Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the importance of the role that non-government schools play in reflecting the diversity of Australian society and serving a broad range of students, including those from a variety of religions, social backgrounds, regions, and socio-economic circumstances;

(2) supports the continuation of a funding model into the future that distributes funds according to socio economic need and which recognises that every non-government school student is entitled to a basic level of government funding;

(3) calls on the Government to continue to support parents in their right to choose a school which they believe best reflects their values and beliefs, by not penalising parents who wish to make private contributions towards their child's education, nor discouraging schools in their efforts to fundraise or encourage private investment;

(4) notes the many submissions made to the Review of Funding for Schooling by non government sector authorities requesting that changes to school funding arrangements not leave schools or students worse off in real terms;

(5) acknowledges that any reduction in government funding for non-government schools would need to be addressed by increasing the level of private income required to be raised by the school community (such as school fees), or through a reduction in the quality of the educational provision in affected schools; and

(6) calls on the Government to make a clear commitment to the continuation of current funding levels to all non-government schools, plus indexation, and for this to be the basic starting point of any new funding model resulting from the Review of Funding for Schooling process.

The issue of non-government school funding is at the moment like a train coming down a tunnel for parents in non-government schools across Australia. There are 1.2 million students in non-government schools across this country, which means about 2.4 million parents who send their children to non-government schools. All of those parents are, and should be, concerned, the principals of non-government schools are concerned, and all the organisations representing non-government schools should be very concerned about the government's response to what the David Gonski review of non-government school funding hands down by the end of this year. If the government responds badly to that report, if it missteps on non-government school funding, there could be catastrophic impacts on the non-government school sector. If the non-government school sector loses funds, one of two things can occur: either non-government schools will need to push up their school fees—and at a time of major cost-of-living pressures the last thing that families need is an increase in their school fees—or potentially there will be the sacking or removal of many, many teachers in order to meet the shortfall in funds.

The Labor-Greens government has done very little to ameliorate the concerns of the non-government school sector. We in the coalition have been pointing out to the government for months and months the impact of not responding appropriately to non-government school funding reviews such as this one. Let us remember that the coalition are committed to indexing non-government school funding from the Commonwealth based on the current quantum of funds. In the event that the government chooses not to do this, and so far it has failed to commit to it—the minister has in fact said that schools will not get one dollar less than they currently get, which he thinks is a clever, tricky way of convincing schools that they have nothing to be concerned about, but of course the semantics are not lost on the non-government school sector—and it continues to support non-government schools only to the tune of the current quantum of funding then over the next quadrennium of funding $4.2 billion less will be paid to the non-government school sector. That is $4.2 billion across all of the non-government schools in Australia, which would have a massive impact on the resources available to non-government schools. Those schools would have to replace that $4.2 billion either by increasing their school fees dramatically or by cutting teachers.

Conservative estimates suggest that if the schools choose not to put up their school fees, at a time of real cost-of-living pressures, then they will have to sack 56,000 teachers in non-government schools. If they push up their fees to the tune of $4.2 billion then obviously some parents simply will not be able to afford that increase in fees, which will mean schools will lose students. This is such a serious matter—there are many schools that will actually close their doors if the government fails to index their funding based on the current quantum of funds—yet the government continues to obfuscate and to be unclear about what it believes schools in the non-government sector deserve in funding from the Australian taxpayer.

I will give just a couple of examples. In my own electorate of Sturt, Mary MacKillop College, which was founded and is still run by the Sisters of Saint Joseph—and of course Mary MacKillop was the founder of the Sisters of Saint Joseph order—would lose $2 million over four years, in real terms, which equates to $3,985 per student. Mary MacKillop is not a high-fee school. I note for the minister at the table, the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, that this school is on the border of our electorates, on Portrush Road between the Adelaide and Sturt electorates. She is deathly silent about the impact of not indexing school fees for non-government school students, yet many of the students in Norwood and across her electorate would be students at Mary MacKillop College. While I am standing up for the students in my electorate by insisting that we have indexation on top of the quantum that is currently paid to non-government schools, the minister at the table, the member for Adelaide, is deathly silent and refuses to commit. But I give her the opportunity: she can speak on this motion if she chooses to and she can commit to funding for non-government schools like Mary MacKillop College.

There is another example which impacts on both the minister at the table, the member for Adelaide, and myself: Kildare College. Kildare College, in the north of my electorate, is very close to the border between the member for Adelaide's electo­rate and my electorate and it would lose $1.4 million in funding if there were no indexation of non-government school fund­ing over the next four years, which is over $4,000 per student. Kildare College is a low-fee school that caters for many students from low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds in the north-east of Adelaide, yet the govern­ment continues to leave those people swinging in the breeze without a clear indication that their funding will be maintained into the future at current levels plus indexation.

