A quality education is fundamental to the core Australian value of a fair go. Today,
I rise to join this debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 and join the thousands of parents
and grandparents, hundreds of educators, principals, teachers' aids, school workers and, most importantly, the
children that I represent in this parliament who want decent funding for education in our community. Making
sure our schools and classrooms are properly funded and resourced is the cornerstone of ensuring that every
Australian student is given the best opportunity to succeed in their education and reach their full potential.
My sister is a school teacher and has proudly been a public school educator for almost 30 years. My cousins are
teachers. I am proud of them and every other teacher in this country. I am not just proud of them; I am grateful
for the work that they do day in, day out. I am incredibly proud of the QTU, a strong body that advocates for and
represents teachers across Queensland. I acknowledge the outstanding leadership of people like Kevin Bates, my
good friend Sam Pidgeon, Kate Ruttiman, Brendan Crotty and Lyn Esders, a local teachers' organiser who stands
up for teachers in my local community every day of the week.
I am proud to work alongside school principals and local schools in my community. There are wonderful
educators like Beth Petersen from Durack State School, John O'Connor from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart at
Darra, Anne Kitchin at Middle Park, Pat Murphy from Woodcrest college, Denise Kostowski from Forest Lake
State High School, Lee Gerchow at Goodna State School and John Brew at the brilliant Centenary State High
School. These are just a handful of the great schools in the Oxley electorate. Every time I go to these schools I
see the passion and dedication of those professionals and great staff.
Today, I stand to oppose the $22 billion worth of cuts that the Turnbull government is proposing for education
in Australia. I will not vote to cut millions of dollars for funding for schools in my community. I will not cast
a vote to make it harder for local Catholic parish schools in the electorate of Oxley to make ends meet. I stand
in this place to demand true needs-based funding—a model that is fair and gives our kids a fair go. Enough is
enough. This government needs to end the war on education and start properly funding education in this nation.
I listened to what the member for Hughes had to say. He said that this was all a conspiracy—that everyone was
making it up—and that he was the font of all knowledge when it came to education funding in this country. I need
to educate the member for Hughes and advise him on the destructive policies that he is voting for and advocating
for. I refer to correspondence from the Catholic Secondary Principals of Australia and the Australian Catholic
Primary Principals' Association to the minister of education—the member for Hughes' colleague inside the LNP
government. I quote from the letter to the minister:
The legislation amendment announcements by the Prime Minister and yourself on 2 May disenfranchised
Catholic school principals, who without any accurate details, suddenly had to explain to current and prospective
parents what your announcement meant for their future school fees.
… … …
The Catholic principals stand in solidarity with the Catholic education systems and they support system funding
and the co-responsibility that goes with it. Hence, Catholic school principals stand united with the broader
Catholic school community in the face of a deliberate strategy by the Government to undermine the system by
pitting principal against principal, school against school (evidenced by the misleading letters to each school and
the funding estimator website).
CaSPA and ACPPA want to make it clear that the tactic will not work. CaSPA and ACPPA can assure the
Minister that Catholic education will stand together to ensure Catholic schools remain affordable and available
for all families who seek them.
That is what this government is proposing to do: not only to rip money out of the public school sector but to
place extra pressure on the small and local Catholic parish schools right across the community. Through you,
Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Hughes: go and meet with your school principals, go to your local
Catholic schools, go and talk to their peak bodies—go and listen to them.
Mr Craig Kelly: They're getting millions more.
Mr DICK: He says they are getting millions. He says the Catholic educators are all wrong. He says that their
peak bodies are wrong and that he is right. Well, I say to you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will listen
to those in the frontline: the educators, the teachers and the school parishes. They are fearful of this policy. What
arrogance, what absolute arrogance, coming in here and saying, 'I am above educators. I know best.' They should
hang their heads in shame.
Mr Dick interjecting—
Mr DICK: He is still interjecting and saying that they are wrong and that they should be denounced. Well, I
stand toe to toe with him in this place. I will not take an arrogance lecture from the member for Hughes, lecturing
everyone and coming into this place week in, week out. Get out into the community and start listening to those
who are fighting what you are trying to do.
When Labor was in power in 2010, Labor initiated the review of funding arrangements for schooling to develop a
funding system that was transparent, fair, financially sustainable and effective in promoting excellent educational
outcomes for all Australian students. More than 7,000 written submission were provided to the review, and
the panel met with hundreds of professionals, stakeholders and school communities across Australia. At the
completion of the review, in the letter to the education minister in 2013, the chair wrote:
The panel is strongly of the view that the proposed funding arrangements outlined in the report are required to
drive improved outcomes for all Australian students, and to ensure that differences in educational outcomes are
not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions.
What we are talking about is a funding model, recommended by that panel, which ensured that no Australian
child would miss out on a quality education due to the school they attended or the suburb they lived in. That is
why, following the report, Labor's funding model and the Australian Education Act 2013 enshrined the following
objectives into Australian law:
All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full
potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community,
now and in the future.
