Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, I present the final report of the Select Committee on School Funding together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The OECD has consistently argued for countries to address disadvantage and increase equity in school systems. They say—this is a particularly pertinent quote:

The highest performing education systems are those that combine equity with quality. They give all children opportunities for a good quality education … Educational failure also imposes high costs on society. Poorly educated people limit economies' capacity to produce, grow and innovate. School failure damages social cohesion and mobility, and imposes additional costs on public budgets to deal with the consequences—higher spending on public health and social support and greater criminality, among others. For all these reasons, improving equity in education and reducing school failure should be a high priority in all OECD education policy agendas.

Australia has, in addition to the well-known declining performance issues, equity issues far greater than in many OECD countries. After years attempting to thwart action on these issues—and, indeed, after giving false election assurances—Minister Pyne ironically acknowledged this point just last week with respect to direct instruction. Yet this approach from the now government is what has informed the problems that led to the need for this select committee inquiry in the first instance.

The Senate Select Committee on School Funding inquired into and reported on the development and implementation of national school funding arrangements and school reform. In particular, the committee looked at the consequences of the change in school funding policy from the National Plan for School Improvement—known as the Gonski reforms—to this government's Students First policy.

During its inquiry, the committee conducted public hearings in six states and heard the views of a wide range of stakeholders: public, Catholic and independent school associations; parents; teachers; principals; unions; and some state and territory governments. The fact that we received evidence from only some state and territory governments is, indeed, a story for another day. In addition to the public hearings, the committee received over 3,400 submissions over the course of the inquiry. The evidence collected through the committee's inquiry clearly shows the complexity of previous pre-Gonski funding arrangements, and the ground-breaking consensus achieved by the Gonski report. It shows the agreement and goodwill achieved among jurisdictions covering over 80 per cent of Australian school students, through the implementation of a national plan for school improvement. It also shows the disruption and confusion which has resulted from the change from the NPSI to the Students First funding arrangements.

The Gonski review stressed the need for an equitable school funding system: one that ensures that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. This ground-breaking, historic review involved a detailed examination of the issues that were confronting Australian schools and the concerns around a decline in our outcomes. The review recommended a national needs-based and sector-blind school funding model. The new funding model would provide a level of base funding to all schools and additional targeted funding to disadvantaged students, in order to remove inequities and minimise the identified performance gap.

Submissions to the committee's inquiry told of the strong consensus that was developed through the Gonski process across Australia's public, Catholic and independent schooling sectors. Through the National Plan for School Improvement the former Labor government was able to use this consensus amongst school stakeholders to implement a national needs based funding model grounded in the findings of the Gonski review.

In total, the Labor government expected that the National Plan for School Improvement, when fully implemented by 2020, would see an additional $6.5 billion spent on schools per annum by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. It is important to highlight here that this was a venture involving all governments in improving investment in schools. Contrary to the Commission of Audit's and indeed this government's claims, this outcome represented half of one per cent of GDP and did not bring Australia above average OECD spending in schooling. The new funding model was accompanied by an improvement framework for schools and teaching, with five areas of reform identified and agreed to for implementation. It was not only about funding.

Submissions to the committee demonstrated that stakeholders welcomed the certainty of funding under the national plan. The six years of funding provided under the National Plan for School Improvement allowed for schools and state governments to plan the allocation of funds based on need. However, following the 2013 federal election and despite promises of a 'unity ticket' on education policy, the Abbott government has begun to effectively unpick the Gonski funding arrangements and the national plan. Although for the first four years funding will remain as set out under the Australian Education Act 2013, after 2017 funding will be indexed to just the CPI. By the government's own projections this will result in a $30 billion cut to the education sector over the medium term. Such significant cuts jeopardise the widespread improvements in student outcomes that were to flow from a strategically funded needs based model. As a result, the quality of education provided to those Australian school children most in need of additional support will remain inferior. Australia will fail to provide our students with the opportunity to access the best possible education. As a consequence, we will fail to realise the full potential of our human capital.

The evidence gathered by this inquiry shows that a very significant majority of school funding stakeholders supported the findings of the Gonski review and the arrangements that were developed subsequently. As a result of the inquiry, the committee believes that the Abbott government's changes to school funding arrangements will be detrimental to Australian school students and the broader Australian community. The changes put at risk adequate funding for those students most in need—for example, students with disability.

