Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Modelling reveals that as a result of the education package announced by the minister last Tuesday, fees for some Catholic schools could jump as much as $5,000, with parents at 78 New South Wales Catholic schools facing fee increases of more than $1,000 per child per year. What modelling has the government undertaken to determine the impact of its so-called Gonski 2.0 on school fees? Will the minister assure Australian parents that they will not pay more as a result of his reforms?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Farrell for his question about the Turnbull government's new $18.6 billion worth of additional investment into Australian schools. I thank Senator Farrell for his question and the opportunity to talk about our commitment to ensure that school funding across Australia is delivered on a fair and consistent basis free of special deals, free of differential treatment, but on the basis of need, just as David Gonski recommended.

Senator Farrell has asked some specific questions in relation to New South Wales schools in the Catholic system. I am pleased to inform Senator Farrell that the New South Wales Catholic school system will receive on average per student growth over the next four years of 3.8 per cent—3.8 per cent per student growth. This is well above any measure of inflation that exists today, well above wages growth today and is real, strong growth into the future. That means there should be no need for fee increases but absolute opportunity for additional investment in those schools as there will be in schools right across Australia in terms of investment into additional resources to help students who need it. This will target assistance to those students who need it most, give the best support to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, give more support to students with disability, give additional assistance to students in small, rural, regional and remote areas, ensure that there is extra assistance going where it is required to those who need it most in a manner that guarantees—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! I cannot hear the minister, let along Senator Farrell, who asked the question.

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

It is great to be back, isn't it?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, Senator Carr. Of course, the disorder from those opposite is because they do not like hearing about the fact that the Turnbull government is doing what they did not have the courage to do. They never had the courage to make sure that they actually had a consistent school-funding model—they had to do a bunch of different deals across the country. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The executive director of Sydney Catholic Schools, Dan White, says of the package:

It would push a greater number of children into state schools and they are struggling to accommodate them as it is.

Is Mr White correct?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Mr White is not correct. As I indicated, across the New South Wales Catholic school system, our model will deliver 3.8 per cent growth per student. It will also, though—if you want to talk about the government school system, Senator Farrell—deliver 4.9 per cent growth per student.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins interjects with the question of how long. I am pleased to tell Senator Collins that, over the decade, the projection in the Catholic schools system in New South Wales is growth of 3.6 per cent per student—

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

No, 3.8 per cent for all states.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 3.6 per cent per student, Senator Collins, specific to New South Wales, and, for the government sector in New South Wales over the decade, it is growth of 4.8 per cent per student. This is strong growth across every schooling sector—Catholic, independent and government—above inflation, above wages, enabling real additional investment to support Australian students who need it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Catholic Education has been calling on the government to consult with them for the last 12 months. The National Catholic Education Commission's Acting Executive Director, Danielle Cronin, said:

It's a very poor process when a government announces a new 10-year school funding proposal without consulting the second largest provider of school education in the country.

Minister, why did you fail to consult Catholic Education?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had numerous meetings with the National Catholic Education Commission and discussions with other representatives. My office has had numerous discussions with individuals. My department has undertaken a national roadshow and had discussions with different sectors and different individuals. On 3 April, for example, I worked through, with Ms Cronin and others, each of the issues in the submission they made to us and talked about those different factors. So there has absolutely been consultation, and consultation has been ongoing over recent weeks and recent days. We continue to have discussions to talk about the implications of this package and, importantly, to make sure they understand that, across their systems, there will be strong growth in funding that enables them to continue to invest in providing the choice to parents to choose a Catholic school education and resources and support for their students to get the best for the future.

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

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham. Will the minister outline how the Turnbull government's Quality Schools package delivers fairer, needs based funding to students and long-term funding certainty for parents and schools?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and her deep and long-term interest in relation to school education, the quality of school education and, of course, addressing inconsistencies in relation to school funding. Indeed, we have such inconsistencies that we are seeking to address them. Our government inherited 27 different school funding models, different deals that were based on a whole range of legacy arrangements, and what we are seeking to do is, as David Gonski recommended, clean up that mess and ensure there is a consistent approach to the application of need right across Australia.

Those opposite seem to want to put special interests first. The Turnbull government are putting fairness first. We want to ensure that, wherever students are, they are treated on an equal basis—that across states they are treated equally by the Commonwealth government and across schooling sectors they are treated equally by the Commonwealth government. This is about ensuring equality of treatment, as informed, recommended and now supported and endorsed by Mr Gonski himself.

We are underpinning this with a record level of investment that in 2017 sees $17.5 billion from the Commonwealth supporting Australian school students. By 2027 that grows to some $30.6 billion of investment. But, most importantly, we not only want to gear and ensure that investment is distributed fairly, equitably and according to need, but we are determined to ensure it is used in ways that are informed by best practice to improve the quality of school education. That is the work that Mr Gonski will undertake for us—to ensure every single additional dollar of the billions we are investing in Australian schools is used to deliver quality school outcomes right around Australia. We are committed to long-term legislative certainty through our reforms to Australian schools so they can plan with confidence for the future and, in planning with confidence, invest in resources they need. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.

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

Will the minister update the Senate on the support the government has received for the school funding package?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that the Turnbull government's response has seen endorsements from a range of different entities. The Australian Primary Principals Association has welcomed our acceptance of the fundamental recommendations of the 2011 Gonski report. To quote from them:

Common funding arrangements across the country will see greater transparency and give principals confidence that what they receive in school funding is fair and equitable.

