Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of the many issues and topics we debate in this chamber, there are few more important than education. It is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the first defence of the nation. As I said to the House in my maiden speech nearly two years ago, there is bipartisan agreement with Menzies' proposition that 'lack of money must be no impediment to bright minds', but it is at this point that the ideological battleground begins.

We on this side of the political divide believe that parents have a fundamental right to choose the type of school they send their child to. Be it government or nongovernment, this individual choice should be supported and encouraged, representing as it does a central tenet of liberal philosophy. In contrast, for many of our opponents on the other side, non-government schools are simple 'necessary evils' that they must live with but never accommodate. Such a view not only leads to counterproductive educational outcomes but by definition is inequitable, denying parents as taxpayers equal government support for their choice of non-government schools to educate their children. This inequitable outcome is a bitter irony given that the central motivation for those on the left, who seek to reduce funding for non government schools, is their innate but misguided desire to produce a more equitable distribution of government monies.

So what do the Greens—the party who hold the balance of power in the Senate and who are in coalition with the Labor Party in government and received nearly 1.5 million first preference votes at the last election, including 18.5 per cent of voter in Kooyong—propose for non-government schools in their education policy? The answer is twofold: significantly less funding equivalent to billions of dollars per year and substantially more regulation of an intrusive and discriminatory kind. If you thought Mark Latham's 2004 hit list of private schools was bad, the Greens' policy takes this sentiment much further. In the words of Independent Schools Victoria chief executive Michelle Green, it represents 'Latham on steroids'. It would, in the words of the Victorian Director of Catholic Education, Stephen Elder, 'force school closures, increase fees, and change the ability of Catholic schools to be genuinely Catholic'.

So let us take a closer look at their current policy document, first issued in March 2010 and now available on the Greens website. Paragraph 65 commits the Greens to reduce funding for private schools to 2003-04 levels. In that year, according to data from the report on government services, non-government schools were responsible for educating 1.04 million students and received in recurrent expenditure $6,621 per student, and government schools, who were responsible for educating 2.25 million students, received $11,866 per student. Roll those numbers a few years forward and, based on 2009-10 data, recurrent expenditure per student is $14,380 for government schools and $7,427 for non-government schools. It is easy to see that, in real terms, public funding to government schools has increased at a far greater rate than it has for non government schools.

Based on these numbers, should the Greens get their way and go back to 2003-04 levels, funding for non-government schools will significantly decrease, opening up the door to higher school fees, worsening teacher-student ratios and less funding for capital works. The Greens simply fail to understand that many parents who send their children to non-government schools do so at great personal expense. They are forced to prioritise already tight budgets to choose a school with the right culture and values to suit their child. It is a choice that now sees 34 per cent of all students attending non-government schools, reaching 42 per cent at years 11 and 12. What is more, between 2004 and 2007 enrolments in non-government schools grew by 21.9 per cent compared to only 1.1 per cent at government schools. By sending their kids to non-government schools, parents are cross-subsidising the public education system to the tune of, on average, $6,000 per child per year. When it comes to the Greens policy it is not just this adjustment to the 2003-04 funding levels that they propose that causes concern; it is a host of other policy pronouncements too.

In paragraph 62, the Greens want 'proper consideration of the resource levels of non-government schools and their financial capacity, including fees and other parent contributions'. This opens a Pandora's box of issues, for currently under the SES funding model moneys raised by schools through philanthropic efforts or fees do not impact their government funding. But the Greens would dispense with this and, by making the connection with federal funding, would put in place invidious disincentives for schools to raise more funds from their own parent body. So too in paragraph 62, the Greens want 'non-government schools to be fully accountable to the parliament and therefore transparent to the public on their use of government funds and their financial situation, including all income and assets'. One could envisage each school principal and parent body chairperson being hauled before Senate estimate type committees to expound on the 'true state' of their balance sheet and all manner of expenditures. In paragraph 64, the Greens say they want to 'end public subsidies to the very wealthiest private schools'. What constitutes in their eyes a very wealthy private school could be the antithesis of what it is in reality.

In paragraph 63, the Greens say they want to 'ensure that non-government schools in receipt of government funding do not discriminate in hiring of staff or selection of students' and 'have an admissions and expulsion policy similar to public schools'. This is Orwellian in the extreme. Who would administer such a policy? And who would adjudicate in the event of a dispute? This very idea of dictating to non-government schools removes exactly the independence and autonomy that has made these schools so effective.