At the recent budget estimates, coalition senators wrongly claimed that it was the Abbott government that had delivered a needs based funding model. In fact, without the Gonski review, without the National Plan for School Improvement negotiations with the states and territories—which, indeed, may not have been perfect—and without the passage of the Australian Education Act, then there would be no national needs based funding model in Australia. Under the Abbott government's arrangements, a needs based funding model will last only four years. After that, amendments to the Australian Education Act and the low-level indexation will mean that schools and the students they support cannot depend on adequate funding. In fact, in some cases it goes backwards—whether it is through limited state contributions or the consequences of the changes that this government made.

The committee's eight recommendations aim to ameliorate the grim future for Australian school funding. Chief among these recommendations is that the government should honour its pre-election commitments to fully implement the national needs based, sector blind funding model incorporated in the national plan to improve equity across Australian schools. Further, we highlight that the plan in its totality should be implemented and the six-year period over which it was to be introduced maintained. The government should also conduct and not pre-empt the reviews that were built into the National Education Reform Agreement and strive for equitable funding arrangements for schools most in need.

I would like to thank the committee and indeed the secretariat for the detailed work that went into this comprehensive report, but also highlight the contribution of the Australian education community. There is an enormous wealth of capital that will be ignored by this government at its peril. (Time expired)

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

The Australian Greens are pleased to endorse the majority report and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on School Funding and we have also provided our own additional comments. Like many in the community we were outraged at the multiple policy backflips and duplicity of the current government when it came to education policy, both while in opposition and since last year's election. It is highly regrettable that the government has shown contempt for the work of the Gonski panel, which was the most comprehensive evaluation of Australia's school funding ever and provided a way forward to eroding the public-private battle and ensuring every student can receive a high quality education in Australia.

The Australian Greens condemn the current government's disregard for a genuine needs based, sector blind funding model. As the Gonski review panel found, the huge disparity in measures like reading and mathematical skills between the most and least privileged students are 'the direct result of a sector based, needs blind funding model'. Nonetheless, education minister, Mr Pyne, has consistently denied that there is inequality in the Australian schooling system, let alone shown any willingness to address it.

The Australian Greens equally condemn this government's abandonment of the fifth and sixth years of funding. It was very clear to us as a committee that this will mean hundreds of schools across the country will never reach the schooling resource standard. In other words, thousands of Australian children will miss out on the best education this country can provide, often solely because of their family circumstances. The deplorable conclusion is that a failure to deliver the full funding amount will entrench privilege in education in Australia. It will leave so many schools, particularly government schools, below the schooling resource standard.

Although the Australian Greens were highly critical of the process the previous government went through in responding to the Gonski panel's recommendations, we were pleased to support the Australian Education Act 2013. While the act did not implement the full range of recommendations from the Gonski review of school funding, we knew it would begin to provide the framework for a better education for every Australian child. It would begin to turn around a trend of increasing sectarianism in Australian schools whereby people's destinies are increasingly determined by their postcodes rather than their potential.

Despite the support of the Greens to work with the previous Labor government to legislate and effectively Abbott-proof these most needed reforms, the previous Labor government chose to pursue politics over progress. They delayed a response to the Gonski recommendations for more than 14 months and then sought to negotiate with states in the heat of an election year. This was unwise. Dr Ken Boston, a Gonski panel member, spoke of the scramble to secure an agreement to deals in which the fundamental Gonski principles became a secondary consideration. It was also exceedingly unwise of the Gillard government to ignore the Gonski panel's recommendation to establish an independent board, a national schools resourcing body to manage the negotiations with school sectors and state governments. As well, the Australian Greens are critical of the previous government's decision to so heavily backload the funding into the final two years. It is this which has enabled the coalition to cut so deeply. It is this which we predicted.

The Australian Greens believe the Gillard government must bear some of the responsibility for the fact that this once-in-a-generation chance to fix huge inequality across Australian schools may be lost because of its failures in negotiation and implementation. However, we also note the destabilising influence of the previous opposition on this issue. They shamelessly sought to discourage state Liberal governments from signing up to the Gillard government's offers and undermined the consensus built with school sectors and other stakeholders.