The government's partners in government, the Greens, have a quite radical proposal for non-government school fees. They wish to reduce the funds from the government to 2003 levels. This would completely annih­ilate schools in the non-government school sector across Australia. Yet, because the government, the Labor Party, are in fear of the Greens, they are yet to come out and condemn the Greens for their policy on non-government schools—and they have had every opportunity to do so. The minister, Mr Garrett, has been stone silent about the Greens' policy for non-government school funding. Why don't the government slam the Greens' proposal to reduce funding to 2003 levels, which would decimate the non-government school sector? Yet the government remain silent.

The other aspect to this motion is the support for 'funding maintained' schools. Funding maintained has been a part of the SES funding model since 2001. It has been a part of it from day one. It is as much a part of the current funding of non-government schools as any other part. There are 1,075 schools—out of 2,650—that are funding maintained schools. If those funds were to be withdrawn, nine schools in Sturt would lose over $4 million per annum in funding, being removed from them if funding maintained does not continue. These figures might mean very little to the ideologically driven government of Labor and the Greens but to parents, principals and teachers they mean jobs and they mean more cost-of-living pressure that they cannot face. The vast majority of these households will have mortgages on their homes and the vast majority will be struggling to pay their grocery bills every week. Yet this government continues to leave them hanging in the balance without any clear indication of whether it will support indexation going forward or of whether it will support funding maintained. I commend the motion to the House and look forward to the member for Adelaide finding her courage.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion moved by the member for Sturt. The member for Sturt is continuing a tradition, one that we have seen all too often in this House, of those opposite running a mobile scare campaign. We have seen this strongly in the carbon pricing debate with the Leader of the Opposition trawling the country and coming into this parliament arguing that petrol prices were going to go up under an emissions trading scheme. It is simply not true. The Leader of the Opposition has misled parliament over this issue. We now have the member for Sturt moving a motion on funding for non-government schools which seeks to spread fear and misinformation.

It is important to return to the basic facts. The Gillard government is committed to delivering a quality education to every student in Australia. Those of us on this side of the House believe that the public versus private debate is one that can be put to rest. What is important is focusing on students and student needs, not trying to reopen ideological wars which are done and dusted.

In my electorate there are many non-government schools of which I am extremely proud. I spoke recently at the opening of a new school building as part of Burgmann Anglican College, a low-fee school that serves the area of Gungahlin. At that opening the students expressed a great sense of pride in Bishop Ernest Burgmann, who the school is named after and who carried on a great tradition of social justice. I spoke at that opening of the work that Bishop Burgmann did throughout the community, work which was really critical to building a stronger community in the post-war decades, work that I am glad to say has been carried on by his granddaughters, Margaret Watt and Meredith Burgmann, among others. I am also proud to have visited Holy Spirit Primary School, a non-government school that shares playing fields with Gold Creek public school and whose teachers on duty in the playgrounds have decided, much in the spirit of doing away with unnecessary public-private divides, that children should be encouraged to play sport, that every time there is a sporting team it should not be Gold Creek versus Holy Spirit and that any sporting games that are played at recess or lunch need to have mixed teams involving some Holy Spirit kids and some Gold Creek kids on each side. They are showing how you can break down these artificial public-private divides, much as it would be nice to see those in the House doing the same.

Merici College, in my electorate, is involved in a trades training centre, ensuring that students have the opportunity to begin trades training before they finish their school education. Merici College is working with a group of non-government schools to ensure that students have the chance to get trades training. These are, perhaps, students who would otherwise have left school a few years earlier and now stay on and get that essential trades training. Through these important non-government schools, as through the many government schools in the Fraser electorate, quality education is being delivered day in and day out. I pay tribute to the great principals, teachers and administrative staff who are involved in that effort. Much of their work often goes unthanked but certainly should be recognised here in this House.

As part of the government's commitment to recognising that the divide between government and non-government schools should be broken down whenever possible, we have put in place a low SES national partnership and we have put in place an improving teacher quality national partner­ship. Part of those national partnerships are being delivered through non-government schools. For example, the Charnwood-Dunlop government school in Charnwood receives assistance through the low SES national partnership and the St Thomas Aquinas Primary School in Charnwood receives assistance through the literacy and numeracy national partnership. These partnerships recognise that we need to focus on need and not simply focus on the system that runs the school.

