Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. The Rudd government has stated that it came to office with a promise to bring an education revolution to Australia. To date, the government has announced computers in schools, but so far this has not resulted in actual computers on every desk—particularly not in my electorate—mostly because the practical aspects of actually delivering this promise had not been thought through. Photo opportunities do not deliver the hardware and capacity where it is actually needed. Of even more concern, what also had not been thought through in practical terms was the additional financial pressure the computers in schools program has placed on state governments and on the schools themselves. State governments and schools that have had to deal with the practical aspects of this decision have realised very quickly that a considerably greater amount of funding would be needed to bring the Rudd government’s plan of putting a computer on every desk to fruition. The government’s plan did not account for the significant additional costs of power points, power usage, cabling, maintenance, training, insurance and air conditioning. The list goes on and on to the point that the state governments and schools are seeking additional funding to implement the government’s promise.

I am now concerned that the present Schools Assistance Bill 2008 will need to appropriate $28 billion for continued funding for non-government, primary and secondary education in Australia for the 2009-12 period. This bill is necessary to provide continued Commonwealth funding for the next quadrennium. The previous government’s Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 provided funding from 2005 to 2008. However, this act provided funding for both government and non-government schools. My concern is that this bill marks a significant departure in Commonwealth funding arrangements for education in Australia. It has very specific issues for non-government schools, as it provides funding for only non-government schools and deliberately segregates and separates independent schools from government schools. We are told that future Commonwealth funding for government schools will be provided by the national education agreement, which is currently being negotiated with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments. However, in practical terms, this effectively means that the Rudd government will legislate for non-government schools before the finalisation of the national education agreement for government schools—a deliberate and calculated change. I note the Labor government says it has held extensive consultation with many stakeholders, but I would like to know how many independent schools associations and representative bodies in Western Australia, particularly those representing my electorate of Forrest, were consulted and exactly what their concerns and comments were.

This bill, while apparently preserving the total funding available to non-government schools, introduces a number of changes to school-funding agreements which has and will continue to generate significant concern in the non-government education sector. There appear to be four main areas where the non-government education sector will be negatively impacted, and I cannot support those clauses without amendment. Firstly, section 15 will change the grounds upon which the minister can elect to refuse or delay payment, which just makes it easier for the minister to do exactly that. Clause 15(c) provides new reasons for such refusal or payment delay. The qualified audit report requirement contained in subclause (i) appears to presume that if an audit statement is qualified then it necessarily signals that a school’s financial situation is precarious enough to warrant the minister refusing or delaying payment. The coalition believes that a qualified audit report is too broad a basis for assessing the financial viability of a school and would allow the minister to delay or refuse funding in spite of financial viability. Further to this, the last thing a school found to be struggling financially needs is to have its funding withheld or delayed. Should the auditor qualify his statement because of concerns about the school model, as opposed to financial concerns, this may also cause the funds to be withheld or delayed. Given the diversity of independent school models, clause 15(c)(i) should be deleted from the bill.

The second concern I have is that the new requirement in clause 22 that school funding agreements need to comply with the national curriculum by 2012 as specified in regulations. At this stage, there is no indication of exactly what the national curriculum will include for maths, science, history and English. We do know that the framing documents are currently being drafted, but so far the only documents that have been released are the initial advice documents on the history and the science curricula. The final documents will not be presented until sometime in 2009, yet this bill seeks to tie school funding to the acceptance of that curriculum. We therefore believe clause 22 should be removed.

Thirdly, this bill proposes new reporting requirements for schools, particularly relating to information about financial viability and funding sources, as referred to in clause 24. Funding sources is a new concept for reporting under this bill and could give the minister substantial new powers to demand information about the internal financial affairs of a school community. This is not a requirement under the current SES funding model. I wonder if there is an alternative agenda here with serious implications for non-government schools. What is the ultimate purpose of this information? Does this further funding condition foreshadow an attempt to cap or potentially decrease Commonwealth funding for independent schools?

This section allows the minister to require independent schools to disclose greater detail and additional information about their sources of funding. Such information might specifically include details of scholarship funds, bequests and other sources of funding such as profit-generating activities or community fund raising undertaken by parents and friends associations and school supporters. What level of accountability will be applied to simple fetes, stalls, raffles and volunteer fundraising activities? Will this effectively discourage support for independent schools? And what increased level of reporting will be necessary for the independent schools in my electorate of Forrest?