Ultimately, the Australian Greens acknowledge the previous government's many achievements in beginning the transition to a genuine needs based, nationwide school funding system. As a result of their work, some of the fundamental structures of Gonski are in place. The principles of the Gonski review are strong, sound and fair, and the Australian Greens have consistently lobbied for this reform and remained dedicated to putting the future of our students first—especially those who suffer educational disadvantage.

As those in this chamber regularly hear so monotonously, those on the government benches like to say they are 'cleaning up Labor's mess'. If they had any intention of making this more than a meaningless mantra, they would have done so by continuing the work that was started and pursuing a nationally consistent needs based funding model. Of course, this government has no intention of fixing the inequalities inherent in Australian schooling. They have abandoned the Gonski principles because they never believed in them. The idea that money should not be able to buy privilege is something that would threaten many coalition supporters and MPs who benefit from power and privilege. And so the government has sought to misrepresent what the Gonski reforms stand for.

Throughout this committee we have heard members of the government regularly referring to Gonski as 'throwing money at the problem'. It is, of course, no such thing. The Gonski funds were to be specifically targeted to alleviate disadvantage. The only money being thrown around is in fact the no-strings-attached money this government is shelling out to Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. That is throwing money around. Indeed, this money does not even have to be spent on students; the Northern Territory government has confirmed it will direct the money to capital works.

The school funding model of the Howard years saw increased spending going to schools in the top end of town. Of course, giving more resources to the already resource rich does not make much of a difference, and that is why we have seen a slide in performance. By contrast, Gonski funding looks at targeting the areas of greatest need to reduce the equity gap and lift educational outcomes across the country.

I was very pleased the select committee was able to hold a hearing in my home state of South Australia, where we visited two schools: the Immaculate Heart of Mary Primary School and the Darlington Primary School. Both these schools showed us how strategic and targeted funding can be used to achieve outstanding results for students—and these are students from backgrounds of educational disadvantage. Darlington Primary School, for example, has been able to significantly lift student literacy and numeracy achievements through diligent use of their national partnerships funding. They are an example of public education where the shared values of the staff and parent community create a welcoming, inclusive environment. It was wonderful to see the opportunity it offers its children, many of whom are from Aboriginal, new arrival and lower-SES backgrounds.

The committee also received hundreds of submissions from schools all across the country, and we congratulate the Australian Education Union for coordinating these submissions as well as for their ongoing advocacy for a more equitable school funding system. These submissions spelled out how schools would use the extra money to help disadvantaged students in their school—from hiring specialist literacy and numeracy teachers to programs to improve student wellbeing. Education minister, Christopher Pyne, should read these submissions closely if he truly wants to understand what the coalition's cuts will mean for individual students.

I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who made submissions to the committee and particularly those who gave up their time to attend hearings and give evidence to the committee. I also wish to place on record my thanks to the secretariat for the huge amount of work they have put into this inquiry with the range of witnesses, the extensive travel, the number of additional submissions and the sheer volume of figures and data to be analysed and compiled in the report. It is a very thorough, large and complex report. It is, indeed, one of the more complex inquiries I have been involved with, and I believe the quality of this report reflects the dedication and support the secretariat has provided us.

In conclusion, the Australian Greens cannot strongly enough express our disappointment about the coalition's intention to perpetuate inequality and entrench privilege in education by abandoning the Gonski reforms. The Australian Greens believe every Australian child should to have access to high quality and affordable education no matter what their background. The public education system is the only guarantee of this right because it is the only system which is guaranteed to be open to every child irrespective of the wealth, background or sexuality of the child or their parents, yet it is under serious threat from the policies of the Abbott government. As such, the Australian Greens are pleased to endorse the majority report and recommendations of the committee: primarily that the Abbott government reinstate the full funding scheme and deliver on its election promises to be on a unity ticket. We commit to continued advocacy for a more equitable funding arrangement. (Time expired)

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand and give what is a small contribution to the discussion on the tabling of the report of the Select Committee on School Funding and to recommend the dissenting report from the government senators who participated in this inquiry as compulsory reading for those who are interested in fact not fiction. I will go to that in a little more detail.

I would just like to quote from our report, following on from Senator Wright's commentary and the assumptions she makes about those of us on this side of the chamber and what we think the birthright of young Australians is to access equitable, high-quality, excellent public and private education in this country. We do not resile from that. I find it offensive that those sorts of assumptions and comments are bandied about the public sphere willy-nilly with no opportunity for us to put our position on the record and correct it—

Senator Wright interjecting—

as I have often done within the committee itself, Senator Wright. I outlined that government senators are passionate about equitable access to an excellent education for every young Australian, and that is exactly what we are looking forward to delivering.