I could go on. In paragraph 18, the Greens seek to reverse 'excessive increases in Commonwealth funding to non-government schools in recent years'. But, as has been pointed out, schools have not received excessive increases at all, either in absolute or real terms. One has only to look at each of these Green policies to see that they are of concern. When you look at them in total they are really alarming. What this motion today seeks to do is to hold the Greens to account for their policies and to make clear to their fellow travellers in the Labor Party that funding for non-government schools must not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In responding to the Gonski review the government and the Greens have an opportunity to affirm their commitment to the non-government school sector. This is what I and the coalition will be looking for.

I understand that a lot of work was put into the Gonski review, with over 7,000 written submissions, hundreds of meetings, 26 findings and 41 recommendations to show for it. But there are real questions that remain unanswered. What would a new, bigger bureaucracy, in particular school planning authorities and national resourcing bodies, do? Will indexation to non-government schools be maintained? If it does not, it could cost the non-government school sector up to $4.2 billion over four years. Is NAPLAN, which is a diagnostic tool, truly appropriate to determine funding as is being proposed? And what does the 'anticipated capacity of parents' really mean for the new resource standard? Ultimately, where will the money come from, because the Gonski review has recommended that at least $5 billion annually should be found, but this government in its recent budget allocated only $5 million to take this review a step further. These are the questions that we should be looking at. In my electorate of Kooyong the one big industry is our schools. I have over 52 schools, of which 30 are non-government, 13 are Catholic and 17 are independent. There are more than 30,000 school students in my electorate. This is the No. 1 issue. Parents send their kids to these independent and Catholic schools because they are aspirational, because it is a religious choice and because they are seeking a school that is consistent with their values and the educational outcomes that they seek. This is why I support the motion and this is why it deserves to be supported by this chamber.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, this is an example of politics above policy. The inference in this motion is that there is some move afoot to reduce funding to non-government schools, This is simply not the case. The motion wants to exploit the fears of some teachers and parents about how the government might respond to the Gonski review. That review was exhaustive and detailed, and provided a roadmap for where we can go in terms of future support for schools. But in the period immediately following the announcement of the review the Prime Minister committed that no school in any sector will lose a dollar in funding per student from the review of the school funding arrangements we have in this country.

The government does not support any proposal to reduce funding to non-government schools. In fact, I am proud today that the government has invested over $65 billion in schools over the last four years—double the funding the coalition provided in its last term. We have arguably the most enviable record on spending in our school system for both government and non-government schools.

I do not have to look far to see the benefit of the record funding in schools, with 32 schools in Chifley receiving funding under one of the three Smarter Schools National Partnerships. Most of these were funded under the low-SES national partnership, which is supporting student engagement and attendance through whole-of-school strategies and also providing targeted intervention for specific groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This funds reforms in leadership, teaching and learning in about 1,700 schools nationally.

Other schools in Chifley received funding from the literacy and numeracy national partnership, providing individualised support for students and targeted professional learning for school leaders and classroom teachers. Six schools in the Chifley electorate benefited from the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program, which provides schools the opportunity to employ either a religious chaplain or a secular student welfare worker. In last year's budget, we committed to an increase of some $222 million for this program, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

As of term 1 this year, the government's computers in schools program had distributed 8,672 computers to 25 schools in the electorate that I am proud to represent. This $2.4 billion investment across our nation's schools is designed to harness the potential of technology to transform teaching and learning in our schools.

With a large population of Aboriginal students in Chifley, it is great to see targeted funding to help lift school attendance and engagement for local students. Under the Focus Schools Next Steps program Marayong Public School in Chifley has received just a shade over $250 000 to provide extra training, resources and temporary employment of extra staff to achieve the program objectives.

In March, I was delighted to join with my colleague the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in opening the Greater Western Sydney Performing Arts Centre at Plumpton High School, funded to the tune of just over $2 million under the Local Schools Working Together Program. I was really proud about this because the centre will be shared by students from Plumpton Public School, Plumpton House School, William Dean Public School, Glendenning Public School, Good Shepherd Primary School and the Australian Islamic College of Sydney. This program encourages government, Catholic and independent schools to work together to develop a shared educational facility to increase the benefits of government investment in capital infrastructure.

We always have a lot of platforms to be able to promote athletic achievement of students, and there are other avenues to put a spotlight on academic achievement. When I visit a lot of the schools in my area, I am proud to see the performing arts and creative arts talent that exists out our way but does not necessarily have the physical infrastructure to support it. This centre, through its design, its consideration of acoustic features and its layout, is providing something of quality to the people and young people in Western Sydney to be able to develop their performing and creative arts talent. I am particularly pleased that our investment will be able to foster that within them.

