Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Moncrieff for his question and note his support for all schools in his electorate. The Howard government supports parents in having a choice of schools to which they send their children. We believe that, having paid their taxes, all parents deserve some level of public support. Sixty-eight per cent of all students attend state government schools and receive 75 per cent of public funding; 32 per cent of students attend Catholic and independent schools and receive 25 per cent of total government funding. Our funding model, the SES model, is based on need. Schools in the neediest areas receive 70 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a state government school, and schools in the wealthier areas receive some 13.7 per cent of the cost of educating a child at a government school. Each year the Howard government increases its funding to schools by an average of 6.4 per cent.

I am asked about alternative policies. Last week the Leader of the Opposition announced that Labor’s schools hit list was dead. Members will recall Labor’s schools hit list; it was under a funding model called the ‘21st century resource standard’. That was just a fancy name for ripping money away from some schools and giving it to others. It was a policy enthusiastically embraced by the opposition education spokesperson. It meant that $520 million would be taken away immediately from some schools—hence, the hit list.

This week the Labor opposition has recommitted to a hit list. Its funding policy is now called a ‘national resource standard’, but it is the same funding model under another name. It means that funding will be frozen to 350 schools, affecting 220,000 students. Labor is ideologically committed to its attack on independent and Catholic schools. This is a hit list by another name. Labor ought to come clean and admit that not only is the Latham schools hit list alive and breathing but it is back.

See this speech in context