The minority report corrects much of the rhetoric of the Greens and Labor senators in the majority report, and I would just like to highlight a couple of particular aspects which go to the assumptions and the commentary around the lack of disability funding from the coalition with respect to school funding. There is more funding from the Commonwealth for students with a disability than ever before. That is the fact of the matter. There is $4.8 billion available over the forward estimates within this budget for students with a disability, including $1.1 billion in this financial year, $1.2 billion the year after, $1.3 billion the next year and $1.3 billion for the 2017-18 year. So it is completely erroneous for the opposition parties to bandy about the fact that the coalition government is not interested in supporting students with a disability within our school system.

The other issue I just want to briefly touch on is the claim that there was this—and I think it was Senator Collins talking—'groundbreaking consensus' of the Gonski report. It is the groundbreaking consensus that saw different deals done for different states and different sectors. We had a different configuration of the so-called model at every single corner. Every time then Minister Garrett stood up and issued a press release it was to construct a completely different meaning of the Gonski model with different states. The same department that served the previous government and currently serves our government recognised during Senate estimates and put on the record that it was the coalition government that delivered the national needs based funding model for schools. So, go figure. Same deputy secretary, same—

Opposition senators interjecting—

So, there we go. Facts are on the table, and you do not like the facts. It is not often that I go to the ABC to reiterate my points, but I will, only because Senator Collins again raised the national needs based funding model and the cuts made by the federal government to school funding. It was the ABC Fact Check that absolutely states for the record that it is erroneous.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

What you are claiming, Senator Collins, is erroneous. It says, 'In reality'—all right, I will take the interjection.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, please direct your comments in response to the interjection through the chair.

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

Can they make the interjections through the chair too? Professor Wanna from the ANU tells Fact Check that 'mostly funding envelopes running out 10 years are fiction' and that in reality the claims made by Labor are erroneous because the reality of our current democratic system means that the promises of years five and six were just that—they were so far out of it. What we have been able to deliver is exactly the same funding envelope that your government went to the federal election with.

So, as is probably clear from the debate in the chamber, we do not agree with the majority report. I would recommend the dissenting report as compulsory reading for those who are interested in addressing the heart of what goes to educational outcomes, which is ensuring that those students that do attend our schools in Australia have an excellent education by targeting our funding on what matters to kids in schools, not just throwing a bucket of money at it. That was the evidence we were given. The evidence that you will not read in the majority report, which came from principal after principal, from student after student and from parent after parent, is that it is about addressing those issues which actually make a difference. It is about making sure that students and their educational outcomes are at the heart of everything we do.

The common argument promoted by the Australian Education Union and other advocates of increasing education funding is that more money equals better educational outcomes. Quite simply, we are forgetting about the principle of diminishing returns, a principle I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President, you know all about. According to that exact principle of diminishing returns we do not just keep adding dollar on dollar, million on million, billion on billion. We actually need to be working with the states to ensure that the work that they have done over a great period of time in their local areas can result in tangible outcomes for students in classrooms. So it is not all about more money equals better outcomes. The Abbott government will provide the same amount of funding that the Rudd-Gillard government committed to school funding. So it is absolutely erroneous for those opposite to state that somehow we have been cutting money.

What I think will actually make a difference to the educational outcomes of advantaged and disadvantaged students in Australia is to end the sloganeering. I want to briefly touch on the $7 million that the AEU has provided to the 'I Give a Gonski' campaign. What we do know from research is that what makes a difference to kids in schools is a bipartisan approach to funding the things that matter to make a difference. Unfortunately, opposition senators just cannot get over the fact that they could not deliver a national needs based funding model. We have. I know it hurts, but just get on board.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

We can fund the things that matter, Senator Collins, like ensuring that high-quality teachers are operating within our schools and that parents are engaged within our schools. The evidence we received from those who came before the committee, particularly the principals, was that the more autonomy we were able to give them at a local level about who they could hire and what they could spend their budget on actually made a difference because they could target their individual programs to their local communities. Rather than having Canberra tell them what they should be doing and where, we could be giving the imprimatur to leadership by those who are on the ground educating our young men and women for the 21st century and giving them the resources they need. So we do need an end to the sloganeering. I want to draw the attention of the chamber to comments made by Dr Jennifer Buckingham in April 2013:

The 'I Give A Gonski' campaign gives the impression that the proposed school funding reforms represent a big, fat cheque for public education.