Again, this is not focused on the system; it is focused on the student. It has not focused on government or non-government; it has sought to bring schools together from across systems and to provide greater opportunities for students in our area. It is a very tangible way in which the government supports non-government schools, and that is on top of the Capital Grants Program, which has provided funding to schools over and above state and territory contributions. It is also funded from school community and block grant authorities.

In the three years from 2009 to 2012, capital grants totalling over $4.2 million were provided to nine independent and Catholic school building projects in our area. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to spruik in this place the great educational and employment benefits being provided to students in Chifley, for example, through another good program, trade training centres. Fourteen million dollars has benefited seven schools in the suburbs of Blacktown, Doonside, Hassall Grove, Marayong, Mount Druitt and Rooty Hill through three trade training centres, and a further million dollars is committed to another trade training centre.

I am particularly pleased to see that we have lifted the opportunities for students, particularly those from a low-income background, to go to university through the University of Western Sydney. But, for students who do not see that as their path, they can pursue vocational training through trade training centres in our area. This is something that I am particularly proud of and that a lot of parents, schools and industries in our local area have been happy to see.

In the 2012-13 budget, $13.9 billion has been allocated to schools and youth programs to lift science and maths education. I was pleased to attend a briefing given upstairs by Nobel laureate and physicist Professor Brian Schmidt. He has done work here in Australia, and the type of work we are trying to do to promote science and maths in schools potentially could promote further great work in this area.

I want to end on these points: the Gonski report proposed a funding model which would see every school in the country funded under the same system. It would be fair, transparent and effective. In our area, principal Mark Burnard, from the Chifley College Bidwell Campus said: 'It is not about the system; it is about the student—that is, to focus on student needs, regardless of what system they are in.'

What we have seen from the member for Kooyong, from the member for Higgins and from a lot of those opposite is this slow-burning campaign designed to whip up the fears of parents about where funding will go to into the future, who will gain and who will lose out. In our area, regardless of whether someone is in a government or non-government school, my main priority is to see funding lifted, particularly for students from a low-income background to ensure they have the support required. They were neglected in the years of Howard government and you guys are seeking to whip up fears again. It does not hold those opposite in good standing. With a noted savings target of $70 billion to be ripped out by those opposite, it will be interesting to see if the passion and fervour which we are seeing demonstrated in relation to school funding will be there in years to come should those opposite be in government. As I said, $65 billion invested by us in school spending over four years is under the $70 billion target that those opposite want to rip out. The opposition spokesperson, the member for Sturt, has refused to rule out where savings will be made in this budget, yet those opposite go around trying to whip up fears about what might happen post Gonski. Frankly, if they were serious about policy, they would put their policy forward, but they simply do not have that there. All they do have is a scare campaign, as it always is.

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

I commend this motion from my friend and colleague the member for Kooyong. Like the member for Kooyong, I believe that all Australian children deserve a high-quality education that enables them to develop the skills necessary to realise their potential. Within my electorate of Higgins there are 39 schools educating the next generation of Australians. Twenty-three of these are non-government and 16 are government schools. I regularly visit these schools and am constantly impressed by the students, staff and families; their professionalism; and their real commitment to the education of children. As such, I am particularly concerned regarding the Greens' policy to drastically reduce the funding of the non-government education sector. Point 65 of the Greens' education policy states that they:

… support the maintenance of the total level of Commonwealth funding for private schools at 2003-04 levels (excluding that re-allocated under previous clauses), indexed for inflation.

But before we turn the funding clock back and given the real importance of education to our country's future, I would like once again to take the opportunity to dispel some of the pervading myths and misunderstandings surrounding education—in particular its funding.

In Australia government funding favours government schools, as it should. In fact, when funding from both federal and state and territory governments is taken into account, total government recurrent expenditure per government school student is $14,380 per annum as compared to $7,427 for non-government school students. The state and territory governments provide most, though not all, of the government school funding and the federal government provides most, though not all, of the funding to non-government schools. In short, from a taxpayer's perspective every child that attends a non-government school receives roughly half the government subsidy that the same child would if he or she were to attend a government school. Yet clearly the Greens are not satisfied with the current funding arrangements. They seek to turn back the funding clock 11 years.

So what would it mean? How would reducing funding to 2003-04 levels affect the 1.2 million Australian students in the non-government sector? What impact would the Greens' policy have on both non-government and government schools? I am dismayed to say that the Greens' policy would threaten the ongoing viability of nearly 300 schools across Australia. More specifically, recent reports suggest that 90 schools in Victoria, 79 in New South Wales, 62 in Queensland, 32 in Western Australia, 21 in South Australia, nine in the ACT, five in Tasmania and one in the Northern Territory would struggle to remain open. With a massive reduction in their revenues, independent schools would be forced to increase fees, reduce their educational programs or, most probably, a combination of both. In turn, if fees rise, independent schools become less accessible to Australian families. Many Australian families already make significant financial sacrifices in order to provide for their children's education. An increase in fees inevitably means that many families would be unable to find the additional money required.