We are a government which has delivered $64 billion worth of investment and reform in Australia's schools. That is almost double what was delivered by those opposite in the last four years of the Howard government. This investment has been delivered, in large part, through a historic nation-building school infrastructure program.

Often, when I visit schools and have the great opportunity to open new school infrastructure, principals and members of the school community say: 'This really is historic, isn't it? It is hard for me to ever have imagined in my working life that we would see a federal government that would have the vision and the foresight to invest in the school infrastructure of the future.' And they speak to me about the impact the new school infrastructure is making on the educational achievements of their schools. There are schools like Amaroo School which is now able to engage in team teaching thanks to newly designed rooms with walls that open up between the classrooms. For example, a teacher who is a superstar in literacy and one who is doing great work in numeracy might be placed in classrooms side-by-side so that they learn from each other in a team teaching environment.

The new school infrastructure allows investment such as in Black Mountain School where, for the first time, a student in a wheelchair who is receiving an award does not have to stay in front of the stage to receive the award, but can go onto the stage and receive the award just like the students who are able to walk onto the stage. It is a simple piece of infrastructure that provides dignity to the school and to the school community.

The member for Sturt has really become increasingly hysterical over the school funding issue. It is another scare campaign and it is a divisive and inflammatory scare campaign. It is not something that, sadly, we should be surprised about from the current opposition which is opposing absolutely everything that is put forward. The member for Sturt is at odds with his former Liberal Party colleague Brendon Nelson who has acknowledged that the system needs reform and that the funding maintenance was a transitional measure put in place a decade ago.

The member for Sturt is, of course, committed to the Gonski review, but is also committed to continuing the current SES funding model. It is a particularly confused approach that the member for Sturt is pursuing. The Gonski review is a once in a generation chance and an opportunity to really think hard about the best school funding model for the future. That is what a responsible government does. We pursue policies aimed at the long game, policies aimed at getting school funding right for all students. The government has provided some certainty in the parameters that sit around this review. We have said that no school will lose a dollar of funding as a result of the review. We said that current funding arrangements for non-government schools will be extended to the end of 2013 and to the end of 2014 for capital funding. The panel has been asked to provide advice on appropriate transitional arrangements to help schools move easily and fairly to any new funding arrangements. As I noted earlier, the Gillard government has made record investments in these schools. These schools have benefited to a large extent through the record investments made under this government.

The Smarter Schools National Partnership is yet another form of investment that has been put in place. In the ACT schools national partnerships for low SES school communities and improving teacher quality have led to more than $500,000 in facilitation funding. On 28 June more than $1.9 million in reward funding was provided to the ACT for its progress in achieving the targets set under the National Partnership on Literacy and Numeracy. I am particularly proud to serve in a government which has invested so much in public and in private schools across the board.

Unfortunately, the coalition has continued its scare campaign. The member for Sturt told the House of Representatives on 3 March of this year that:

It has long been the coalition's policy to maintain the existing SES funding model ...

Yet, he said to the Christian Schools National Policy Forum on 23 May:

This review process is welcome and needed. ...

So, it is very hard to see where the member for Sturt sits on this issue. Of course, we in the Gillard government will continue the long work of reforming and investing in our schools because we know that a great education is great economic policy, great social policy and, of course, great education policy.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion put forward by the member for Sturt, the shadow minister for education, and I would advise the member for Fraser, who I was listening to very carefully before, to read very carefully the motion that is before the House. It appears to me that in his entire speech he did not talk about the funding mentioned in the motion, the risk to independent schools because the government is not prepared to guarantee funding.

When the Prime Minister said that she was going to undertake the Review of Funding for Schooling she said that school funding should be based on 'simplicity, flexibility, stability, equity, value for money, transparency and best practice'. That might all sound fine but, sadly for the parents of Australia and particularly for the parents in my electorate of Higgins, she neglected to include in that list of items what has been a touchstone in education funding since Menzies first provided government funding for non-government schools—that is, the fundamental principle of choice. This side of the House very strongly believes that it is fundamental for parents to have the choice as to where they send their child to school. Parents best understand the needs of their child. They best understand what school will meet their child's academic needs, sporting needs and extracurricular needs. They also best understand the values that they hold dear, the school that they think best reflects those values and the sorts of innovative educational practices that they would like their child to experience.

