Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Human Services (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to schools funding.

Today we have seen the latest iteration in the coalition's twists and turns to avoid keeping the promises they made to the Australian people before the election. Everybody knows that education was a key issue in the election. Despite Mr Pyne describing the Gonski report and reforms, which are the foundation of Labor's Better Schools Plan, as a con, a 'conski', he had an 11th-hour conversion because it was very clear that this was a plan supported by teachers, by parents, by students and by schools across this country. Instead of the 'conski', as Mr Pyne called it, what we saw was a set of unequivocal commitments from this Prime Minister and this education minister that they would honour the agreements that the Labor government had made, that they would ensure that they would deliver precisely the same policy, that they would keep their promise to the Australian people and that there was a unity ticket when it comes to education. You only have to go through some of the quotes from the Prime Minister to see this:

TONY ABBOTT: (August 2, 2013): … We will make sure that no school is worse off.

The same day, he said, 'We will guarantee that no school will be worse off' and:

… every single school in Australia will receive, dollar for dollar, the same federal funding over the next four years whether there is a Liberal or Labor Government after September 7.

And he said: 'We will honour any deal that has been made. We will honour the agreements. We will honour any commitment which has been made. There is a unity ticket.' He went on and on. What have we seen since? We have seen the Prime Minister of this country not only refuse to give the same commitment when invited to give the same commitment; he actually said this:

We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made, or the promise that some people might have liked us to make.

So what he was saying to the Australian people just over 24 hours ago was: 'Sorry, you heard it wrong. You know when I said "unity ticket", you heard it wrong. When I said "no school will be worse off", oops, you heard it wrong. I'm sorry, you just must have misheard me.' This is the new standard from this Prime Minister, who said, 'We will keep our promises, but it is not actually the promise we made.' That was in the same interview where we saw the extraordinary exchange on the use of plurals and the singular. Apparently, when they said 'no school would be worse off', they actually meant 'no schools'—plural, because they want to talk about funding envelopes and quantum, and muddy it up. This is all part of a Prime Minister who is seeking to slide away from his election commitments.

What happened today? Just before question time, we saw the press conference you hold when you know you are sinking, the press conference you hold when you know the Australian people are on to you and are saying: 'You are breaking an election promise. You are breaking your commitment.' We saw the press conference you hold when you know your education minister is sinking, because that is the only explanation for a press conference where there is a complete reversal on a number of things Mr Pyne has said, including just a few days ago when he said he was going to completely renegotiate all the agreements. But, all of a sudden, it is: 'We didn't really mean that. You might have just heard that, but you heard that wrong. We didn't actually say that.'

What is absolutely clear is this: there was only one party before and after this election committed to properly funding our schools across this nation—that is, the Australian Labor Party. I also acknowledge the work of the Greens on this. On this issue, they do support proper funding and proper resourcing of education. What we saw today in question time as well was the latest round of weasel words. Before the election it was 'no school will be worse off', then we had a discussion about quantums and envelopes with Mr Pyne walking away from the commitments and the Prime Minister walking away from the commitments.

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, which is a correction to the point of order.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong has misled the chamber because, under Gonski, Junee High School, in my electorate, is going to lose—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we heard the latest round of weasel words, 'No school need be worse off.' The guarantee has changed. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I particularly take note of the comments made by Senator Wong, who went to a very good private school in Adelaide. But her concept of 'across the nation' seems to be rather lacking, when the plan Labor put in place for education, supposedly a national framework, left out a number of the states and territories. Her comment that this was a nationwide scheme shows a distinct lack of understanding of geography and demographics. The fact is that people live in states other than those signed up by the Labor Party.

I am also concerned about the concept of guarantee. The Commonwealth, which signed contracts with the independent and Catholic sector, for example, is in a position to guarantee that money, because it signed a heads of agreement for a contract to give a certain amount of money to the states. How those school systems spend that money is up to them, but the Commonwealth can guarantee that money. With a state system, because Australia is a federation where the Commonwealth government is a creature of the states, when the Commonwealth gives funding to the states it is a state government responsibility to allocate that funding. Without breaking the constitutional requirements around who is responsible for education in the state, the Commonwealth cannot guarantee what the states will do with that money. It is particularly puzzling that members opposite get quite so wrapped up in the fact that the government is quite correctly identifying that whilst we can guarantee funding to one sector all we can do is say we will give the same amount of money to state governments, but how they distribute it is up to them. There is nothing particularly remarkable about that statement of fact and the constitutional basis for it.