It is worth repeating what I have previously said in this place: if just 10 per cent of students in the non-government sector switched to government education, 120,000 students would have to be immediately accommodated—not next February but next week. One hundred and twenty thousand new students in the government sector represent over 4,000 new classes. Where will the 4,000 new teachers come from? How will they be paid? Where will the students learn? Will there be 4,000 new demountable classrooms provided at short notice? How will current school facilities and resources cope? How much would all of this cost? Finally, how on earth does this improve student outcomes for any child or school in Australia?

As we in this place all know, the Greens hold considerable political power. As partners with the Labor government and the party that seeks to hold the balance of power in the Senate, they have enormous influence on the policy and legislation that affects the lives of all Australians now and into the future. So, what has been the Labor reaction on the school funding issue? They commissioned the Gonski review that recommended an additional $5 billion investment. What did we see from the Gillard-Swan budget? We saw $5.8 million, not $5 billion, over two years. What is this $5.8 million for? The answer is that it is for further research into their school funding changes. Yes, sadly, this is not some sick joke. The current school funding model expires at the end of next year. Schools, like all enterprises, need certainty to plan for the future. Unbelievably, the government still remains mute on the issue of whether school funding will continue to be indexed to keep abreast of rising educational costs. After five years of talk and an in-depth two-year Gonski review, why cannot Mr Garrett or his predecessor, Ms Gillard, simply answer the question? Either they will continue indexation or they will not, yes or no.

This is a real concern within my electorate. There are schools that are genuinely worried about their future and that of their students. In fact, if the Gillard government does not continue indexation, there will be 22 schools in Higgins which will have a shortfall of $29 million. If indexation is discontinued, fees will rise, programs will be reduced and students will be forced into government schools to the detriment of all. The Liberal Party understands the very real and negative impact that this will have.

In March the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and I visited Presentation College in my electorate to meet with staff and students. Presentation College is an amazing school. It is an open entry school with a commitment to maintaining broad access to Catholic education for middle- and low-income families. Its students come from 114 suburbs and speak 26 languages at home. Students' families are of diverse backgrounds, from newly arrived migrants, artists and families in welfare housing to professionals and business people. Schools like Presentation dispel the myth that non-government schools are all elite. In fact, approximately 18 per cent of its students receive the education maintenance allowance. If funding indexation is discontinued, the school could lose as much as $2.5 million over four years from 2013 to 2017. This is approximately $3,800 per student.

Just a few weeks later the Hon. Christopher Pyne, shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, and I met with the principal and school council members of Greek Oakleigh Grammar School. So concerned is this school community that the principal wrote to me on behalf of his 500 students and their families regarding 'the cloud of uncertainty about the future of funding'. The principal was well aware that a reduction in indexation alone would mean a reduction in funding of $1.6 million over four years from 2013 to 2017. This is approximately $2,942 per student.

I assured him that, while the coalition offered funding certainty including funding indexation, the ALP remained deaf to their concerns. The issue of school funding clearly illuminates the fundamental difference between the Greens, the ALP and the coalition. In the coalition you have a party committed to certainty of school funding, a party that understands the importance of school autonomy and community engagement, a party that respects that families are best placed to choose the right place for their children to go to school and, fundamentally, a party that is much more concerned with the educational outcomes of all students than on who actually operates the school.

On the other side of the House you have the ALP and their partners the Greens. They are parties fixated on undermining the independent sector. They are ignorant of the need for certainty to enable schools to prosper. They are contemptuous of the role of principals and the community in schools. They think that for government schools to succeed independent schools must suffer.

I hosted a forum on schools funding in my electorate and invited principals, school officials, teachers, parents and students to have their say. They said with one voice, 'No,' to a hit list on independent schools. If the Prime Minister and her education minister have any integrity, they would too.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another sad moment in our parliament, I am afraid. Always go the fear line. Talk about something that is not going to happen, make people afraid of it, make up a few things and make a few motherhood statements that we all agree with anyway. Go the fear line—that is what we get from the opposition, and it is particularly a shame at this point because we are engaging at the moment in a very important review of school funding. It is the first national review of school funding in almost 40 years. It is well and truly overdue and it is incredibly important work.

