Education
Transcript
Ms WARE (Hughes) (18:34): I rise to speak against this motion that's been moved by the member for Lalor, and I do it for a number of reasons. First of all, I was glad I was present for the honourable member's speech today when she moved this motion. This motion refers to cheaper child care, record needs based funding for schools, free TAFE and student debt relief.
What this motion refers to—and all that I have heard from the honourable member's speech—are just the amounts of money that are being spent. We are opposing the fee-free TAFE legislation, and it is not because we do not support the vocational and educational training sector. On the contrary, we support all students who want to get a vocational educational qualification, regardless of where they choose to be educated. That is the whole premise. That is one of the major differences between our side and Labor. Labor love a centralised bureaucracy. I heard mention then of the public school sector. I'm very supportive of the public school sector; I'm proudly a product of public schools. But it was the Liberals who first decided to fund non-government schools, and that was one of the guiding values of our party—that parents should have choice as to where their children are educated. Parents who choose to send their children to a non-government school should not be punished for that choice, in the same way that students should have the choice as to whether they go to a non-government school or attend a government school.
The reason that Labor has only funded places in the VET sector for TAFE is because the TAFE system is centralised; it's very heavily unionised. They love TAFE. They don't, for example, want to fund the National Electrical and Communications Association, which has 500 to 600 apprentices at the moment all doing training through the private sector. That money is very well spent.
At TAFE, people in the building and construction sector at the moment—trainee apprentices in carpentry–have only a 50 per cent completion rate. If they do it privately, they have a 90 per cent completion rate. It's the same with plumbing. Master Plumbers have an 80 per cent success rate of getting their apprentices through. TAFE has 50 per cent. Why won't this government look at where their funding actually goes and the results of that funding, instead of simply saying, 'If we just throw money at the problem, we'll fix it'? There's no point just throwing money at it without then looking at if the money that is being spent—taxpayers' money—actually producing bang for buck. We cannot support that sort of reckless spending with no regard to the outcome.
I note that this motion leaves out something very big in this whole piece, and that's the NDIS. It does refer to needs based funding in schools. Well, NDIS is on its knees. I have had that many people in my electorate come to me with the most horrendous stories. I'll give you the most recent horrendous story, which is on Saturday, when I was in the Engadine mobile office, from Sarah, who has a 10-year-old son Issac. They have now had to cease essential disability support services because they have not been able to get a reassessment of their plan for almost six months. This is a disgrace. What happens when she goes to NDIA to finally put in a complaint? This is the response from the NDIA: 'The NDIA appreciates the time you've taken to provide your complaint. Here's a feedback reference ID, and, if you require any support, please visit our website.' This is a family that are on their knees. Issac has significant needs. That is what the government have left us with—this mess that NDIS and NDIA are in. I know there are many in this place very committed to disability services; I am one. This government has failed in that space.