Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

Landfill, indeed. There is no certainty that this program will continue.

To illustrate my point about the failure of this government to deliver meaningful policy for all Australians, I would like to note some of the details in this bill. Most of this bill focuses on aspirations rather than the implementation of good public policy. For example, the Australian Education Bill sets three goals: firstly, for Australian schooling to provide an excellent education for all schools. Well, that is pretty exciting! We all think it is a good idea but I do not think we needed this bill to tell us that. The second goal is for Australian schooling to be highly equitable. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. The third goal is for Australia to be ranked as one of the top five highest performing countries based on the performance of Australian school students in reading, mathematics and science, and based on the quality and equity of Australian schooling, by 2025.

The bill outlines five directions for reform under the National Plan for School Improvement, which states, territories and non-government school sector authorities will be expected to agree to. The directions are: quality teaching, quality learning, empowered school leadership, transparency and accountability, and meeting student need. But that is about the extent of the bill. There is no meat on the bone. The bill represents little more than a regurgitated thought bubble which the minister somehow convinced himself would be a good idea. There are no further details on how the plan is to be implemented or how the elements of the plan are to be monitored. As the member for Sturt pointed out, the government could try and show they are serious about education by answering some key questions on how they are going to implement the Gonski recommendations.

I share the concerns of other members of the coalition who are genuinely seeking answers in relation to education, Gonski and this government. I would like to place on record some of the questions which the government must answer in relation to education and the Gonski review. Where will the $6.5 billion per year that is needed come from? How much will the Commonwealth contribute and how much are the states expected to fund? What programs will be cut and what taxes will the government increase to pay for it? With Gonski modelling showing 3,254 schools will be worse off, how much extra will it cost for every school to receive more funding, as the Prime Minister has promised? Where is the modelling showing the impact of this funding for each school? Will the Prime Minister guarantee no school will have to increase school fees as a result of her changes? Where is the detailed response to the 41 recommendations in the Gonski review? How much indexation will each school and school sector receive? What will be the benchmark funding per primary and secondary school student? How much funding per student will be allocated for students with a disability? That is a very important issue. Will this funding be portable between the government and non-government sectors? What, if any, future capital funding arrangements will be provided for schools? What new reporting requirements and other conditions will schools have to meet in order to qualify for government funding? All these are legitimate questions which the government must answer if they are to be taken seriously.

The review of funding for schooling, chaired by Mr Gonski, made a number of recommendations in relation to funding for schools. Also recommended was a new funding framework, although technical issues arose once the panel's model was tested by the government. Both the National Catholic Education Commission and the Independent Schools Council of Australia reported serious anomalies, and leaked modelling revealed that approximately a third of all schools would lose funding. Since the report was given to the government, there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on consultants to redesign the Gonski panel's original proposal for a funding model. With the funding agreement to commence next year, none of this modelling has ever been made public and no formal response has ever been provided by the government to each of the panel's recommendations. This bill adds no further detail. In fact, since this bill was introduced into parliament, representatives from key stakeholders, including state governments and the non-government education sector, have raised concern about a lack of certainty and detail as to the government's plans.

It is clear that this bill was introduced last year so that the government could issue a press release. The explanatory memorandum indicates that the bill will be updated once agreement is met with the states on the parameters of a new model. And, while the amendments are to be introduced, schools are becoming increasing anxious about the future funding arrangements and cannot plan beyond the end of this year. From the minister that presided over pink batts, we now have no certainty about funding for school education.

It is also worth noting that we are debating this bill before the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment commences public hearings into this bill.

The coalition believes that the current arrangements for funding and indexation must be the basic starting point for any new funding model. No school should be worse off as a result of a new funding model. Nobody would disagree with the notion that we would like Australia's schools to be the best in the world. However, this government has seen a decline in Australia's standings in the international school rankings. Nobody should disagree that the Australian schooling system should provide an excellent education for school students. However, this bill does not have any details of what an excellent education is, just that school students should have one.

The coalition do not oppose the directions in this bill but are concerned about the lack of details provided to date. The coalition have our own values for schooling, as set out in our amendment. These values guide our approach to school funding and are as follows: first, that families must have the right to choose a school that meets their needs, values and beliefs; second, that all children must have the opportunity to secure a quality education; third, that student funding needs must be based on fair, objective, and transparent criteria distributed according to socioeconomic needs; fourth, that students with similar needs must be treated comparably throughout the course of their schooling; fifth, that as many decisions as possible should be made locally by parents, communities, principals, teachers, schools and school systems; sixth, that schools, school sectors and school systems must be accountable to their community, families and students; seventh, that every Australian student must be entitled to a basic grant from the Commonwealth government; eighth, schools and parents must have a high degree of certainty about school funding so they can effectively plan for the future; ninth, that parents who wish to make a private contribution towards the cost of their child's education should not be penalised, nor should schools in their efforts to fundraise and encourage private investment; and, tenth, that funding arrangements must be simple so schools are able to direct funding towards education outcomes, minimise administration costs and increase productivity and quality.

In conclusion, while the coalition do not oppose this bill in its current form, we fear that it is like so many other issues: this government just will not be able to deliver on its commitment. The budget is in crisis. Government borrowings are at historic highs. And the reality is that this government is in a desperate state. As a result, we can expect this government to come up with more hollow rhetoric, and no doubt they will try and blame state governments across the nation for the Gillard government's failure to deliver. But the truth is that when it comes to national reform it is the federal government that is responsible for delivering. And when one looks at this government's record of delivery we can see a litany of waste, mismanagement and failure that is without peer in our nation's history.

See this speech in context