It is a funding model that guaranteed extra funding for kids with poorer outcomes to give them the extra help
they needed. Make no mistake, when the government rips out $22 billion in funding from our schools that is
what they are walking away from—that commitment. Not only will schools lose resources, lose teachers and lose
funding; this bill also proposes to remove the entitlement that all students have a right to an excellent education.
This is a shameful act from a government that is hell-bent on ripping out billions of dollars from school funding
and walking away from the commitment of ensuring every child has access to a quality education. On this side
of the chamber, we know that this government does not believe in education as a great enabler. They do not want
to guarantee the rights of every child to receive the best possible education that this nation can provide.
The government are also walking away from the high benchmarks we set ourselves as a country, and from
what we can achieve when we properly fund our education system: for Australia to be placed in the top five
highest performing countries based on the performance of school students in reading, mathematics and science
by 2025; for the Australian school system to be considered a high-quality and highly equitable schooling system
by international standards by 2025; to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate II attainment rates to 90 per cent;
to lift the year 12 or equivalent certificate III attainment rates to 90 per cent; and to at least half the gap between
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by
2020.
That is what this government is walking away from: a quality education for all Australian students. This Prime
Minister does not value education. This government does not value the power of education. And the changes
introduced to this parliament clearly represent—from the government's own documents, their own briefing papers
—a $22 billion cut to education. The member for Hughes asks: 'What's this based on? Where do you get this
figure from?' Well, he needs to talk to the education minister. He needs to talk to the actual people who provided
that information, from his own government, highlighting in black and white that there will be a $22 billion
reduction in funding.
That is on one hand. We know that the government's other priority, while cutting $22 billion, is to give $65.4
billion to multinationals and big business—a $22 billion cut from schools and $65.4 billion in a tax cut for big
business. I will say it again: that is a cut for every school over the next 10 years of around $2.4 million, over
the next decade, the equivalent of sacking 22,000 teachers. The review of school funding recommended that
all governments work together to ensure that every child has the best chance to succeed in school and in life.
So, the member for Hughes is the font of all knowledge! The Catholic educators are all wrong, the New South
Wales Liberal government is wrong, the New South Wales Liberal education minister is wrong, and the state
and territory ministers are all wrong, but the member for Hughes is correct; he is the only one—the font of all
knowledge—who knows everything about education! What an absolute joke.
We know that only by working with the states and territories will we be able to guarantee proper funding for
each and every school. It beggars belief that members opposite would want to get up and defend this. I note that
the member for Gilmore is in the chamber. She is presiding over $19 million worth of cuts in her electorate. She
is proud of that. She is happy with that. The member for Hughes is lecturing everyone that the Catholic educators
are all wrong. We know that those opposite—the arrogance they show—
Government members interjecting—
Mr DICK: We know that maybe cutting penalty rates is a gift. But there is a double gift, of reducing funding
for every school in her electorate. Now, I am not sure that if I was the local representative I would be too brave
turning up to a P&C meeting in my electorate saying, 'Good evening everyone; I'm here to announce millions
of dollars worth of funding cuts.' I do not think that would be an appropriate thing, but I am not going to give
any free advice to those opposite.
When I met with Springfield Central State School P&C last Monday night they asked me why this government is
cutting funding. That is what they asked; the school principal asked that. The member for Gilmore says that they
are wrong. So, the principal at Springfield Central is wrong? The P&C is wrong? But the member for Gilmore
is right? The teachers who work there, the allied support workers, the teachers' aides are all wrong? They have
read the budget papers. They have seen the briefing note. They know they are getting $22 billion less in funding.
But somehow the member for Gilmore is correct! How arrogant can you get? How out of touch can you get?
Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Gilmore: you have a lot on your plate; I would not
worry about what is happening at Springfield Central, but I will tell them, from you, that they are all wrong.
Mrs Sudmalis: You are being dishonest!
Mr DICK: I will take that interjection. I will be honest with them, because that is what they deserve. We know
that over the past four years they have zigged and zagged, gone backwards and forwards, but they still have
not landed a credible education policy. Who can forget that the Prime Minister at one stage thought that the
government should withdraw all funding from state schools? Remember that one? The government should just
walk away from state schools altogether. Well, they might not have completely walked away; they just ripped
out $22 billion.
Government members interjecting—
Mr DICK: And they are all still interjecting. They are all still trying to defend the indefensible. If I was a
representative in this place seeing a $19 million cut to schools in my electorate, like the member for Gilmore
is, I would get up in this place and make some noise. I would not simply sit back and give them a clap and say,
'You're getting a gift.' It is high time that this government faced the music. When they go back to their P&Cs,
when they have the guts to turn up to their local parish schools and explain themselves, they will find a very
hostile reception from those parents and school communities.
We know that what this means is that 85 per cent of public schools will not have reached their fair funding level
by 2027, some eight years from now. Under their model, less than 50 per cent of extra funding goes back to public
schools. We know that when it comes to education—when it comes to the transformative power of education—
the community can depend on Bill Shorten and Labor. The community can know that they have a true advocate
with Tanya Plibersek fighting for them every single day in this country.