In terms of the agreements, there was a press conference before question time today that made a little redundant much of the speech Senator Wong has just given. Obviously the speech was prepared early this morning and perhaps it could have done with some judicial editing—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Judicial? Do you mean judicious?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

before she rose to take note of those answers. But negotiations with Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory mean that the government is now on track to have a national—and that means every state and territory—agreement around education funding.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New South Wales?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is important, because if we are to be a government taking seriously the future of every child in Australia, we should not be in the same situation as Labor found itself in the dying days of that bad government. Then the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister signed even bigger cheques, if required, to try and get states and territories to sign up for a blatantly political reason, so the then government could say it had the support of states. The money given and the conditions under which that money was given therefore differ from state to state, not for any particularly good or sound educational reason or for the future of our children, under agreements reached with those jurisdictions that signed. Senator Conroy rightly interjected that some of those states were Liberal states, but the then federal government's motivation was purely political in that it would do, say and pay anything to get states to sign up. That leaves us a shambles of a system where the money going to support a child in one state is different to the money going to support a child in another state or territory. That is hardly the basis for a national system to benefit our children in the future.

One of this government's early achievements from getting those states on board is that we are now on the path to a national system where we will be putting back into the system $1.2 billion of funding that Labor ripped out of the system.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of this matter. Senator Fawcett has a fundamental flaw in his argument—that is, prior to the election, coalition speaker after coalition spokesperson committed to the Labor government's funding model, which contained a whole series of conditions to maintain funding by the states and on which the Commonwealth would pay record levels of moneys to the states. The coalition, in opposition at that time, said they would match those commitments dollar for dollar, agreement for agreement, model for model. Now that is not the position, and today we have the third effort in a week by the government to try to clarify their position, which fundamentally boils down to repudiating an election commitment. They are repudiating their commitment to the people of Australia and to the students of Australia. Furthermore, today yet another election promise was broken.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order under standing order 72, that after question time we move a motion to take note of answers. My understanding of Senator Carr's contribution is that he is moving a motion to take note of matters. I am still unclear as to what those matters are.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Carr is speaking to the motion moved by Senator Wong.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Raising frivolous points of order will not help you at all. Today we have seen a further breach of promise, because the coalition prior to the election also said there would be no funding cuts from education. That was the position then, but today the Prime Minister announced that a further $1.2 billion in cuts from education would be announced straight after parliament rises this year—a further breach of promise. That is what was said, Senator Abetz, and he made the promise on 5 September 2013. He said:

… there will be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no change to the GST …

And now we have seen an announcement today that there will be a further series of budget cuts to education. What really interests me is that, prior to the election, the government of Western Australia was offered an extra $920 million funding by the Labor government. That offer was rejected by the Premier of Western Australia. Why is it that the total amount of money now being put to the non-signatory states today is only $1.2 billion?

One can only presume the commitments that the Premier of Western Australia made at the time, that he would get more money from an Abbott government than he would from a Labor government, have not been borne out. My understanding is that the offer from Mr Abbott is now substantially less than $920 million. You should ask yourself a simple question: why is it that the government of Western Australia would sign up, even in principle, to a proposition that would deprive the state of Western Australia of so much money?

One has to bear in mind that, clearly, it is part of the chicanery and the deception that is going on and part of the deceitful comments of the Prime Minister with regard to his cynical political manoeuvres on schools funding—a commitment made prior to the election that they could of course be on a unity ticket with Labor, a commitment made that there would be the same funding arrangements and the same funding models presented by Labor and that, if you voted Labor or Liberal, you would get the same deal on schools. Of course, that is clearly not the case, to the point where we are now seeing three separate plans announced inside a week.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three separate plans inside a week, when we are getting coalition education minister after coalition education minister in Victoria and New South Wales and Labor ministers in South Australia and Tasmania saying they want to see the agreements they have struck honoured. But you are not getting that from this government. Now we have a position from Senator Abetz where he says there is no need for schools to lose money. What a rock-solid commitment that is! No need! We know the answer and the minister in New South Wales has belled the cat. The cuts will be to government schools and that is the result of the sectarian policies that the government is seeking to reintroduce into the education debate in this country. But I come back to a simple proposition: why is it that the Western Australia Premier rejected $920 million from the Commonwealth Labor government, yet he accepts a far less amount from the Liberal government under Tony Abbott? Why is it? What is the deal? What is the special arrangement? And what does it mean for the Queensland government? Similar sorts of offers have been made to them and repudiated by them. What does it mean for the Northern Territory government, with similar sets of arrangements offered by Labor, rejected by conservative premiers and chief ministers? (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start where Senator Carr left off. With respect to a couple of the points he made, he seemed to be a little bit confused about the argument he was trying to prosecute. In taking up the case of WA, he in fact made the coalition's case. The only party that was taking money away from the people of WA was the Labor Party. That was part of the $1.2 billion that the Labor Party ripped out of education—from WA, Queensland and the Northern Territory. I am not sure which part of that Senator Carr does not understand. But he seemed to be quite confused in delivering his arguments.