And I think the comments here today reaffirm that that is a fair assumption. The implication is that if you do not give a Gonski you do not actually care about schools and, more importantly, that you do not actually care about public education. There are a million young Australians educated outside capital cities in this nation and 600,000 of them attend public schools. So for you to stand and assume that I do not care what goes on in public schools in this nation is absolutely wrong.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is sheer paranoia, Bridget. No-one said that.

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

No, I am sorry, I've got my team and you've got yours, so that is what you are actually saying. It is disappointing. But it is not closed—we are always open for the opposition to get on board with our students-first policy and to start supporting well-researched, evidence based policy initiatives that will result in better educational outcomes.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

It is not all about the PISA results, people, it really isn't, and you both know that.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to join Senator McKenzie in contributing to the debate on the report by the Select Committee on School Funding that has been presented to the Senate and, of course, to support the dissenting report to which Senator McKenzie and I are signatories. One of the disappointing aspects of this particular inquiry was that, from the very start, one could have predicted what the report and its recommendations were going to present to the Senate. That, to me, is tremendously disappointing because I have always felt that the practice of the committees on education was to provide the opportunity for us to listen openly to and be influenced by a range of witnesses. I fear, from the hearings I have been able to attend, that that has not happened.

Can I say through you, Acting Deputy President, to Senator Wright: I have a lot of regard for you but I reject out of hand these assertions that in some way the coalition senators favour a private education process over a public education process. I can think of no instance of this sort of division in the hearings or in the commentary of you, or Senator O'Neill, Senator Collins, Senator McKenzie or Senator Williams, who I recall was at the Sydney hearings, and I do not think it contributes either to the discussion and debate or enhances the status of the Senate to hear those sorts of comments and commentary.

It is the overall objective of all of us in this place to see early childhood, primary, secondary and tertiary education standards raised. Where we differ is over the automatic assumption that throwing dollars at something equals a better performance. We know this is not the case, as we have conducted inquiries in the education space, on teaching and learning, for example. We know that from when we have examined excellence in Finland, in Shanghai in China, in Singapore and in other jurisdictions. Indeed we know from our own country that throwing money at this type of issue is not the solution.

I sat on the Catholic Education Commission in Western Australia for many years and have heard these arguments. I remember in the case of my own school, Aquinas College, that the development manager said on one occasion that we had to increase the fees because Aquinas was falling behind other schools. I had in my possession the knowledge of which Catholic schools had been the best performing for year 12 in the previous year. Senator Bullock would of course know Koondoola. The highest performing school in that particular systemic section was Mercy College, Koondoola. I argued strongly in that particular meeting at Aquinas College that if they actually wanted to see academic excellence being indicated at Aquinas then the best thing would be to drop the frees to the levels of Mercy College Koondoola.

The point I want to make is that there are many other issues. There is the excellence of selection of trainee teachers. There is the excellence, or otherwise, of the actual education that trainee teachers get. Senator McKenzie will remember—as may Senator Wright and also Senator Marshall, who has come into the chamber at the right time!—the evidence presented to us by the University of Melbourne personnel at our hearing into teaching and education in schools in Victoria. They said that less than 50 per cent of new teaching graduates felt they were classroom ready on the day they arrived to teach. I hasten to say, of course, that that university, whose teacher education program was a master's program, believed from their own surveys that their students were better than 90 per cent ready. So we know, again, that there are issues associated with the actual education of teachers.

Only yesterday was attention drawn to an article in a Sydney newspaper, saying that some 600 new teaching graduates were yet to find work. We had identified this, and I believe the school funding inquiry also had the opportunity to reinforce this. Why, for heaven sake, do we send young people into teacher training and not give them advice or guidance on those areas of education in which they will be in demand? For example, in the secondary sector: in technology, in science and in mathematics. Why are they not told this when they first go into teacher training? Supply and demand are something that we all know about. There is a supply of young people and there is a demand; and yet we have this circumstance in which vast numbers of young trainee teachers go through and come out to teach physical education.