Under the model proposed by the Gonski review panel, every school in the country would be funded under the same system. The system would be sector blind. The government has made that completely clear. We have said it will be a fair, transparent and effective system that will give schools long-term certainty about their funding levels. All of the investments so far have been sector blind. If you do not believe what we say we might do in the future, perhaps we should show you the money. Since the member for Riverina and the member for Kooyong having been interjecting 'show me the money' for most of the speeches so far, let us have a look at where the money is. The money has been totally sector blind.

We invested over $65 billion in schools over four years—almost double the coalition in their last term. It included $2.4 billion for the Digital Education Revolution, which has delivered a computer for every student in years 9 to 12—not every student just in public schools but every student in every school. That is 911,000 computers. We invested $2.5 billion in trade training centres. It was available to every high school to apply and they did. In my electorate I have been to the openings of language centres and science labs in public schools and in private schools. As part of the Building the Education Revolution program the government invested $16.2 billion in almost 24,000 projects at 9½ thousand schools—again, not just the state schools but all schools, sector blind.

The Gillard government is also making significant investments to improve educational outcomes of all school students. It is making available $2.5 billion in funding for the Smarter Schools National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy and to assist schools in low socioeconomic status areas. In my electorate, those funds went to schools in the public sector and in the private sector. The doubling of funding since the coalition government has been sector blind. So look at the record, for a start. Nobody could look at the record and accuse us of being anti-private school in any way. If you look at all of the statements made about the Gonski review and the consultation process that is going on now, again no reasonable person could make the judgment that we are in any way anti-private schools—no way in the world.

It is an interesting debate that happens around this current parliament. We have seen a little bit of talk today about a Greens-Labor coalition and some really extraordinary things. The member for Kooyong has not been in the parliament that long, but he has certainly been alive long enough to have noticed what tends to happen in Australian parliaments because the Australian people pick it that way. They tend to give us one party in the House of Representatives, they tend to give us a different party in the state and they tend to put some minor parties in the balance of power in the Senate. There has not been a single Labor government since Federation that has had control of both houses. We have negotiated every single bill in every government that we have been in, and that is the way it is now.

There are reasons why the names of Brian Harradine, Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon are known. It is because for large periods of time those people had the balance of power in the Senate. The member for Lyne here, who is in the chair, and the member for New England were not as well known and probably were not household names up until this parliament in the way that Senator Harradine, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon were. That is because at the moment we have a hung parliament in the lower house. But it is not unusual for a government to have to negotiate with minor parties in order to get its bills through. What is unusual in this case is that the opposition is so incredibly uncooperative. Usually in a parliament where you have a balance of power in one house or the other—and usually it is the Senate for us—most of the bills are passed by the government and the opposition. In fact, in the first term of the Rudd government the government had to get the support of both Independents in order to get anything through the Senate. Because Senator Fielding usually voted with the opposition, we could not pass hardly anything without the support of the opposition. Yet, still, for most of that term around 95 per cent of the legislation was passed because we had an opposition with a different leader at the time who did what Australian oppositions have done for decades—and that is be an opposition that contributes constructively in trying to improve the quality of legislation.

The role of an opposition is not just to oppose. Given that the Australian people have given us every term except two a parliament where the government and the opposition needed to negotiate with each other in order to make things happen—there have been only two terms in Australian history where a government had control of the Senate as well; that was three years under Fraser and three years under Howard—if oppositions in Australia's history took the approach of the current opposition, which is to oppose everything, make as much mess as possible, brawl like crazy, throw punches and make dirt fly around so that the people cannot see what is going on, we would not have had any legislation at all.

A little bit of respect for the way the Australian people see our role is in order from this opposition—in fact, a lot of respect. They expect us to negotiate with each other. Over the history of Australian parliaments, it has served the Australian people well. I hate it. I would rather have control of both houses because then it would be much easier to do things. But the reality is that because both parties have had to get together and negotiate we have found a way of introducing legislation which stands the test of time. As one parliament passes to the next and government changes hands from one side to the other, the legislation which has been passed by the previous government in most cases has actually been partially negotiated. There has been a process, so that legislation tends to stand. Apart from the last part of the John Howard term when he introduced bills with total power that arguably went too far, and the people thought so too, and some of that was turned back quite quickly—of course, I am talking about Work Choices—I look back over a number of parliaments and what I see is that when governments change hands most of the legislation that has passed remains intact. That is because the Australian people—quite cleverly, I think, as it turns out—do this strange thing where they require some negotiation in one house or the other.

