Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 seeks to amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to extend the current funding arrangements for non-government schools from 2012 to 2013 for recurrent funding and from 2012 to 2014 for capital grants. The coalition welcomes the extension to the current funding arrangements in this bill. It gives schools certainty and gives the review of school funding chaired by Mr David Gonski AC time to finish its work on reviewing the government funding formula for non-government schools.

I wish to foreshadow an amendment the coalition will move in the committee stage, but before I do that let me just give this debate a little bit of context. The Labor Party has had a long history of antagonism toward the funding of non-government schools, from right back to the prime ministership of Sir Robert Menzies and all the way, for 50 years, up to Mark Latham’s hit list of independent schools. For some reason—and I have never, ever been able to understand this—there has been an inherent loathing of, an antagonism towards, a suspicion of, non-government schools by Labor for over 50 years. This really is intergenerational loathing by the Australian Labor Party, and I have never quite been able to work that out.

Despite waxing and waning on the issue by the Labor Party, there is one very important golden rule in Australian politics, and it is this: the funding of non-government schools is never, ever safe, never, ever secure, under the Labor Party—ever. Funding for non-government schools is never secure under the Australian Labor Party. Every time they are in office, every time there is a review, non-government schools go into a huddle because the Labor Party will never secure their funding. Whether the Labor Party will continue to fund non-government schools, how much and by what formula always divides the Australian Labor Party between the Left and the Right. Non-government schools, Catholic schools and Christian schools can never, ever be certain, never be safe and never be secure about ongoing funding. That just is not possible under the Australian Labor Party. It never has been and it never will be.

Non-government schools are always in the Labor Party’s crosshairs. But this bill, which the coalition supports, means that the trigger will not be pulled on non-government schools at least until after the next federal election. What a coincidence. Again the Australian Labor Party has put off the decision about funding. There will not be a government reply until after the next federal election. Shock, horror, surprise—once again. Why? Because, in Australia, non-government schools, Christian schools and Catholic schools can never, ever take it for granted that the Labor Party will fund them—ever.

The Prime Minister has in the past, it is true, said that she is an economic conservative and then, on the weekend, by some divine revelation, the Prime Minister said she was a social conservative. Despite her now being both an economic and a social conservative, the Labor Party cannot be trusted with the funding of non-government schools. Let’s face it. I looked at the front page of the Australian today and Paul Kelly, a senior Australian journalist, said that Ms Gillard must come clean with her convictions. The fact is that Ms Gillard does not have strong convictions except those lent to her by the Labor lobbyists Hawker Britton. We now know that. But we should do what the Senate always does and review this legislation.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop laughing while you’re speaking!

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Mason, resume your seat for the moment. Senator Collins, just as you would wish to be heard in silence when it is your turn to speak, Senator Mason deserves the right to be heard in silence. I would ask you to limit your remarks to your own speech.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, thank you for that. I assumed that Senator Collins was whispering words of support. I must have misheard her! Nonetheless, let me carry on.

I foreshadowed before that at the committee stage the coalition will be moving an amendment. This amendment does not debate the quality and structure of the national curriculum. This amendment does not debate the equity of funding for government and non-government schools. It is rather more simple than that. When I move the amendment in the committee stage it will be about having realistic time frames for non-government schools when the Gillard government has been dragging its heels. This amendment will seek to remove the 31 January 2012 deadline and replace it with a realistic time frame for non-government schools to implement the national curriculum prescribed by the regulations. This is a natural flow-on from Labor’s failure to keep to its original implementation schedule.

Why is this necessary? I am flagging it because at the last meeting of state and territory education ministers it was indicated that, in the real world, substantial implementation of the national curriculum will not begin in government schools until at least 2013. Yet the current act requires non-government schools to introduce the national curriculum prescribed by the regulations on or before 31 January 2012. Once again, the government has been dragging its heels, necessitating the coalition’s proposed amendment in the committee stage. This time line needs to be amended. Where is the common sense in the government asking non-government schools to introduce the national curriculum before its design is even finalised? What is needed here is a consistent approach to government and non-government schools. After all, we thought that was what the national curriculum was all about—having a common curriculum for non-government and government schools right across our country.