We had evidence from teachers in one Tasmanian school, who told us that this particular gentleman was the only teacher in his school qualified to teach the sciences and mathematics. On a daily basis he had other teachers, whose skill sets lay in physical education and the social sciences, coming to him and asking in advance, 'What will I teach today?' Those are the sorts of areas that need canvassing.

I know that when Professor Henry Ergas appeared at the hearing in Sydney that some senators, almost before the man started to speak, had formed an adverse opinion about Professor Ergas's contribution. And yet the man was absolutely erudite. Senator O'Neill, Senator Wright, Senator McKenzie and I were all there. Senator Collins had had to leave the hearing, if my memory serves me correctly. Every question put to him and every point made to him was answered with courtesy. It was a dignified response but, of course, a very knowledgeable response. And yet I did not see that in the majority report; perhaps it was because Senator Collins had to leave that hearing in Sydney prior to his evidence. I did not hear any commentary to any extent about the challenging points that he made. And, if we recall, he was making them about the validity of expenditure. In fact, in many instances he was making the case that the way that funds were being expended was adverse for people in lower socioeconomic circumstances.

In the hearings that we have had in the education space we have identified four—not three, but four—groups of disadvantage: children from low-socioeconomic homes, those of Indigenous background, those with disability and, of course, students from rural, regional and particularly remote areas. Because of her interest and mine in rural and regional students, Senator McKenzie and I have tried to elevate their inclusion in this place and it is good to see, now, the conversation actually extending to include them. We have had evidence come before committees of this Senate identifying that gross disadvantage which exists.

I would have hoped for a far more collaborative and collegiate—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have come to more hearings! We missed you in Western Australia!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, I still maintain that the evidence by Professor Ergas was amongst the most eloquent. And I have to say that it is a shame that Senator Collins was not there because Ergas's responses to the challenges given—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've already said that. It's in the Hansard!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which do not get picked up in Hansard, were a model of courtesy and tolerance in the sense that he would not rise to the bait of the questions put to him. In fact, he answered them in an erudite way.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could have suggested it. You had ample opportunity to suggest it. Too lame!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, it is very difficult for me to be heard. I fear that my colleagues here beside me cannot even hear what I am contributing—what Senator Collins is attempting to interrupt me on.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I want to make is that it is unusual for the necessity of such a long but eloquent dissenting report in this school funding circumstance. The coalition government is continuing to invest heavily. No government—and I am sure that the finance minister will confirm this—is under an obligation to predict beyond the out years where funding ought to be expended. The Labor government never did. Knowing it was going to lose the September election, the Labor government threw all sorts of promises out there. It knew, of course, that there was no way in the world it was ever going to have to commit to them. The coalition government has committed to expenditure as, indeed, we said we would leading up to the September election. But, of course, prudently—and I would say correctly—it has not fallen into the trap of throwing money beyond those out years until we know the value of the expenditure of those monies.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this, quite unexpectedly. I believe we were advised that there were only 30 minutes to speak. But having the opportunity in 60 minutes to put some important facts on the record, I think it is important that we pull the debate back from the precipice to which those last two speakers have taken it with the incredible misrepresentation of the facts that were very much uncovered by this important report. It was undertaken with great leadership, might I say, by Senator Jacinta Collins from Victoria. She played a significant role in achieving some consensus in a highly-contested field over very many years in this country, regarding equitable funding for this nation.

I do want to put on the record that, in the brief time that I have had a chance to look at some of the comments in the dissenting report, there are errors of fact in that dissenting report. Claims that there is a high-equity education system in Australia are simply erroneous. They attempt to come in here and reconstruct reality but the fact is that the last government worked in concert with committed educators—not educational commentators who have no life commitment to education. Commentators—that is who their experts were. We actually went to the source—real and genuine people committed to education, who came and put on the public record the facts of what the reality of funding in Australia is. People will find out what they had to say when they read the majority report of this very important committee.

I want to refer to two key witnesses who put on the record vital facts included in the dissenting report. We have just heard from two members of the government who are on this committee, but what has been put on the record by the people who came in and gave us proper and accurate information is totally different from what those opposite tried to convey this afternoon. I refer to Professor Stephen Dinham, no less than the National President of the Australian College of Educators—a man who has dedicated his life to the service of education in this nation. He stressed that the consequences of the Abbott government changes, if implemented—the ones that those who have just spoken would support—would be highly detrimental to Australia as a nation. He said:

It is hard not to conclude that what we are seeing is a deliberate strategy to dismantle public education, partly for ideological and partly for financial reasons …

He was right on the money. They have an ideological opposition to access to great education for every Australian kid in every Australian school. In addition, they are trying to rip $30 billion out of the education budget. What we just heard from the government was an absolute cover-up; another expression of the lies and misrepresentations that are coming to characterise this government—10 months old and day after day they come in here and try to lie to the Australian public. But people are seeing through it.