The parliament we are in now is an interesting one because that balance of power has moved from the Senate down into the House of Representatives. So suddenly there is a different group of people—the member for Lyne, the member for New England and the member for Kennedy—as the focus. But if the reality in the lower house also is that the opposition believes that funding to private schools should not be cut and the government believes that funding to private schools should not be cut and we both actually agree that schools should be funded under the same system, why is the opposition even talking about what the Greens think? We do not need the vote of the Greens if the opposition supports the same position we do. We actually have the vast majority. In fact, of 175 members of parliament across both houses we have all bar about 12. It is actually quite small. I have not done a count. But, again, if the opposition agrees with the government's position that we should be sector blind when it comes to funding schools and we should make sure that every child has the same access to a quality education as every other student, why on earth are we having this silly debate here? Why are we even talking about this? We agree, so therefore between the two of us we have the majority.

All you have to do is what every other reasonable, functioning opposition has done and come to the table and make your case and try to be part of the process. You oppose and oppose and oppose. That is not what the Australian people want. It is not the role of opposition simply to oppose; it is the role of opposition to engage constructively in the development of legislation, and it really is about time you did. (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support this very important motion from the member for Kooyong which rejects calls to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003-04 levels. As the motion rightly states, such a move would leave thousands of Australian school students at a great disadvantage.

School funding is a very important issue for the thousands of school children and their parents across the 19 non-government schools in the electorate of Ryan. At the time of the Gonski review these schools expected one of the most significant announcements on school funding for over 30 years. Instead, it is now more than three months since the Gonski review was released and non-government schools still do not have a firm commitment of support from this Labor government. Non-government schools had their expectations trashed and the end result is not clarity but confusion and not hope but despair at this government's failure to support non-government schools.

I support maintaining funding to non-government schools because doing so achieves two key aims. Firstly, it serves as a very important avenue for providing choice for Australian parents. Australia has seen a strong shift away from government to non-government schools in the last two decades because parents are becoming more and more involved in local schooling communities and want to invest their own after-tax funds on their children's education. Parents know and understand the value of holistic and comprehensive primary and secondary schooling. The non-government school sector is an integral way of ensuring that parents across Australia have a choice about the type of school to which they want to send their children. With a severe lack of autonomy in government schools across the country, non-government schools are the only way of matching the preferences of how they want their children educated.

Secondly, private schooling saves the government and the taxpayer money. As the Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association has noted, their schools receive an average of $4,902 per student in the current government funding compared to an average of $14,380 for students at government schools. As such, the PMSA schools, including Brisbane Boys' College in Ryan, save the Commonwealth and state governments more than $47 million in annual funding. The disparity in overall funding for all non-government schools across the country is then filled in the form of school fees, donations, fundraising and levies. Every year taxpayers are saved an estimated $5.1 billion as a consequence of parents choosing to send their children to non-government schools.

It is not a surprise, coming from a Labor government trying to ignite class warfare in Australia, that they want to attack non-government schools. Many parents already have it tough, with increasing cost-of-living pressures even before the onerous carbon tax. A reduction in funding would place huge pressures on the level of school fees now expected to be paid for out of parents' pockets.

I recently held an education forum in conjunction with the member for Brisbane, and I thank the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, for coming to Ryan and participating in that forum. On that day question after question was from concerned principals and parents, asking what the Gillard government plans to do with their funding. They wanted to know if the government is going to reduce funding back to the failed and unsatisfactory education resource index model. Parents and educators at non-government schools are rightly worried that the Gillard government will not commit to maintaining funding. They are worried that this will reduce government assistance in real terms and that, if parents are not able to meet the consequent forced rise in school fees, then their children will not be receiving the best education possible.

There are three questions that the coalition asks in a test for any new funding model. Those questions are: does it support choice in education? Does it encourage private investment? And is the new model based on need, using an objective allocation method? The recommendations and the proposed funding model in the Gonski review do not satisfy these three basic tests.

Firstly, there is no guarantee about indexation, which could push up fees and diminish the ability of parents to afford the school of their choice. Secondly, it is possible that schools may in fact be penalised for private investment and private contributions, which would act as a disincentive for parents to invest in their own schooling communities and would add to the burden of the average taxpayer. Thirdly, the coalition continues to support a statistically objective measure of using a school's socioeconomic status as a funding model.

All parents are concerned about the quality of education in this country. Education is the great enabler. At the federal level that means fulfilling our responsibility to provide sufficient funding to non-government schools to ensure that the Australian education system is world-class. We must therefore maintain funding to non-government schools so that Australian school students are not disadvantaged.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted that the member for Kooyong has been able to fight off the nascent political ambitions of the former Treasurer to enable him to bring this important motion before the House. It is an important motion because it enables members from all sides of the House to talk on an issue which, I know, is very dear to everyone's heart—that is, school education. I was very pleased to listen to some of the contribution by my parliamentary colleague the member for Ryan, who made a number of points about the importance of choice in education. That is where I would like to start my contribution.