Last year we saw the government underdeliver on its original promise to have the national curriculum available to implement from the beginning of this year due to serious concerns about the quality of the national curriculum. The national curriculum has become another government failure as state education ministers last year at the ministerial council refused to begin implementation in January 2011 as was promised. I could, if I was provoked, again outline my concerns on the national curriculum. But I am not being provoked this morning, so perhaps I will not. I will spare the Senate a tutorial on my concerns about the national curriculum. The national curriculum time line is behind Labor’s original schedule, with some states and territories having announced they will not implement it until 2013. This bill obviously needs to be amended to remove the 31 January 2012 deadline for non-government schools as it simply is not realistic.

We know all too well what happens when the Gillard government rushes into policy implementation. Again, we do not have to look too far. And, again, if I was provoked, I could give some background about the Building the Education Revolution program and the pink batts scheme. I have been known to do that. However, this morning perhaps I will spare the Senate. However, I think it is fair to say that there are some implementation issues with respect to the government’s capacity to implement even policies that one might see as creative. But the Gillard government is at it again. It has not learnt its lesson. Mr Garrett, the relevant minister, knows firsthand the effect that rushing into policy implementation can have. Again, the implementation of the national curriculum has been slow. It has not been well handled. State governments are no longer uniform in their consent to implement it, and at the moment this legislation is inaccurate in the sense that it does not accurately reflect when non-government schools will be able to implement it.

The amendment that I will move at the committee stage is a common-sense amendment that seeks to restore a realistic time line for non-government schools to implement the national curriculum as a result of the Gillard government’s failure to keep to its original and stated schedule. The coalition, however, does welcome this bill and welcomes the extension of funding arrangements to non-government schools but calls on the government to support the amendment that I will circulate in the committee stage.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 and highlight first up that the Greens will not be supporting this piece of legislation. This bill provides for the existing federal funding system for non-government schools to be extended for a further year until the end of 2013. It is the implementation of the announcement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign last year. I said at that time that this bill adds yet another year to the growing delay in tackling the inequities in Australia’s school funding system. It means that any reform of the current system will not be implemented until at least 2014, over six years since the ALP government was first elected in 2007.

The government accepts that the SES system is flawed, yet we have seen an extension of this flawed system for a further six years when it did not necessarily have to be that way. The current SES funding system was introduced by the Howard government in 2001. The model links the residential addresses of students enrolled at a school to the census data to produce a socioeconomic profile of the school community and its ability to support the school. Under the SES model, funding is allocated according to the socioeconomic status of the community that the school is located in. A school’s SES score determines its per student general recurrent funding rate as a percentage of the average government school recurrent cost, ensuring increases in funding to public schools are passed on to non-government schools. That, of course, is the flaw in the system.

The current model has been acknowledged to be flawed and unfair by public school advocates, educational academics, the government—of course, when they were in opposition; we have seen very little direct criticism since they came into government—and an internal report on the model commissioned by the opposition when they were in government. There has been acknowledgement from all sides of politics that this system is fundamentally flawed, yet what we have seen year after year is an extension of what is a fundamentally flawed and unfair system. The fact is that this government initiated a review into funding for schools in the acknowledgement that the current model needs reform. What is the reform going to be? We should have had the reform take place long before now. After the last election, we should have been in this place this year with at least something substantial to debate and to take forward.

The flaws in the current system were summed up well by the Prime Minister herself when she was opposition spokesperson for education. In a speech in 2000 she identified five flaws, all of which remain relevant to the model her government is now extending. Firstly, the model proceeds on the basis of the average government schools cost figure; therefore, funding to non-government schools increases when funding to public schools increases. She said:

… this model uses only some aspects of the census data—

I remind you that these are the criticisms put forward by the Prime Minister herself of the very same model which she is now advocating we extend—

… the model may lose veracity the more geographically dispersed the students of a particular school are.