I can only draw the conclusion that this clause exists in order to lay the groundwork to develop a case to radically alter the SES funding system, potentially in the next funding, period, to one where those schools who are the beneficiaries of acts of philanthropy by parents or previous students and supporters are to be penalised through reduced or abolished Commonwealth support. The Labor government will be conducting a review of school funding in 2010 and the intent may well be to restructure the funding model for non-government schools along the lines of the old discredited education resources index model just in time for the next funding quadrennium of 2013 to 2016.

Considering statements made by Labor members, this is certainly feasible The member for Prospect declared in the House on 1 December 2004 that he believed the SES index was fundamentally flawed and that he thought the education resources index was a better formula to provide for the needs of schools and the capacity of the school to reach education standards. The member for Eden-Monaro was quoted in the Australian on 14 November 2007 as saying that the SES system was a ridiculous approach to looking at the needs of schools and that Labor will move away from that and get down eventually to a proper needs based approach.

What can be determined to be ‘a proper needs based approach’ based on section 24 of the legislation may ultimately punish schools that have made effective use of their funds and worked closely with their wider community and it may well be a blatant attempt to standardise well-run independent schools. Clearly, the Labor government is harvesting all income-generating and asset information of private schools to calculate their economic capacity and potentially use it to justify a reduction of funding.

The proposed reporting requirements could even lead to well-run successful independent schools decreasing their fundraising activities for extra-curricula out-of-school activities just to maintain their Commonwealth funding for day-to-day operations. Their funding could well be capped at the 2008 rate. Well-run private schools have well-proven business plans for the future that they expect to continue to be successful, knowing that the school board makes sound education and business decisions. Many parents sacrifice other areas of their lives or work additional hours to enable their children to attend an independent school of their choice that provides the type of education that they want for their children We in the coalition support the expectation of Australian parents that the government should contribute to the education of their children.

I have a range of very efficient independent schools offering a diversity of opportunity to students in my electorate of Forrest through processes which often include intellectual, physical, moral, social and creative growth, as well as vocational preparation, whilst encouraging students to achieve their potential within a caring environment. There are many small schools and many have very sound relationships with local and regional industry, the community and the environment.

Some examples of these schools are the Georgiana Molloy Anglican School in Busselton, the Kearnan Catholic College in Manjimup, the Yallingup Steiner School, Ocean Forest Lutheran College in Dalyellup and Bunbury Cathedral Grammar School. Each one of these schools provides for a specific set of needs within their communities and within the expectations of parents, families and teachers.

It is equally important that families in regional areas have access to the diversity of educational opportunities provided by independent schools. Schools such as these should not be disadvantaged for their professional or diverse approach to providing opportunities and choice for parents and students. Measures in this bill could reduce funding simply because a school is offering high-quality facilities and resources. This proposal is a major change to the formula for Commonwealth funding for non-government schools. This is not an education revolution; it is a potential budget cutback ultimately reducing funding to non-government schools.

I have a total of 29 non-government schools in my electorate of Forrest, 27 of which have SES scores. There is a difference of over $1,400 per student per year between the highest and lowest SES score. The current SES model for schools funding is a much fairer model than what is proposed in this bill. It measures the socioeconomic status of parents whose children are enrolled at a particular school. The SES model links student addresses with current ABS census data and the SES index is then applied to provide an SES score for each school. Schools drawing students from high scoring SES areas receive lower levels of Commonwealth funding than schools that draw from areas of average or low SES.

I intend to maintain my focus on looking after the interests of all schools, students and parents within my electorate and that includes independent schools and their students. I do this by also supporting my coalition colleagues in calling for the removal of section 24(1)(b).

The fourth area of concern I have is with the Labor government intention to immediately phase out the new non-government schools establishment grants. The previous government encouraged the non-government school sector and the right of parents and students to have a choice of a range of educational opportunities. However, this bill only makes provision for those schools approved in 2008 to receive grants in 2009. The Labor government is making it increasingly difficult for new non-government schools to develop.

Some measures in this bill will allow struggling schools to fail, while compromising successful independent schools. Schools should be strongly encouraged to provide both a diversity of educational opportunities as well as enhanced education by way of improving resources and assets such as new buildings, equipment, information technology and teachers, I intend to maintain my focus on supporting parents and families in my electorate to have the choice as to how and where their children are educated in a way that reflects their values by ensuring that non-government schools continue to receive an appropriate incremental increase in Commonwealth funding into the future. I believe that they should continue to excel in the provision of both educational and pastoral services as well as capital investment in facilities that will not compromise their future funding rounds. I support the shadow minister’s proposed amendments.

See this speech in context