Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are all aware that in the lead-up to the last election our Prime Minister made education a key feature of our election commitments. It was heartening for all who see education as providing the life opportunities for children of our nation to have education at the forefront of the government’s concerns. It is through education that people realise their potential in life, and I am certainly very proud of the background that I had in the public education system, which has provided me with opportunities later in life. Of course, in an increasingly international environment, where productivity and competitiveness will determine our future economic outcomes, we all understand the importance of investment in human capital and an investment which also goes to the goals outlined in our social inclusion policies.

The Prime Minister talked about an education revolution, and he talked about a revolution that was going to grow the pie of funding allocations for education. He outlined a series of initiatives that we would deliver in government. It was heartening that in our first budget more than $19 billion in new education funding was announced. Already some of those initiatives are being felt in my schools in a positive way. For example, our digital education revolution, which ultimately will provide access for all year 9 to year 12 students to a school computer, is very well deserved and welcomed in my electorate. In the first round of funding, eight schools in Throsby, across the sectors, were allocated funds for the purchase of 1,685 computers. Schools in Throsby were still languishing with access of students to a computer being less than one to eight. So, in that first round, we brought those schools up to the standard of at least one computer per two students. We are also very heartened by the commitment made to the trade training centres in secondary schools, particularly in an area like the Illawarra, where we have incredibly high rates of youth unemployment at a time when we have glaring skills shortages.

I note also our commitment to deliver universal access to early childhood education as being a critical component of our social inclusion agenda. Early intervention, particularly for more disadvantaged communities, does provide the bedrock on which future opportunities grow. Only this week, the commitment was made to bring forward some of the projects earmarked under our $11 billion Education Investment Fund to kick-start investment in a range of higher education and TAFE institutions.

The government is also in the process of delivering a new four-year national education agreement, which I know will deliver more Commonwealth resources to all schools. The government has committed to providing a minimum of $42 billion to schools over the next four years. It is in that context that funding arrangements for non-government schools for the years 2009-12 are now before us for debate.

The passage of this legislation will appropriate $28 billion for the 2009-12 period and, as I understand, this legislation needs to be passed before the end of the year so that payments can begin to flow from January 2009. In that context, I accept the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education to the non-government school sector that for those years we would continue the funding and indexation arrangements inherited from the Howard government pending a comprehensive review, which will be open and transparent and which, it is anticipated, will conclude in 2011.

I would like to now make some personal comments and observations that are relevant to this debate and relevant to the future review, although no-one can anticipate the outcomes of that review because, in the minister’s words, it will be open and transparent and all stakeholders across the sectors will be given the opportunity to make an input into it. My election to this parliament back in 2001 coincided with the Howard government’s decision to introduce a new funding scheme for non-government schools, commonly referred to as the SES funding scheme, and we have heard a lot about that this morning. At the time, as a young teacher, I was concerned that we were moving away from a well-established formula instituted in the Whitlam era following the recommendations of the Karmel report that schools across the sectors should be funded on the fundamental principle of need as a measure of ensuring fairness and equity.

What we had was an SES scheme that removed the previous link between the level of a school’s resources and the level of the public grant to which the school would be entitled. The previous education resource index known as the ERI was replaced by an indirect measure of the socioeconomic status of schoolchildren’s parents as the basis for entitlement to public funding. When one looks back on the debates on that State Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000, before I was in parliament, rightly members on the opposition side did point to the obvious flaws that were inherent in such a model. I think it is appropriate that people do have the opportunity to look at the limitations of any formula for the allocation of public funding. It is in that regard that comments were made about the limitations of that formula. At the time, as I recall, that new formula, the SES scheme, despite its obvious limitations, was applied only to those schools that received a financial benefit while maintaining the level of funding that previously applied if schools were to have their grant reduced—commonly referred to as the funding maintained schools.

It is not an issue of alleged class warfare as I just heard expressed by the speaker before me. One only needs to look at the non-biased opinions of an internal departmental document prepared under the Howard government when they were still in power. That document noted as follows.

The consistency and equity of the SES funding arrangements is undermined by the fact that almost half of the non government school sector is funded outside the ‘straight’ SES model

In other words, under the Howard government we saw around half of all the non-government schools receiving funds above the levels that should have applied if the Commonwealth’s own criteria in the SES model had been fairly applied. As well we know the Howard government maintained the link between increases in state funding of government schools and Commonwealth funding of the non-government school sector through the application of the average government school recurrent cost measure or the AGSRC. But this automatic formula did not and does not take into account the increasing proportion of non-government schools that operate at resource levels well above those of the average government school. Let me give you an example. The government school sector caters for about 80 per cent of children with disabilities. So in the event that a state government decides to inject more funds to address the needs of children with disabilities the automatic indexation formula applies those additional expenditures into an automatic indexation factor for all non-government schools regardless of the resource levels at which they operate

These funding measures have entrenched a resource gap between schools, one that I cannot understand how anyone could justify on the grounds of the principle of educational need. I think it is reasonable for legislators to look at the existing arrangements and the formula which currently determine how public funds are expended in the non-government school sector. I do not think any sector should be immune from accountability for the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds. If there are existing flaws and anomalies along the lines that I have indicated then surely an open and transparent review that will listen to the voices of all stakeholders would have the opportunity to examine that as part of the review process.