I go to both Senator Carr's and Senator Wong's points. It is clear that the Labor Party always accuses other people of their worst sins. That is what we are seeing here in relation to this education debate. The party which were so dishonest in government are now trying to claim that the coalition is in fact no better. Let us look at the facts as we deal with it.

The Labor Party is now criticising the coalition government for delivering more money for education. The coalition has committed to delivering more money for education than would have been delivered had the Labor Party been re-elected. The Labor Party was to rip $1.2 billion out of education. Chris Bowen and Kate Ellis confirmed that they were to rip $1.2 billion out of education.

Another point to make is that we believe in a national funding agreement, not a funding agreement that goes to some states and territories but a national funding agreement which covers all six states and both territories. That is the fundamental difference. The coalition is now being criticised by those opposite for committing to the same amount of money for the states that signed up and also committing to an additional amount of money for those who will now sign up. That is what we are being criticised for in this chamber today.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You won't keep your promise!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have kept our promise. And the fundamental problem that the Labor Party seem to have is that they do not apparently trust their state and territory colleagues when they get the same amount of funding from the Commonwealth. When it comes to school funding, the Labor Party's position appears to be that they cannot trust the Tasmanian government to deliver fairly for the people of Tasmania. When it comes to school funding, the Labor Party's position in this place appears to be that they cannot trust the governments of South Australia and the ACT to deliver. That is the position of the Labor Party that they are putting to us today.

The coalition has agreed to honour the amount of funding that was committed to those states, to honour the agreement with the independent schools and the Catholic sector and to provide additional money that the Labor Party had committed to ripping out from the people of the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. That is the fundamental difference.

Minister Payne, I believe, could not have been any clearer in answering these questions during question time today, but, in fact, those very clear answers from Senator Payne have led to such a confused attack by the Labor Party in the Senate this afternoon. We saw the confusion from Senator Carr; we saw the confusion from Senator Wong. They cannot get their story straight. So let us just summarise what they are now criticising. They are criticising a coalition government for delivering the same amount of money to the four states and the territory that signed up and for delivering extra money which the Labor Party had ripped out and would have continued to rip out had they been re-elected. Those are the fundamental differences.

The coalition will not be lectured to by the Labor Party, whose record on trust is below par and whose record on education funding is below par, given they wanted to rip $1.2 billion from the Northern Territory, Queensland and WA. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that one of the joys of being in government is that, in moments like these, the minister will send you down some notes to be religiously followed, but I suggest to you, Senator: you ought to not do that. You should actually think about the issues, do some of your own research and not just parrot the notes that are put in front of you. I know it is not your fault.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't be so patronising!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know you are a bit sensitive about that, Senator Kroger, because we see you reading from those sorts of notes all the time. But what you ought to start to consider—

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm actually reading the Red at the moment.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not speaking to this debate. I am not suggesting you are reading from notes right now.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall, direct your comments to the chair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about when you make these contributions, Senator Kroger. Take some advice and actually think about the issue before you simply parrot what the minister has asked you to say. This is the same minister sending you notes who called the Gonski reforms a con—he called them a 'conski'.

The Liberal Party would have to be the only organisation in the whole of the country that did not appreciate that the schools funding model we had in place in this country was not working. It was failing our students. It must be the only party in the country that does not understand that education is the absolute key to our future economic prosperity. It is the cornerstone of all innovation and enterprise. If we do not get education right for our kids and for our future, it is the economic prosperity of everyone in this country that will fail. Everyone—the private school sector and the government school sector—knew the funding model was a failure and was not working. So the Labor government undertook massive reform to create a schools funding model that would take us through to the next generation by providing billions of dollars in extra funding where it was needed most: in delivering the education society that we need if we are going to compete on the global stage into the future. If we want to keep our economic prosperity in this country, we must get education right.

I think it is a shame that you finally worked that out only during the election campaign. After calling the Gonski reforms a con, you realised that you were alone—that parents, teachers, the private school sector, the public school sector and everybody else knew that we needed to move forward with extra funding, proper tied funding, proper responsibility and commitments at state and federal levels to improve government funding here. You finally came on board and you realised you were out of touch with the views of the rest of the community. So you desperately tried to make promises. Mr Abbott made the promise that there would be no difference between Labor and Liberal. He promised that, if you voted Labor or Liberal, you would get the same package of educational reform. But, of course, that did not happen. I remember Abbott saying: 'There is not a sliver of light between Labor and Liberal on this policy.'