The mantra from the opposite side of the House has been that government funding should be focused on schools not on students. I think it is important for us to look at the facts. In my home state of Victoria, according to the 2008-09 figures, indep­endent schools received $5,143.25 per student. By contrast, government schools—and this is the combined government funding—received $12,381.53 per student. So, when you look at the funding per student, independent school students in Victoria receive less than half the amount that government school students receive. The majority of funding for independent schools, around 66 per cent, comes from parents and from the school community. It is estimated that in the state of Victoria this saves taxpayers around $1 billion and that when you look at it nationwide it saves just over $3 billion. Yet it is clear from the latest funding review and from the lack of government commitment to maintain funding for schools in real terms—in particular they are completely silent on the issue of index­ation—that Latham's ghost still haunts the policy mantra of the government. In fact, Julia Gillard is haunted by Latham a little bit like Banquo's ghost.

We are seeing here the revival of the hit list on schools. Of the 42 schools in my electorate of Higgins, 19 are already on that hit list—schools like St Mary's School, St Joseph's Primary School, The Currajong School, Holy Eucharist School, Korowa Anglican Girls School, Lauriston Girls School, Loreto Mandeville Hall, Our Lady of Lourdes School, Our Lady of Victories Primary School, Presentation College, St Anthony's Primary School, St Catherine's School, St Cecilia's Primary School, St Roch's Primary School, Geelong Grammar School Glamorgan, The King David School, Sacre Coeur, De La Salle College and St Kevin's College. Combined, these schools are going to lose $29 million, if they lose the indexation going into 2017. This is going to come at significant cost. Of course these schools will have to either increase fees or cut what they are offering. In some cases schools have told me that they will in fact close their doors.

But this is only the start of the govern­ment's radical agenda. It is very fitting that we should be discussing this motion today because of course the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate. Lee Rhiannon has had a lot to say on the issue of school funding. We know already that the Greens would like to stop all government funding for independent schools. They have brought motions before the New South Wales parliament in order to be able to achieve that. We are going to see similar motions introduced into the Senate. This government are in coalition with the Greens. They need to stand up for Australian students. They need to guarantee funding; otherwise, education is at risk.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is important to start this debate by saying that Australia has a world-class education system that is providing top outcomes for all children who attend schools in Australia. The principals, the teachers, the staff and parents I meet when I visit schools in Oxley, and in other places as well, are hardworking and dedicated people. I acknowledge that there are issues in the system that need to be fixed, and that is why this government is working hard doing the things that the previous government did not do to address those specific issues.

The motion put by the member for Sturt is nothing more than scaremongering and fear tactics and bears no relationship to the reality of school funding or to the issues that we are dealing with here today. In reality, and as best as is possible, this government is doing the hard work that was not done in the past. The Gillard government is backing its commitment to a great education for all students, not just schools, with record investment in schooling of over $64 billion across four years in government and non-government schools. That is almost double the amount that was invested by the previous government in their last term. We are committed to ending the ideological war regarding school funding that has gone on in this country for almost 50 years—far too long—and that is why we have tasked a panel of eminent Australians, led by Mr David Gonski, to conduct the Review of Funding for Schooling. We have made it clear to the panel that the review needs to be an open and transparent process, with all Australians who care about the future of schooling given a chance to have their say, and that is exactly what is taking place, with thousands of submissions from people and stakeholders right across the country. People do have a view—a strong view. It ought to be about the educational outcomes of individual students.

A thriving and fully-functioning education system needs to include both government and non-government schools. Each of them plays a vital and important role. All schools in Australia play an important role in reflecting the diversity in Australian society. It is we who are breaking down the barriers that have existed for far too long. But every time I hear speeches from the opposite side they want to reintroduce the ideological warfare. They want to reintroduce the discus­sions about private versus public and government versus non-government. We thought that that debate was long gone, buried and dead, and it is not we on the government side who are talking about those issues. We are talking about reform. We are talking about funding. We are talking about changing a system which everybody agrees no longer works—a system that is opaque, that is complex and that muddies the waters in terms of educational outcomes. Yet the opposition want to have it both ways. You hear the member for Sturt in this place saying that he fully supports the review by David Gonski but, at the same time, he does not want it. Those opposite want to keep the old system but, at the same time, they want reform. It is simple: you cannot have it both ways; you cannot walk both sides of the street. It is far too easy for people like the member for Sturt to come into this place when in opposition and basically introduce scaremongering, fear tactics, and a campaign that just opposes, when everybody knows and acknowledges in the education sector that there needs to be significant change.

