Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I note that the parliamentary secretary at the dispatch box tries to suggest that Labor support the non-government schools sector, but I will be fascinated to see, as will the non-government sector, what comes out of the Gonski review a the end of this year. The member opposite, the member for Franklin, will of course, I am sure, stand up and oppose any cut in funding in real terms to the non-government school sector! I am sure that she will support the coalition in standing up for non-government schools and making sure that every child in a non-government school has the same opportunities, the same access and the same choices as children in the government school sector!

My great fear is that this year we will see the assault on the non-government school funding that Labor has been holding onto for nine years since the Prime Minister made those fateful remarks about what she regards as the flawed SES funding model. They wanted to get through the 2007 election and the 2010 election. We had to drag the then education minister, Simon Crean, kicking and screaming to extend the SES funding model, but they only extended it by one year. They did not commit to it for the future, because we all know they just wanted to get through the election so they could then assault non-government schools’ funding. That is why they want to publish on the My School website the financial data of the non-government schools. What they want to do is build a case to attack the non-government schools sector, and every small religious and non-religious school that is a non-government school around Australia should be very fearful about what will happen under this Labor government that absolutely loathes the private school education system. We have managed to hold them off for a long period of time. We have held them off, but they are coming this year and next year to assault the non-government schools sector funding model.

I notice the member for La Trobe scurrying out of the chamber. She knows the truth and she does not want to sit here and have to listen. She does not want to have to listen to the truth about her dislike of the non-government schools sector and her determination to rip money off the non-government schools sector and distribute it, once again, to the public servants in the department rather than see services delivered on the ground in the electorate of La Trobe.

I caution the parents—I have said that, of course. I got slightly distracted by the member for Franklin, but I think we have dealt with her! We know the Greens policy seeks to return the total level of funding for all non-government schools to the 2003-04 levels and restrict the development of new non-government schools. This alliance between Labor and the Greens, therefore, poses a real threat, as it will seek to undermine the opportunities of young people and the choices of families who wish to educate their children at a non-government school chosen in accord with their religious faith or educational philosophy.

The review into schools funding this year for both government and non-government schools remains a key area of concern for the coalition, and we will scrutinise every step of this process. Already it is becoming clear that the My School website is slowly being politicised in a transparent attempt to build a case against public funding for non-government schools. The decision by Peter Garrett to delay the launch of My School 2.0, which was to be launched last year, is an indication of the political sensitivity of the decision to publish school financial information for all to see. Some government school lobbies and the education unions continue to argue that funding by the Commonwealth to non-government schools reduces funding to government schools. They of course overlook the fact that the states and territories have primary responsibility for government school funding, but these fraudulent arguments have not really progressed in decades. These same advocates have applauded Labor’s decision to publish school financial information on the My School 2.0 website, hoping it will bolster their case that once information is made available it can then be used as a method to justify reducing funding later down the track to Catholic and independent schools.

Sadly, it has already come to my attention that some schools already preparing for the inevitable under Labor are starting to put their school fees up now in preparation for 2013, when the Howard government’s socioeconomic status funding model is set to expire. Despite all the talk about My School being a resource for parents that will increase transparency and accountability, the evidence has recently mounted that the website is morphing into an instrument to run a campaign against government funding of non-government schools. This is evidenced by the fact that Labor were all but set to publish inaccurate and false financial data about non-government schools on the website without seeming to care what impact this could have had on some schools. It was not until some non-government schools threatened legal action last year that the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth decided to delay the website.

Further evidence is found in the recent Senate education committee inquiry into schools testing and the My School website. Labor made it obvious in the report that there is only one thing on their mind, and that is to bring back the Latham-Gillard private schools hit list. I quote:

Government senators note the financial data to be captured on My School version 2 is a good start but will not capture accumulated surpluses, assets, trusts or foundations. In the interests of providing more information, government senators believe that there should be full disclosure of financial assets including assets, foundations and investments, otherwise true comparisons will not be possible. There are limited obligations on private schools in return for public funding.

               …            …            …

If non-government schools continue to expect a share in federal funding then full financial disclosure in the interests of the tax payer and the better allocation of resources must be required. If non-government schools do not wish to comply with full financial disclosure, then public funding should not be provided.

The Labor senators have let the cat out of the bag in this report. They do not want to accumulate information to be used to determine the funding for each school. They want to publish the private financial information of the non-government schools—the trusts or foundations that have been established through the hard work of the parents, grandparents and former students over many decades and in some cases over more than 100 years—so they can then assault the non-government schools sector and take the funding from the non-government schools. That is the agenda of the Labor Party in schools, and we will see that played out, if the government lasts long enough, in 2012. Unfortunately, at the moment it looks as if the government might not even last till the end of this session. They are immolating before our very eyes.

So they might not even get to implement the outcome of the Gonski review, but if they are, unfortunately, in government next year then we will see their assault on the non-government schools sector for all that it will provide. Indeed, just this weekend we saw reports that Peter Garrett will take the proposal to force schools to include their assets on the My School website to the next council of education ministers meeting in April this year I raised grave concerns about schools having to provide excessive reporting on financials during the debate on the original schools assistance bill in 2008. I know that the non-government sector authorities were willing to provide information in good faith, but my concern was and still is that Labor would one day seek to use all of this information as the basis to take away funding from the non-government sector.

It looks set in stone that Labor will attempt to discredit the SES funding model. I note that the recent issues paper released by David Gonski goes into details of the arguments made against the model but elaborates little on the views of those who support the model’s underlying assumptions or options to improve the model. The model as it is conceived now is on a socioeconomic status, in that it uses students’ postcodes but does not take into account schools’ resources or fees. Parents are not asked intrusive questions about their income or other personal information; rather, the SES model links students’ addresses with current Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Schools which draw students from areas of predominantly high SES receive lower levels of Commonwealth funding than schools which draw from areas of the average or low SES.

The coalition has long argued the benefits of this system as schools are not penalised for fundraising efforts—for example, income from fetes and working bees—nor are schools forced to provide onerous financial information. It has offered all parents a real choice of schooling options, regardless of their economic circumstances or the price they are willing to pay for their children’s education.

I am concerned that the principles that we now have in the SES model will be increasingly compromised as the review and changes to My School progress. It will be a real shame if under Labor in 2011 we will see the focus on schools funding drifting back to the arcane public-verses-private school debate when there is so much more to be done. It is unclear to me how publishing the assets of a non-government school is going to enhance any student’s education or how publishing the details of school trusts is going to result in improved literacy and numeracy. I would argue that, instead of trying to create a digital private schools hit list, the policy focus for the government should be on increasing autonomy in schools. My School in Australia runs a real risk of impacting negatively on student achievement, unless it goes hand in hand with the principals and schools being given autonomy.

I turn to mention a clear omission from this piece of legislation and flag I intend to move an amendment to address it. The coalition is absolutely focused on holding this government to account on the development of an appropriate national curriculum. A solid curriculum that lifts standards of literacy and numeracy within Australia will form the basis of the kind of eduction policy Australian mums and dads really want in the future. They want solid, practical accomplishments founded on decisions that are not based on the politics of envy.

Last year we saw the government clearly underdeliver on its original promise to have the national curriculum available to implement from the beginning of this year due to concerns about its quality. The national curriculum has become another Gillard-Garrett failure as state education ministers last year at the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs refused to begin implementation in January 2011 as was promised. Instead of endorsing a finished product, its final consideration was moved until October 2011 with the curriculum due to be implemented by 2013. Peter Garrett’s claim last year that the curriculum was ‘historically’—

See this speech in context