I believe, with the member for Ryan, that choice is incredibly important. Let us be very frank: you simply do not have a choice if, as a parent, you are faced with the option of sending your child, whose education you value, to an underresourced, underfunded public school, which does not have the facilities, the teachers or the capacity to educate your child to the level you believe appropriate, and the only real option is to send your child to a nongovernment school. That is not real choice or, if it is, it is the sort of choice we often refer to as having your arm forced on a particular issue. I think parents should have the capacity to send their children to a school of their choice.

I am a product of the Catholic education system. I think it is fantastic. My parents made a choice to send me through the Catholic education system. A real choice should be made on the basis of a parent looking at the values or the course offerings of a particular school. A school might excel in music, in art, in engineering sciences, in sport or it might provide a particularly values-based education which is aligned to a faith. These are the real and valid choices for parents, but it is not valid for the government to construct or engineer, or for policymakers to engineer a situation where the only choice is for children to go to a nongovernment school because the government school is so woefully funded that it does not have the facilities to provide a decent education for families within its catchment area. I am delighted by the motion before the House and I am delighted that we are able to talk about the important issue of what really does provide choice to families when it comes to education.

I support the existence of the nongovernment school sector. If you want to say you are committed to education, look at what you do. In government, Labor has nearly doubled the amount of spending put towards the education budget. We are now at a record high spend of more than $65 billion over four years. We have either built or rebuilt facilities at every single Australian school. There have been over 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools, including over 500 language centres and science centres, 2,900 outdoor covered learning areas and around 3,100 libraries. So, if you want to look at commitment to education, look at what you have done—doubled the schools spending budget with over 24,000 individual projects.

The funding model proposed by the Gonski review would fund every school under the same system. I think that recommendation has much going for it. It would be a fair and transparent system, giving all schools long-term certainty about future funding levels. The educational achievements of this Labor government are considerable. I have talked about the Building the Education Revolution, but there are other initiatives.

I would like to talk about some of the initiatives which are very important in my own electorate of Throsby where schools are benefiting from the literacy and numeracy program and the National Partnership Agreement on Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities, particularly primary schools in Cringila, in Kemblawarra, Koonawarra, Lake Heights, Lake Illawarra, South Mount Warrigal, Port Kembla and dozens of other schools within my electorate. We have put new trade training centres in schools within my electorate and the Computers in Schools program is delivering real benefits to schools. I was at a school function in the Great Hall where teachers were saying, 'It's such a fantastic program; are we going to get another round of it?' because the computers we have provided are near their retirement age. Labor's commitment to education is demonstrated by what we have delivered.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education underpins a successful society. Funding is an important issue where education is concerned. We must have a strong public school system and we must ensure funding of non-government schools to allow parents to have a choice as to where their children are educated. The Director of Schools in the Catholic Schools Office, Wagga Wagga, Alan Bowyer, appropriately stated last year, 'Education is a basic entitlement and all students, whether they attend a Catholic, an independent or a state school, have the right to be funded by government at a level that provides a balanced, rigorous and properly resourced education.'

Government funding substantially favours public schools when all government funding is taken into account. Figures for 2012 from the Productivity Commission show government recurrent expenditure per government school student is $14,380 compared to $7,427 for non-government school students. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show the number of students in the independent sector has increased by 35 per cent since 2001 compared with just a 12 per cent growth in the Catholic school sector over the same time.

In 2011 the split of students between government and non-government schools was 65.4 per cent and 34.6 per cent respectively compared to 69 per cent and 31 per cent in 2010. These figures reinforce the long-term drift for students from government to non-government schools. As more students are moving to non-government schools it is unimaginable that this government is calling to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003-04 levels. To do so would put at risk the financial viability of many non-government schools and leave many students disadvantaged.

In Australia 20 per cent of students attend a Catholic school. Statistics from 2010 show students in New South Wales were spread across the school system with most, 66 per cent, attending public schools, 22 per cent attending Catholic schools and 12 per cent attending independent schools. In my electorate of Riverina there is a strong Catholic school system and this is reflected on a wider scale, with 29 per cent of Catholic school students attending a Catholic school outside of metropolitan areas. Figures taken from the National report on schooling in Australia highlight that Catholic schools and non-government schools in general are underfunded when compared to state schools. In 2007-08 Catholic school students received on average only $7,865. Furthermore, the government, based on the same figures, provides 80 per cent of the recurrent funding needed for Catholic schools, with the remaining 20 per cent being raised by the schools and their communities.