We cannot continue with the old system, we cannot continue with the ideological division and we cannot continue with these old tired debates of one school versus another, of a government school versus a non-government school. It ought to be about educational outcomes; it ought to be about individual students; and it ought to be about their needs to make sure that, in the end, their education, a world-class education, is the government's No. 1 priority. That is why this government stands firm on the Gonski review to make sure that we get it right, to make sure that we have a transparent, open process—a process that is simpler, a process that delivers funding to all students and to all schools and that it does so fairly and equitably and for the right reasons.

We have made it clear through this process that we have not as yet made a decision on an outcome, because an outcome cannot be made until we see the recomm­endations of the review. But we have made this clear: no school will lose a single dollar per student as a result of this review. It is important to note that. Government needs to make that commitment so that we can ease the fears that are being placed in the hearts and minds of students, teachers and parents. Current funding arrangements for non-government schools have also been extended to the end of 2013 and for capital funding to the end of 2014. All of this is being done at a time when this government has been at the forefront of delivering what is once-in-a-generation funding to schools and capital investment through the Building the Education Revolution. Halls, schools and buildings are working to help deliver a better educational outcome. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the motion put forward by the member for Sturt. I would suggest that the House acknowledges the importance of all education sectors in the provision of education for children regardless of whether they are in the government or non-govern­ment sector. If we as a nation want to capitalise on and improve the pathways for society and our quality of life then education is a significant element in achieving that. I also want to say that parents choose schools for educational, religious and socioeconomic reasons, and for those choices we should not diminish them but rather allow them that opportunity. Their decision to pay for an element of education should never be diminished by the fact that this Australian government has a responsibility to all.

The funding, whilst guaranteed, does not include the CPI indexing or future arrangements beyond 2013 and 2014. In my electorate of Hasluck, non-government schools such as La Salle College, Lumen Christi College, Mary's Mount Primary School, Matthew Gibney Catholic Primary School, Mazenod College, Sacred Heart Primary School and St Brigid's College all stand to be unfairly prejudiced by the Gillard Labor government. The coalition of course supports a funding model that encourages private investment in non-governments schools and allows them to receive adequate support in real terms from government. Disappointingly, Labor has made no such commitment beyond 2013 when the current funding model is due to expire. For example, La Salle College in Middle Swan, which has a fantastic sporting and Indigenous student program, stands to lose more than $547,000 under Labor's plans. Then there is Mazenod College in Lesmurdie, which faces the loss of over $864,000. And $230,000 would disappear from Mary's Mount Primary School, while St Brigid's College will have more than $1 million slashed from its budget if the Gillard government gets its way.

Recently, I ran the Hasluck Leadership Awards, a non-partisan search for young leaders within our secondary public and private schooling systems. One of the two finalists came from St Brigid's College. Her family are not 'elite' as the Greens and Labor's left would describe them.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This student is the child of hard-working people who have dedicated their resources to seeing their child receive the sort of education they have chosen for her. The member for Moreton would probab­ly have a number of constituents within his electorate who are facing the same problems. So I would hope that he would support funding that is of an equal nature to all students in his electorate. For her parents, that choice lies within the non-government schooling sector.

The Australian government should continue to support the right of parents to choose a school for their children that best reflects their values and beliefs and it should not penalise them for contributing financially to their children's' education. We have always encouraged people to make choices in many areas of life, and this equally applies to education. Imagine the strain that would be placed on the government system if hundreds of thousands of students with diverse talents, needs and requirements descended upon the government school sector if the non-government school sector collapsed in certain areas. The non-government schooling sector is invaluable in this regard. It takes a significant load off the public system.

This motion is not about criticising the government system. I have worked inside the government education sector as a teacher, as a district director and as a director of Aboriginal education, but I have equally worked with Catholic education and other non-government schooling sectors within Western Australia. I see the value of all sectors in providing educational pathways for our students. I believe that we should guarantee levels of funding, including CPI indexing, to enable those systems to continue to expand and provide the educational services that parents choose. Non-government schools by their very nature require significant funds from parents, and this is naturally supported by both sides of parliament. My own two sons went through public sector schooling, and their pathways were no different in choice nor quality of education from those in each of the various sectors.

I fully support the motion on behalf of the strong non-government schooling sector in my community of Hasluck and the hardworking parents who support it. Both need to be protected; both need to be funded. I support the motion. I want us to consider the educational needs of all children within the Australian society. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief. I have a few quick facts. This will be the first time since 1973 that funding arrangements for schools have been reviewed. It is time to have another look. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have been in about grade 4 back then and things have moved on a bit since then. Obviously we need to have a look at it. The reality is Labor has a proud tradition of investing in schools and those opposite not so much.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 12 noon, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.