… the model may lose veracity in highly differentiated areas where wealth and poverty live cheek by jowl.

… the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school … This is a gaping flaw, one which the government would not allow to emerge in any other benefit distribution system.

They are the flaws identified by the current Prime Minister when, as I remind people, she was the opposition spokesperson for education.

Fundamentally, the problem with the SES model is that the formula to provide the funding has never been applied as intended because of the funding guarantee provisions. These provisions see about half of Australia’s non-government schools receiving more funding than they would be entitled to if the SES formula were strictly applied. By guaranteeing this level of overpayment for the next four years, non-government schools will have certainty and additional funding, while public schools will have no certainty. We know that there is in an increasing growth in the gap. Unfortunately, just like in 2008, this piece of legislation is simply extending the problem.

In 2006, under the Howard government, an internal review of the funding system found that funding guarantees delivered schools more than $2.7 billion above their SES entitlements and entrenched historical inequities. That review found a fundamental flaw under Senator Mason’s own past government. Now we see this government, a Labor government that is meant to be committed to public education, continuing this flawed system. The review said:

The consistency and equity of the SES funding arrangements is undermined by the fact that almost half the non-government school sector is funded outside the straight SES model.

This funding model does not work. All sides of politics have accepted this, yet what we see again is more legislation simply to extend a flawed, unfair, broken funding model. In government not only did the Labor Party keep the inequitable Howard model for another quadrennium of funding from 2008; it is now extending it for another year. We know it is flawed; everyone has said that. Everyone knows that the evidence shows that the system does not work, that it is unfair, that it is inequitable and that it needs to be fixed. Yet, because of the lack of courage in this place of both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, we see very little will to move and get it fixed.

The Greens however have always stayed consistent in their view that this current model for funding non-government schools requires fundamental change and that public education must be central to any new funding model. In 2008 in the debate on the legislation for the current quadrennium of funding to non-government schools, Senator Milne, the then Greens spokesperson on education, moved amendments to limit the funding to two years, until 2011. That is this year. We could have been dealing with the issues this year. We talk about the need to give certainty to schools. We talk about the need to ensure we fix the system and deal with the issues of inequity, yet in 2008 the Greens moved amendments to say, ‘Let’s by at least 2011 get it fixed and get moving.’ The government of the day and the current government did not want to do that and, of course, neither did the coalition.

It was the Greens’ belief that the review promised by the Labor Party prior to the 2007 election should be undertaken in two years from 2008 and a new funding formula developed by the time of the 2010 election. We wanted to be able to give schools, teachers, parents and students the certainty of what their schools would look like and of what resources and funding they would receive. We wanted to be able to ensure that schools, teachers, parents and students had that certainty before the last election. That is why we moved the amendments that we did back in 2008. But of course, no, no, no: neither major party wants to actually deal with the issue at hand. They would prefer to defer, defer, defer and continue an unfair, inequitable system—all critiqued, of course, by their own reviews and party policies.

Instead, it is likely that the Australian community will go through two elections before the government has the courage to implement a new model for Commonwealth funding of non-government schools. We continue to keep rolling it into the next election cycle, and we know what happens when both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party get into election cycles: they go absolutely weak at the knees when it comes to the need for reform. The continual delay in biting the bullet of real funding reform for education does not reflect well on this government at all. The report of the review of school funding is due to be given to the government by the end of 2011. I will be moving a second reading amendment calling on the government to respond to the review of funding for schools before then, ensuring that by 2012 the public schools, teachers, parents and students will understand what the government’s plan is, what they will actually do once this review has been completed.

