Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Right. I have the second reading amendment. I can clarify this for the shadow minister at the table. According to his second reading amendment—which has been foreshadowed and circulated and which will be moved later in the debate—he is apparently concerned about a:

hidden agenda evidenced by:

(a)   granting greater power to the Minister to delay or end funding to non-government schools because of an audit qualified for non-financial reasons;

Can I provide to him the explanation for the provision in the bill. The explanation is simply this: it is possible for an auditor to submit an unqualified report—that is, unqualified directly in the sense of an auditor’s qualification—that still expresses concerns about the financial viability of the school. The auditor may report that the school’s accounts provide a fair and true representation of the school’s finances; however, without qualifying their opinion, the auditor may also express concerns about the school body’s viability such as where it is highly dependent on the continued goodwill of its financiers in which funds have been borrowed on better-than-commercial terms. It is in relation to that kind of matter that the provision is being sought—a probity provision, something related to appropriate and proper use of government funds and something the shadow minister is obviously confused about.

The Schools Assistance Bill will make important changes for Indigenous students in non-government schools. Non-government schools where 80 per cent or more of the students are Indigenous and non-government schools in very remote areas where 50 per cent or more of the students are Indigenous will receive maximum funding. This additional funding will enable Indigenous students to receive a higher level of support and to achieve better educational outcomes—something I trust every member of the House is able to support. Bringing supplementary Indigenous education funding into the Schools Assistance Bill and streamlining the administrative arrangements that support that funding will reduce the administrative burden and increase flexibility for providers so that they can get on with the vital job that we want them to do: closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We trust that the impact on Indigenous Australians will be positive; 2,157 Indigenous students in non-government schools will attract maximum funding under the bill.

COAG agreed that as a national priority we must aim to halve the gap in literacy and numeracy outcomes over the next decade and halve the year 12 attainment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2020. This will not be achieved unless we create the conditions for schools to do things differently to meet these targets. The Education Legislation Amendment Bill extends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000, which also enhances the government’s ability to create the right conditions for change. In summarising the debate I also note that, under the Schools Assistance Bill, most approved authorities will be better off financially but, importantly, no approved authority will be worse off. Independent schools can decide on the best way to support their students. Where schools are in a cluster association with each school contributing resources, they will not be prevented by this legislation from continuing this arrangement in the future.

The legislation ensures that states pass the funding to approved authorities in a timely manner. The legislation makes no changes to the SES funding model used to calculate the allocations to the non-government sector. Indexation is also calculated in the same way as for the previous quadrennium. One change is the discontinuation of establishment grants, and this has been referred to during the debate. Establishment grants were introduced in 2001 as part of the socioeconomic status funding arrangements for non-government schools. The additional funding was provided to allay independent non-government school concerns about establishing new schools with funding levels based on their SES scores in competition with Catholic systemic schools, which at the time were not funded in the same way as the rest of the sector.

When in 2005 Catholic systemic schools became part of the SES funding arrangements, the rationale for establishment grants continuing was weakened. A survey of the non-government schools sector undertaken as part of the evaluation of the Establishment Grants Program showed that school operators did not base decisions about opening up a new school on the availability of establishment grants funding. For example, the following quote is typical of the views expressed during the evaluation:

The grant is too small to influence such a major decision as opening a new school.

See this speech in context