing orders today. But I note that the Labor Party do not really have their heart in this motion; they are really just going through the motions on it. The shadow minister could not even be bothered being here. The shadow minister, the member for Adelaide, could not even be bothered being here for the debate.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I took no points of order on you during your—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Member for Sydney, are you calling for the—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a request for something to be withdrawn.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly will not be withdrawing the fact that the member for Adelaide—

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bully the Deputy Speaker again!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the bully. During the Leader of the Opposition's and Deputy Leader of the Opposition's speeches I made no interjections nor took any points of order. I would like to be treated with the same courtesy and I make the point again: if Labor really had their heart in this motion, the shadow minister would not be campaigning in Perth during a sitting week of the parliament—she would be here moving this motion. But of course the shadow minister knows that Labor does not really have their heart in this motion or in the bill because the shadow minister said only last week that Labor was not committed to years five and six of the Gonski funding model. She was asked about it by David Lipson on Sky News on three occasions on 18 March. David Lipson asked her, 'Will you take to the next election a promise to restore funding in years five and six for the Gonski education funding model?' The member for Adelaide said, 'Look, what we are focused on is the budget that is an eight weeks time.' Again David Lipson asker her, 'Will Labor commit to take that funding for years five and six to the next election?' This is what the member for Adelaide said, 'But David, it might not shock you to know this is not our election policy launch.' So Lipson tried asking a third time, 'Isn't it a bit hollow though to call on the government to do that if you are not committed to doing it yourself? The member for Adelaide responded, 'Well, obviously, we'll make a budget reply in a few weeks time.'

So the reason the shadow minister is not hear to move this motion and to speak on it is that she knows Labor is not committed to years five and six of the Gonski funding model. She let the cat out of the bag last week. She has avoided this debate because she did not want to be embarrassed into saying things in the chamber that she knew would not be true when finally Labor releases a policy on the budget in the coming election campaign in 2½ years time. I can understand her embarrassment because it was the Leader of the Opposition who ripped $1.2 billion out of the school funding model in the economic statement of the former government before the election, which was confirmed in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and was published by the Treasury. So it was perfectly obvious that Labor was taking $1.2 billion out of the $2.8 billion that had been set aside for school funding over the next four years.

When I became the Minister for Education, I was immediately presented with the situation in which the money put aside for the school funding model was $1.6 billion, not the promised $2.8 billion. This meant that Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland were all going to be short-changed that $1.2 billion of extra funding. The Labor members shake their heads but they know it is true. The shadow minister knows it is true and that is why she is not here. So I set about finding that money, the $1.2 billion, to put back in to the school funding model. The irony is that it was the government and I who delivered the national school funding model across every state and territory, fully funded for the next four years, as promised to the Australian people before the election.

Labor has turned up in the House today to move this motion, to pretend that somehow they would put the money into school funding, when they were the party who ripped $1.2 billion out. They ripped $1.2 billion out; we have put $1.2 billion in. We are the party that delivered the national school funding model. The sector knows it and they are very grateful.

The only state government that is ripping money out of school funding is the South Australian Labor government which has cut $230 million from school funding over the next four years. In the great state of Western Australia, they have increased their school funding by 7.1 per cent this financial year. In my great state of South Australia, they have actually taken $230 million out of school funding for the next four years, yet they have the gall to come in here and lecture us. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition filled his speech with one-liners, as the Milton Berle of Australian politics, thinking he was hilarious. I must say that those one-liners got worse as his speech went on. The only one that was in the slightest bit amusing was 'Perth-onality'. Unfortunately he filled his speech with one-liners because he had nothing of any substance to say.

This is the problem with Labor across the whole policy spectrum. Over the course of the sitting weeks this year we have seen Labor run a tactical campaign every day. Every day is about trying to be on the television news that night. I know that the member for Chisholm knows what I am saying is true because she has been around in this place and she should be on the front bench of the Labor Party. If I had been on the caucus, I would have voted for the member for Chisholm—I can tell you that right now. She knows about tactics in this place. She knows that you have to have substance to present to the Australian public, at election time, a suite of policies that you genuinely believe will be better for the country—which is what we did for the four years when the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, leading to two elections.

We showed the substance required to take the Treasury benches. Labor has every day run a tactical campaign just like the motion they have moved today. I was happy for them to debate it because the coalition is on very strong ground when it comes to school funding. Not only did we put the $1.2 billion into the school funding model, not only did I deliver the national school funding model, but also we are moving to do the other things that are very important to the outcomes for students—getting the curriculum right, so we can have a national review of the Australian Curriculum, to make sure that what we are teaching young people in our schools is useful for them and is going to expand their knowledge so that when they leave school they will be able to take on a career of their choice.

We are expanding independent public schools across Australia. The Western Australian model is a very good model. I know that yesterday the Minister for Education in New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, was praising the role he has played in introducing school autonomy across New South Wales. The Northern Territory is following suit. Queensland is following suit. Victoria already has a high level of school autonomy. Everyone knows in education and all the research indicates that, the more autonomy in a school, the higher the expectations put on students by parents, by teachers and by the principals. The more autonomy there is in a school, the better are the outcomes for students.

We have a deep and abiding passion for independent public schools. We have put $70 million into a fund to ensure that independent public schools can be rolled out around Australia. We are also focusing like a laser beam on teacher quality. If the shadow minister and the Labor Party actually researched education in Australia, they would know that the PISA results published by the OECD in December last year said—and they have routinely said this—that the overwhelming factor in Australia that indicated the success or otherwise of our school students was the classroom they were allocated to in a school. Nothing could give you more indication of the fact that teacher quality is the most important factor in schooling than knowing that, in eight out of the 10 reasons that affect a student's outcome at school, the OECD said it was the classroom to which a student was allocated—in other words, the teacher to whom they were allocated in a school. They did not say it was socioeconomic status or school autonomy; they said that one out of 10 reasons was their SES background, one out of 10 reasons was other factors and eight out of 10 reasons for the success of a student was the teacher to whom they were allocated.

That is why we on this side of the House want to give the professional development that is necessary for the existing teacher cohort across Australia to reach their best selves. We are also reviewing teacher education across the universities in Australia so we can produce the best new teachers possible in our schools, because this is the area where we have the most influence as a Commonwealth government. Of course we will not be supporting this motion, but we are pleased to have the opportunity to talk about our program.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that we are voting on the suspension of standing orders as moved by the Leader of the Opposition.