Whilst non-government school critics cry foul over so-called overfunding for Catholic and non-government schools, the reality is that this is not the case at all. Many private schools depend on fundraising efforts by parents and friends associations. If the government were to remove funding from non-government schools it is likely they would be left with no choice but to close, leaving teachers without a job and forcing students to find a new school. Over the years 2003-04 to 2007-08, government funding to state schools increased 1.6 per cent a year in real terms, while funding to non-government schools decreased by 0.1 per cent.

This government believes that only the rich send their children to non-government schools and believes in the motto 'the rich can afford to pay it'. This government all too often lately has dealt the class warfare card, but families who choose to send their children to a non-government school are not necessarily rich and should not be treated differently to those who choose for their young ones to have a public school education. It is, as it should be, all about choice. Families with children in non-government schools, especially in regional areas, are not automatically privileged families. They are just hardworking Australian families. In fact many wealthy families choose to send their children to public schools due to the range of subject options.

There are many parents who start saving from the time their children are born or those who forgo the new car and family holidays to ensure that they can afford the best possible education for their child, an education they believe their children will receive at a non-government school. There are also many students in schools with a religious doctrine. Their parents should not be penalised for wanting to ensure, as well as an academic education, their children are also being taught the belief systems of their religion and receive a spiritual education. To decrease funding for non-government schools is to say to parents that they have no choice where to send their child, except to the local state school.

To take away funding from non-government schools would be a typical Labor attack on the rich, but the reality is that any removal of funding from non-government schools would have more widespread effects on a large group of middle-income Australians who are working hard to give their children the best start in life. This would be another slap in the face for Australians from this Labor government, which is hell-bent on imposing costs on Australian families, with no thought for the reality of its actions. Much has been said and written about the recent Gonski review, which gives this government the ideal opportunity to confirm its ongoing support for all education—government and non-government.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on this motion this evening. Needless to say, the Gillard government certainly does not support reducing non-government school funding. Those of us who are visiting schools in our electorates know very well indeed that this government has increased school funding across all sectors. But what is of interest to me this evening is not what is written on the Notice Paper in respect of this motion but what is behind the Notice Paper. Again, those of us who are out visiting schools in our electorates know that all schools across all sectors appreciate the very significant funding in terms of capital expenditure, school programs and all the other things that this government has supported in its five years, which has seen the education budget almost double in comparison to that which was left to us as the legacy of the Howard government. They know that we have made a very significant commitment to all sectors in the schooling system. At the same time, they know who does not support education in a real and practical way with funding. They know that, at the last election, the coalition took a package of cuts to school education. They cut a range of things, including capital expenditure, computers in schools and trade training centres—all the things that government and non-government schools alike take seriously and know well benefit their students and teachers.

It was breathtaking to hear, a short time before I came to this chamber, the shadow minister for education waxing lyrical about what he saw as the many and varied negatives of the Gonski review of school funding. While those opposite have talked about it being 'all about choice', for those of us on this side it is all about need. It is the reason why we commissioned the review in the first place, it is the reason why we are evaluating and taking seriously the significant findings of that review and it is the reason why we have been motivated to make such a significant commitment to education, including in my electorate, the member for Robertson's electorate and, indeed, the electorate of Deputy Speaker Adams.

The practical funding commitments that this government has made have seen the announcement of two trade training centres, which will benefit not just two schools in my electorate but a range of schools throughout the Dandenong Ranges and the growth corridor. The significant commitments in my electorate have seen funds delivered for computers in schools right around my electorate, including Belgrave Heights Christian School, St Francis Xavier College, St Joseph's College, St Margaret's School, Hillcrest Christian College, Lakeside Lutheran College and Mater Christi College. Those are just the non-government schools. Needless to say, there are also a range of government schools that have benefited from that program—a program which the coalition has been only too pleased to declare it would axe if given the opportunity.

We have seen a commitment of $110 million across 60 schools in my electorate during the last five years. Those funding commitments demonstrate the very real and very practical commitment of our government to school education. It is extraordinary to me that a motion such as this should come from the member for Kooyong and be supported by those on the other side. While we certainly support the resolution, it is extraordinary that on the one hand members are so prepared to be concerned about reduced funding for the school sector while on the other hand they have a shopping list of cuts that they propose to make. That does not even take into account the $70 billion black hole in their financial bottom line, which will inevitably mean more cuts for schools—cuts that they are reluctant to reveal in any significant way in public debate. The coalition are merely concerned with knocking the developments of this government, knocking the commitments that we have made and knocking the policy reforms that we are putting in place. While I am pleased to support this resolution tonight, it is appropriate for members to question the motivation and the reality that surrounds this resolution. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.