This report is so important because of the good contributions of people like Professor Dinham, who are ready to put on the record the facts about what this government is going to do. It is a marker in the Australian education landscape about what is right about education, what is wrong about education, and the disgraceful path that those opposite want to take us down—building in inequity, seeking to disadvantage those who have the least and to advantage those who have the most. That is not the kind of country that Australians thought they were getting when they elected this government.

Dr Zyngier commented about previous school funding models. Those on the other side told us all about choice. Dr Zyngier could not have been more eloquent in his comments:

Choice is only available for those who have the wherewithal to make that choice. We have heard about the end of the age of entitlement. However, when a person on the basic wage of $55,000 a year pays his or her taxes, that person does not have a choice, but their taxes go to enable someone who is on a salary of $150,000 or more per annum to exercise that choice. So it is a bogus choice.

And it is a bogus piece of writing that we have seen in the dissenting report. It is a bogus government and it is a bogus set of words that we hear every single day as they pretend that they care about all Australians. This is a government for the privileged few, make no mistake. In every policy area we discuss in here, from health to education to financial services, they look after their mates and prop up the big end of town. They look after those who have the most and the devil take those left behind.

It is important to understand what Gonski actually did. Prior to Gonski, the complexity of the organisation around funding made it so obscure that Australians could not see where the money was going and they could not understand why inequity was so rampant in our system. The agreement and goodwill that was achieved in the last parliament amongst jurisdictions that covered approximately 80 per cent of Australian school students throughout the implementation of the National Plan for School Improvement was revealed again in evidence collected by the committee. We know, from the evidence on the record now, that there has been an incredible level of disruption and confusion amongst educators in every single state, in every single sector, because of the change that this government has decided to undertake, moving from the National Plan for School Improvement to their Students First blue book mythological plan for Australia. It is a modesty skirt that is about ripping $30 billion out of education.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Budget Paper No. 2.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Budget Paper No. 2, as Senator Collins indicates, is a clear and permanent record of the real agenda of this government that is set to rip away the fabric of equity and excellence that the former government, during the 43rd Parliament, was building consensus for right across every sector. We know that right now, while this debate is going on in the parliament, there is incredible uncertainty out in our schools about the future of funding, incredible disappointment about what this government is doing—particularly for the period beyond the four years.

Importantly, we note in this report that the lack of clarity around the processes for the amendments to the Australian Education Act, and the possible effect of removing the command-and-control mechanisms from this act, are set to have devastating impacts on opportunities for equity in states that sit outside New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania. We also have concerns about the accountability and transparency measures that make sure funding is going to the schools that require it the most. As it stands, the reality is that students who are going to schools right across this nation will now not have a chance of getting equitable access to proper education. The reality is that this government has ensured that students in the Northern Territory and Western Australia are never going to have their school systems provide accountability for the money they are putting in. The Students First system that this government wants will enable the money that comes from the federal government to simply dribble through into the general pool. The reality is for our students that the money they need to allow them to do the learning that they need to do, and the money that our teachers need to get the resources that they need to be able to do the job and make learning happen, is now certainly not guaranteed.

In closing, I would like to put on the record that the consensus we achieved through the Gonski process and review is one that must not be lost despite this current government's harmful and deliberate intent to confuse the Australian people and to create a pretence that they are on a joint ticket, that there is no difference between the Labor view and the Liberal view of funding. The reality is we need a six-year transition to a nationally consistent school resource standard. We need to maintain commitments that were made under the National Education Reform Agreement. We need to focus on those elements of quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, meeting student needs and greater transparency and accountability; and we need to make sure we conduct the reviews that are prescribed under the national education reform agenda and strive for equitable funding for schools that are most in need. None of these things can happen with the model of educational vandalism that we are seeing put forward by those opposite today. The reality is: this report is a vital marker in terms of us keeping our eye on the ball in the quest for equity for every Australian child while they attend school education. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.