Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): It is great to see the member for Kooyong, the Minister for the Environment and Energy, standing and supporting the matter of public importance, just as he supported our earlier motion at 9.30 this morning! Turning to a much more serious issue today: we here on the opposition benches, the Labor Party, when we were in government took a very serious look at our school system. We did that because we could see that our results in Australia—a country that had, 10 to 15 years ago, been one of the top performing countries in the world when it came to maths, reading, science and so on—were slipping. So we asked David Gonski and a panel of distinguished, eminent Australians to have a really good look at our school system. They came up with a proposal for a schooling resource standard and loadings for kids with particular needs that those on those benches opposite at first ridiculed and then denied. They pretended they could not support it. They finally realised that it was politically popular, so we saw the gazelle, the Leader of the House, the fixer, finally say at five minutes to midnight that they were on a unity ticket on it with us. What have we seen when it comes to schools since those opposite have come into government? We have seen $30 billion worth of funding cut from our schools—an average cut of $3 million from every school across Australia. I think members on both sides are regular visitors to their schools, and many of them have seen the enormous need for extra resources in classrooms and in school communities. Frankly, the idea that they can go into those schools and face those children, principals, teachers, parents, school aides and teacher aides, and say, 'This school doesn't need any extra resources,' shocks me. We know that even the modest amount of extra funding that has started to flow in the early years of the needs based funding system has made an incredible difference in our schools. When we visit our schools, they tell us the difference it has made. Our Lady of Mount Carmel is a fantastic school in my electorate. When I visited Our Lady of Mount Carmel the most recent time—I have been there many times—their fantastic principal told me that with the early Gonski funding they had been employing speech therapists and occupational therapists, particularly to work with their kindergarten children so that those kids start their education with a love of learning. It has been such a success. How can those opposite genuinely say to the parents and teachers at Our Lady of Mount Carmel that money does not matter? What did Eagleby South State School in Logan—I am sorry that the member for Forde has left—do with their extra funding? They hired and trained extra reading aides, and the percentage of their year six and seven students reading at age level went from 50 to 70 in a very short time. Can those opposite genuinely say to those children, teachers and parents and that school community that money does not matter? They cannot pretend that it does not. Merrylands High School in the shadow Treasurer's electorate, which is a school with 80 per cent low-SES background kids and 70 per cent non-English-speaking background kids, lifted their HSC results and in just three years actually doubled the number of students receiving an invitation to attend university. This is the difference that needs based funding, properly applied, can make. Those opposite cannot say to those students at Merrylands High School in Western Sydney that money does not matter. The truth is that these arguments—and the more recent attempt to set state fighting against state, school system against school system, Catholic schools against public schools—are simply a cover for the fact that those opposite have ripped out $30 billion from our schools over the next decade. I think everybody in this place remembers their best teacher. Teachers change lives. Teachers are the inspiration for so many young people to pursue their dreams. We know that one of the most important things we can do as a government is actually make sure that every child in every school in every school system in every state has the opportunity to experience that great teaching. That is why we wanted to invest this extra money in our schools. But those opposite also say: 'You can't just pour in money. Because money doesn't matter, if you just pour in money, nothing will change.' That has never been the proposition from this side. The only person who has ever said extra funding should be with no strings attached was the former Minister for Education. Mr Conroy: The fixer! Ms PLIBERSEK: The fixer, the gazelle, is the only one who has said that Labor's transparency and accountability measures are all just red tape, and that schools should be freed from the responsibility of reporting on their students' results—how their kids are doing. We have said that with extra funding we expect Australia should get back to the top five in the world for maths, reading and science. That is where we should be. Ninety-five per cent of students should complete year 12. Students should get more individual attention so that talented kids get the opportunity to extend themselves and make the most of their gifts, and kids who are falling behind get the support they need to catch up. We have said extra money should come with greater investment in selecting, training and supporting the best possible teachers—and more of them—so that we have better resources and better equipment in our classrooms, and more support for students with special learning needs. Extra investment, yes, comes with big changes in our school system. It means that teachers and school communities can do what they desperately want to do, which is treat every child as an individual and meet their needs. Those opposite will say, predictably—and let us just see what the next speaker says—'Australia can't afford this at this time. Australia can't afford it.' These are the people who are right now arguing for a $50 billion tax cut for the biggest businesses in Australia. The majority of this cut will flow overseas and benefit overseas shareholders. I am sure they will be very grateful. This is about choices and priorities. We choose our children—the individual kids who benefit from this in the classroom—but we also choose investing in our productivity as a nation. We know that the $50 billion tax cut makes—I am struggling not to use a rude word here—very little difference to our economic growth over time: one per cent once it is fully implemented in 20 years' time. We know that where investment in education funding is higher, living standards are higher; the Australia Institute has told us that. We know that, if, by 2030, we can equip all our high school graduates with the right kinds of basic skills, we could add $44 billion to the Australian economy, in today's terms. That is the OECD. We know that most economists say that Labor's plan to invest in education is much better for the Australian economy than the $50 billion big business tax giveaway. That is the Economics Society of Australia survey. We know that the quality of schooling in a country is a powerful predictor of the wealth that the country will produce in the long term. That is not us saying that; this is the predominant view of the smartest economists in the world. But it does not convince those opposite, because they want to prioritise giving a multinational company a tax cut over our children's future. To be a nation with a strong economy, Australia must be an education nation. To be a nation prepared for the jobs of the future, we need to be an education nation. To be an 'innovation nation', as the Prime Minister says, we need to be an education nation. That is what Labor backs. That is what needs based funding delivers. That is what those opposite are trying to kill.