In my personal view, backed up by the evidence provided by an internal bureaucratic departmental document, the current scheme lacks integrity in a number of aspects and certainly has moved far away from the original notion of funding on the basis of need. However, I understand and accept that the arrangements for the non-government school sector will continue until 2012. That is reflected in this bill which delivers on the Rudd Labor government’s election commitment taken to the whole of the Australian community in the lead-up to the election.

One thing which is very clear in my view, from the legacy of the Howard years, is that the resource gap between the government and non-government school sectors taken as a whole has grown and needs to be addressed on the basis of fairness and equity. Back in 2004 our then shadow minister for education pointed to this fact when she argued that no-one could really say that the SES formula was in any way a formula that defined funding on the basis of need; otherwise we would not have seen the massive increases to the wealthier schools in this country that we have seen under the legacy of the Howard regime.

The share of total Commonwealth school funding to government schools, which continue to educate around 2.2 million students—that is, nearly 67 per cent of enrolments—declined from 43 per cent of allocations to 35 per cent under the Howard government. The real increases in Commonwealth funding for non-government schools since 1996 have been substantial, about twice the rate of increase for government schools, which continue today to educate about twice the number of students. So the legacy of the Howard era is that we saw government schools getting an increase of around $2 billion, a 146 per cent increase, and the non-government school sector getting an increase of $4.76 billion, a 247 per cent increase. Naturally, I think it is very appropriate that in the coming review that these factors are given proper and considered attention. And while no-one knows what the outcome of the review will be, these are factors that need to be addressed in that review, as do the anomalies that are contained in the automatic indexation factor through the average government school recurrent costs—the AGSRC.

In the latest AGSRC figures that I could find, the Commonwealth commitment is around $8,000 per primary student and $10,000 for a secondary student. Under this formula, Commonwealth funding for government schools provides 8.9 per cent of the primary schools’ AGSRC and 10 per cent of the secondary AGSRC. In both cases that is significantly lower than the minimum grant of 13.7 per cent, which is applied to non-government schools with the highest SES scores. In fact, in my examination I could find only one private school that gets funded on that minimum 13.7 per cent, although I found a lot of highly resourced and well-known non-government schools getting the allocations on the 17.5 per cent level—schools like Ascham, Cranbrook, Knox Grammar, Melbourne Grammar and Geelong Grammar. What I am arguing for is the current AGSRC indexation mechanisms to automatically transfer the benefits of increased state expenditure to government school students—whether they are students with a disability, Indigenous students, students of refugees or recently arrived migrants—any time that the government or territory expends more of its state funds that automatically apply to all non-government schools, including those with the highest resources whose students could, arguably, under a needs based system, have no need for a share of this additional support.

A recent comprehensive analysis by Dr Jim McMorrow shows that if the Commonwealth general recurrent per capita grants for government schools were to be increased to the minimum grant available to the independent schools—namely the 13.7 per cent of AGSRC—this would increase outlays to the public school system by some $825 million by 2011-12. He then goes on to cite facts which show that to restore funding of government schools to their share of total funding back in 1996-97 would require an additional $1.5 billion in outlays. As I said in my introductory remarks, we are certainly committed to an education revolution, we are certainly committed to growing the pie and the resources available to ensure that all our kids have the best opportunities in life, but it is not something that we can address overnight. It needs to be noted that there is an inherent legacy left by the previous government by the application of the recurrent indexation formula and the SES funding scheme. I am pleased, as a product of the public education system, that my government and the Prime Minister of the nation continue to understand the importance of adequately and appropriately funding the system that continues to cater for large numbers of students.

While this bill deals specifically with the funding of non-government schools for 2009 to 2012 in the context of promises we made and took to the election, as a parliament we are yet to see the outcomes for the government school sector. I understand these will be finalised through the COAG process by year’s end and delivered as part of our national education agreement. It is fair to say that the expectations of the government sector are high given its obvious underfunding and the legacy that has been left by the Howard government. I understand the new agreement for the government school sector does not need to be legislated in order to deliver funding. However, the COAG process will also result in three important new national partnership agreements for schools: one to improve teacher quality, one to improve literacy and numeracy, and one, very importantly, to better assist disadvantaged schools and disadvantaged communities.

The minister has clearly indicated the government’s interest in identifying disadvantaged schools across the sectors so that resources can properly be focused on where they can have the greatest impact in improving outcomes for all Australian students. In conclusion, I trust that by year’s end, following the progress of the negotiations of COAG, we will see significant recurrent funding allocations for the 2.2 million students in government schools so that we can begin, in a tangible way, to correct what I see as obvious funding imbalances that occurred during the years of the Howard government.

See this speech in context