Let’s not go to the next election with this view that we do not have to tell people what is going on. We do not have to commit to public education. We do not have to commit to fixing the system. We do not have to commit to ensuring that we agree that there is inequity and we will do something about it. Let us know what your plan is going to be before the next election. My second reading amendment does exactly that. We know that big parties gang up on this particular issue. They say, ‘Oh no, we can’t talk about school funding, can’t reform the system; we know it’s unfair but we don’t want to touch it.’ The major parties will gang up. They will vote for it. The Greens will be the sole voice for public education in this place, come a couple of hours, and we will vote against the legislation. The legislation will pass, but at least let us have a commitment from the government that they will put their plan on the table so that we know—and the public knows, the teachers know, the parents know and the students know—what your plan is before the next election. Let’s not see another delay, delay, delay because it is all too difficult.

The Greens look forward, as this review is carried out, to a constructive debate on school funding as a result of this focused time to consider the flaws in the system. However, we do not resile from our position that the current model is fundamentally flawed and neither should the government. I have already read out the Prime Minister’s own critique of the system. Let’s not forget that it has not changed because it has been extended time after time after time. It is still as flawed as it was when it was first introduced under the Howard government. Let’s not pretend that this system can keep going the way it is. It needs root and branch reform.

The Greens are committed to ensuring public education is the priority for any new Commonwealth funding system. We want to see a public school system that sets the standard of education in this country. Any child wherever they are—whether they live in the city, in the suburbs, in the bush—should be able to access the best quality education. That means the public education system has to set the benchmark. In order to do that, more money is going to have to go towards public schools. We have to fix the funding system to make that happen. Every child in this country deserves the right to the best quality education possible and that can only happen if the only system that accepts all students on whatever basis, regardless of their geographical location or parental income, household resources or their socioeconomic status—that means the public education system—sets the standard for what good quality education means in this country. That should be the basis of this reform. That must be the basis of this reform.

We have a Prime Minister who says that she is the education Prime Minister. Let’s see her put her money where her mouth is. Let’s see the Prime Minister accept that this system is fundamentally flawed. It undermines the educational standards that kids in Australia should be able to expect from their education system every day. If Julia Gillard truly is the education Prime Minister, she will invest and ensure that the public education system sets the standards so no child in this country is left behind.

We understand that this legislation will pass the Senate. I reiterate that the Greens do not support the extension of a flawed system. It is flawed by everybody’s understanding, everybody’s critique of the way it is currently working. The Greens will not accept that, just because it might be too hard for some, we should not tackle the issue at large. To ensure that the government has to put its plan squarely on the table by 2012, before the next election, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should respond to the Review of Funding for Schooling, chaired by David Gonski AC, by March 2012, fully outlining the Government’s plans for Commonwealth funding for government and non-government schools.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators who have contributed to this debate on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. I thank Senator Mason for his comments welcoming the comprehensive and broadly supported review of school funding. But I must take this opportunity to make the point that there is absolutely no basis at all for his claim that Labor will not respond until after the next election on this matter.Senator Hanson-Young, I would also like to welcome the Greens’ support of the school funding review. However, I need to tackle some other reflections made in your contribution very briefly, because I do want to get to the details of this bill. The lack of courage you report being involved in this matter needs to be put into perspective. As Senator Mason is here I need to put into perspective his comments on history as well. I do not want to take the time of the Senate in talking about the history of school funding. Suffice to say that the one interjection I made was that I was indeed a product of Labor’s support for non-government schools, as my schooling was within the Catholic education system in the 1960s. Perhaps anyone who was listening to Senator Mason might understand that there is a very different historical perspective that can challenge much of his contribution.

Regarding Senator Hanson-Young’s comments about the major parties ganging up on the Greens, with respect, this is a much more serious issue. This comprehensive review of school funding to deal with the very problems she highlighted the Prime Minister identifying is very critical. The courage that the Labor government has shown in conducting this very broad independent review of school funding, bringing all parties to the table, is absolutely critical. Senator Hanson-Young raises some important points about public education, but we are the government with responsibility for all schools. Perhaps those who understand the difference between state and Commonwealth funding in school education will reflect the challenge that is before us there in terms of the issues around the public education system as well and the Commonwealth’s historical role there.