What did we see today? There was this massive backflip where they found $1.2 billion, which they could not find on Friday but found today. But, of course, that only takes us up to four years of funding in this space. When you are talking about future generations, four years of funding is not enough. Our model went to six.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you're critical of four years? Well, that's a criticism now.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me tell you, Senator: there is a lot of light between four and six years. That is two years worth of light. If you say there is not a sliver of light between Labor and Liberal in terms of educational funding but then leave off two years worth of light and say you are delivering on your promise, let me say: keep reading the notes that the minister gives you. Keep yourself in the dark if that is what you want to do, but you ought to try and understand these issues, because education is too important for the games you are going to play.

You found $1.2 billion and you have not funded education for six years. What did Mr Abbott say today? He said, 'Over the weekend we found $1.2 billion worth of cuts.' We know those cuts are going to come from the education sector. So you will cut $1.2 billion to try to make the Australian public believe that you are living up to the commitments you made before the election. People are not stupid, no matter what Tony Abbott says. He said they were stupid last week because they did not understand what he meant when he said the words 'no school would be worse off'. He said the same about the press. He said, 'You shouldn't listen to what I say; you should only listen to what I thought I was saying.' Of course, he has form on that. He has been on the public record before, saying that you cannot trust anything he says unless it is read from a script. Unfortunately, when he made these promises on education they were not read from a script. (Time expired)

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Wright, I remind senators to address their remarks to the chair and not across the chamber.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the motion to take note of answers given in question time today by the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Today we have the third iteration in the last week of the coalition's school funding plan. Hasn't it become almost unrecognisable from what we heard before the election! At that point, the incentive—the big motive—was to neutralise an issue that was becoming increasingly of concern to the Australian public and creating problems for the coalition.

Basically, before the election it was, 'Let's do whatever it takes to get this off the agenda. Let's promise what we think the Australian people might want to hear and then we'll worry about the consequences later.' Before the election we had Mr Pyne saying:

… you can vote Liberal or Labor, and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school.

We had Tony Abbott saying that he was on a 'unity ticket' with the previous government when it came to the model and the money. We were told that no school would be worse off.

That was all done with the design of taking this difficult issue off the agenda for the coalition government, because many Australians know that by making sure we have a fair school funding model every single child has a fair chance to reach their potential through their schooling in Australia. That is what happened.

But what we have seen now is absolutely scurrilous conduct on this issue—slipping and sliding, ducking and weaving, duplicitous and deceitful. This was the government that promised us they would be methodical, calm and thoughtful. Instead we have had conduct that has been designed to mislead and obfuscate and totally try to confuse the voters. In fact, it has been playing the public for fools, but it will not work, because in the end Australians—parents and educators—are absolutely committed to seeing a better school funding system in Australia, so that every child has the chance to do their best and reach their full potential. This is a core function of government.

Education Minister Pyne and Prime Minister Abbott now have no idea what they are doing, and they have absolutely no credibility on this issue. That is because, ultimately, they have no principle they are adhering to when it comes to school funding.

To our shame in Australia, most of us understand that we currently have one of the most segregated schooling systems in the developed world. It is to our eternal shame that in Australia a child's performance at school is more likely to be determined by their background, and factors totally unrelated to their ability, than any of our comparable OECD peers.

The Gonski panel received more than 7,000 submissions, visited 39 schools and consulted 71 education groups and produced a 286-page report with 41 findings and 28 recommendations. That report unequivocally pointed to a broken and inequitable school funding model that is not delivering good educational outcomes for Australian children, where, at year 9, there is up to a five-year performance gap between some of the most privileged and some of the least privileged and disadvantaged children in Australia. It is that which must be rectified. It is that which requires both an investment of significant money and a model that is based on needs and is sector blind.

Unfortunately, we know that this government has never acknowledged that there is an equity issue when it comes to our school funding model in Australia. We know that in fact it was this government, in a previous manifestation, under the Howard prime ministership, that oversaw the introduction of a funding model that saw over those years far greater increases in funding to the wealthier schools in Australia at the expense of the poorer schools.

The Gonski review has shown that our system is unfair and broken. The fact remains that it is the model—the needs based, sector blind model—designed to overcome inequity and give every kid a fair chance to achieve their potential, which absolutely has to be taken up.

This government committed to both the money and the model and now they are trying to backtrack from that model, trying to raise their hands and say, 'We do not have control over how the states and territories are going to dispense that money.' The Gonski model was about reaching conditions so that we could make sure that the money that is invested goes to those students and schools that need it most. They are indeed in public education, which educates 80 per cent of the most disadvantaged students in Australia. We need to ensure that the money goes exactly where it is needed or we will not see a change. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.