The Australian Council of State School Organisations has said:

The move to reduce the twenty-seven funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors.

Then there is the Grattan Institute, the Mitchell Institute and principals. Take, for example, the principal of the Nazareth Catholic College in South Australia, who said:

I think this is a fabulous deal for South Australia … Every school in South Australia will benefit from this, every single one …

There is widespread support from principals, parents, stakeholders, experts. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, your final supplementary question.

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

How will the government ensure that increased funding for schools results in improved student performance?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are delighted that Mr David Gonski has agreed to undertake a review into excellence in Australian schools. Mr Gonski said:

… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report …

And indeed we have, in acting in relation to fixing and addressing issues on school funding. But now we are delighted that Mr Gonski has agreed to be tasked with the job of working with school leaders and experts across Australia to ensure that the billions of additional dollars that are being invested build upon the quality school reforms that our government has already applied. We are already improving teacher training across Australia. We are already investing in ensuring support for the delivery of phonics education across Australia, and David Gonski will use his skills, his credibility, working right across the country with education experts, to ensure that, by the end of the year, there is a quality package of further reforms that states, territories and other stakeholders embrace to deliver the best outcomes for Australian school students.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. In relation to the education package announced a week ago, Assistant Minister Seselja last night told a public meeting of Catholic parents that, in discussions with Minister Birmingham, he had 'put that case to him very strongly that the package would have some pretty significant negative consequences'. Is Assistant Minister Seselja correct?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Gallagher for her question. In relation to the ACT, I trust that, as a former Chief Minister of the ACT, Senator Gallagher would welcome, firstly, the decision of the Turnbull government to treat all states and territories fairly and equitably in reaching the same 20 per cent share of the schooling resource standard based on the Gonski level of need. That will see support for additional funding into the ACT government sector estimated at 5.9 per cent per student over the next four years. This is very strong growth in support for the ACT government sector that Senator Gallagher used to, of course, be the Chief Minister overseeing. I trust that she endorses that, welcomes that—and, of course, what we see there—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Wong?

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

My point of order is relevance. Whilst I am very happy for my colleague's previous career to be extolled in the way that the minister is doing, he was asked only one question. He was asked, in relation to Senator Seselja's quote that the package would have 'some pretty negative consequences', whether or not his colleague sitting behind him is correct. That is the only question. Have the guts to answer it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I will remind you of the question. Minister, you have a minute and 13 seconds.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was pointing out, in relation specifically to the ACT, to which Senator Gallagher's question pertained, we see strong growth in additional resourcing going into ACT schools. Because of legacy arrangements that were put in place, there has been a different approach in relation to systemic school calculations in the ACT. That different approach has seen SES scores averaged not on the basis of schools in the ACT or the ACT population but on the basis of the national Australian population. So that creates a different change when we are treating everybody equitably in the ACT compared to the circumstances elsewhere. Senator Seselja has absolutely made strong representations on behalf of his constituents, as I would expect him to do, and we are talking constructively through those issues as they relate to the ACT. But it should not be ignored by Senator Gallagher or by anybody else that the reality—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. Senator Cameron, a point of order?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it is on relevance. You did draw the minister's attention to the question and the question is clear: does the minister agree with the comments that were made by Senator Seselja? He has not gone to that issue.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After the first point of order was raised by Senator Wong, the minister did move directly to the point in relation to Senator Seselja's comments and the minister was answering the question.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, it should not be ignored by Senator Gallagher or anybody else that there is strong funding growth across the ACT into education, that we will make sure we work with each of the systems involved. But I would trust the former Chief Minister in particular would welcome the additional investment into the ACT government schools.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian reports that Assistant Minister Seselja hit out at the unequal treatment for Catholic schools in the ACT and vowed to fight for 'the best deal possible'. When did the minister first become aware that his ministerial colleague was campaigning against the government's policy?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are not unequal arrangements. In fact, the whole point of what the Turnbull government has proposed is an equal level of treatment for non-government schools across every sector, across every system and across every state and territory of Australia. That is the proposal we are putting in place that will ensure that over 10 years every non-government school transitions to an equal 80 per cent share of the schooling resource standard, informed and developed as a result of the Gonski report, and receives an equal level of treatment under that arrangement.

I am aware of the impacts in relation to the ACT. As I said, Senator Seselja has had discussions with me and we will continue to have those discussions, as I am with the ACT Catholic Education representatives, about the particular impact here. But, again, none of that should overshadow the strong growth in the ACT and the very strong growth across every single schooling sector in every single state in what we are delivering for the future. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only days ago, Minister Birmingham told The Australian that there would be no changes to the policy and said, 'We don't want a special deal for anybody.' Will the minister give the ACT a better deal—yes or no?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want to deliver a fair deal for every state and territory that is applied consistently. We are not into doing different deals for different states or different deals for different sectors; we are into ensuring that it is fair and equitable everywhere. It is only those sitting opposite who thought it was a good idea to run around the country before the 2013 election stitching up 27 different deals and different agreements that treated different states differently, that treated different sectors differently and that increased inequity across the education system.

This government want to ensure fairness, equity and needs based funding and that it is genuinely delivered and targeted towards real reforms in Australia schools—real reforms that can improve a declining level of school performance over the years. It is critical to us to make sure that billions of extra dollars are invested where they will make the most difference. That is why we are having a needs based funding formula that is consistent. That is why we are undertaking the hard yards to identify the reforms that are required. (Time expired)