With those comments, I will just go briefly to the purpose of the bill. The Schools Assistance Act 2008 provides the legislative authority for the government’s financial assistance for non-government, primary and secondary education for the years 2009 to 2012. The current funding arrangements under the act will expire on 31 December 2012. The bill amends the act to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements for grants for recurrent and targeted expenditure until the end of 2013 and for grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014.

With respect to the implications and the issues of certainty around the context of the school funding review, this bill will provide funding certainty to the non-government school sector until the Australian government has had the opportunity to consider the findings of the review of funding for schooling and determine how schools will be funded in the future. The review is due to report to the government in late 2011 and there is no indication that there will be any delay in that time frame. The review provides the opportunity for substantial reforms to the way national education is delivered in Australia. It is about achieving a funding system that is financially sustainable, fair, transparent and effective in promoting excellent education outcomes for all Australian students, no matter which school they attend. It is about supporting our students on their path towards excellence. The bill will allow non-government schools and education authorities to plan their future funding priorities and will assist with the provision of school facilities and support the government’s commitment to making every school a great school. The extension of capital funding to the end of 2014 recognises the longer lead time for capital works, planning and construction.

With respect to the context, the bill builds on the investment of the Gillard Labor government in education across the board. The bill will continue to build on the government’s unprecedented level of investment in education and will enable every child to get a great education. We are investing more than $64 billion in our schools over the years 2009 to 2012 to provide Australian students and parents with modern infrastructure, high-quality teachers, a national curriculum and unprecedented transparency on the performance of our schools. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I wish to put on the record my support for Senator Hanson-Young’s second reading amendment. I think it is appropriate that the government respond to the review of funding for schooling chaired by David Gonski AC by March 2012. I think there ought to be a comprehensive response to that review that would fully outline the government’s plans for Commonwealth funding for government and non-government schools, and I do so having received concerns in relation to the funding of some non-government schools, which may mean that other perhaps more worthy non-government schools and, indeed, public schools have missed out on funding. I note an article by Michael Bachelard in the Sunday Age on 6 April 2008, and some more recent stories, about one particular type of school that is getting some significant funding and there being concerns about the transparency of that. I think that there ought to be adequate scrutiny of this.

I was asked to comment recently about the funding for some Exclusive Brethren schools. I absolutely respect the right of the Exclusive Brethren and other religions to set up schools, but where public funding is involved there ought to be levels of transparency, scrutiny and equity applied in relation to those schools. The information I have received about the level of funding for some of those schools, and arguably the efficacy of that funding, has left me with some very real concerns, because money for one school means money cannot be delivered to another school that could well be much needier, whether that is a non-government school or a public school.

I understand that this bill will go into committee stage at some later time and I will be asking more questions about the nature of the review and the nature of the scrutiny there is at the moment for degrees of funding for some non-government schools, where there has been a proliferation of certain types of non-government schools in recent times. I will be asking for further details on that. Having said that, I can indicate my strong support for Senator Hanson-Young’s amendment and I look forward to the committee stages of this bill so that I can ask for further details in relation to some of the funding arrangements that seem to have proliferated in recent times and the efficacy of them.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The government opposes the Greens second reading amendment. The government fully intends to respond as quickly as feasible to the review of school funding. The review is on track to report to government by the end of this year. This amendment is pre-emptive. We will take the appropriate amount of time to respond, based on the actual report. It is pre-emptive to anticipate that report. Nothing happened for 13 years under the previous government to properly reform school funding. We are committed to getting this right. The timing of the government’s response is a matter for the minister to determine and he does not need advice from the Greens as to how to carry out this reform. We are however pleased to note that the Greens are committed to reforming the funding system for all schools, both government and non-government.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I did indicate before in my second reading remarks that the coalition would be moving an amendment during the committee stage but the coalition no longer wishes to do that. I flag that to the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given Senator Mason’s statement, and at the time I spoke previously I was not aware of that, I will be seeking that this bill go briefly into committee to explore some of the matters that I raised in my contribution to the second reading amendment.