Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

How to more equitably address school funding has been debated in this place for a number of years now, and I think it is fair to say that the debate has been full of half-truths. There has been so much spin on this matter that it is enough to make the most seasoned follower of politics giddy, and I think it is a great shame. This debate should be about what is best public policy and not about political point-scoring, which is what it has been to this point. What we have before the parliament is a clear policy direction from the government; yet Labor appears to outright oppose this legislation.

Now for some facts on education reform. The model proposed by the government is indeed more closely aligned to the Gonski framework. This position has been endorsed by the Grattan Institute and even left-leaning publications such as The Guardian Australia. Should this legislation pass, over 9,000 schools will receive more federal funding next year than this year—fact. When Labor acted on the recommendations of the Gonski review in 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard famously said that no school would lose a dollar. If that reform plan was continued it would take another 150 years for the poorest resourced schools to catch up to the schools that were over-allocated funding.

The Nick Xenophon Team has always supported needs-based funding, and we also believe transparency in funding is an essential cornerstone in any such reform. I believe that this bill, the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, is a step in the right direction. If we are truly going to allocated funding to school based on need, then surely it is impossible to say that no school will lose a dollar when we know that many schools are already receiving 100 per cent of their Schooling Resource Standard. Perhaps that is why we find ourselves in this bitter argument today.

We must all be clear about one thing: the school funding model that we have today in our schools, whether public, independent or Catholic, is not the Gonski model. It incorporates some elements of the recommendations passed down by the review, but it also produces some huge inequities. The different deals with different states have led to students being discriminated against based on the state in which they live. A student in a government school in South Australia currently receives $600 less per year in federal funding than a similar student in a similar school in New South Wales. That is not needs-based funding; that is funding based on a deal that was struck outside of this House, lacking transparency and oversight. In fact, we have 27 different funding models for education in Australia. As the representative of my electorate of Mayo and my state of South Australia, I do not accept that the need of a student in South Australia is $600 less than the need of student in New South Wales. The current model is inequitable, it is unfair and it needs to be rectified.

To that end, I believe this legislation goes a long way. It provides clear targets for the government and non-government sector and, perhaps most importantly, transparency in the funding allocation to individual schools. I know the arguments of Labor. They say that this legislation cuts $22 billion from what they promised back in 2012; yet the bulk of the money that they were committing was beyond the forward estimates and not factored into any budget calculations. When talking about this legislation in the media, Labor are using their own set of figures for public schools to say that they will receive a cut and then using the government's set of figures of increased funding and cherrypicking independent schools and stating that they will receive more over the next decade. In fact, all schools will receive more, unless they are receiving above their SRS, and they will receive more over the next decade.

So we have an argument by Labor that is deliberately confusing to the community and it is comparing apples with imaginary pears. If Labor were willing to put so much money into their Gonski model, why did they push so much money out beyond the forward estimates? Why did they do that? As the member for Melbourne said, Labor could have used the 2010 parliament to legislate the original Gonski plan. Indeed, they could have included funding in the forward estimates and not put most of the moneys in years five and six 6, which meant states—such as my own state of South Australia—missed out on much-needed funding in the first four years. Of course, we do remember that the then Gillard government was under enormous media pressure to make the bottom line of the budget look better going into the election. I would assume that that was largely the reason for pushing out so much beyond the forward estimates. But it is not an excuse. Let's not cherrypick here and let's not make this about political pointscoring. Let's provide the Australian community with the facts they need on school-based funding and on how to get the model right so that every child is supported and so that the support is sector blind.

In his book I Gave a Gonski, David Gonski stated, 'I have one regret. It is the decision that we made to include in the report calculations of what I recommended a new per student funding formula was likely to cost government.' David Gonski went on to say, 'In retrospect, I believe the decision to mention the numbers clouded the entire process of our review.' But if Labor believes that the model cannot work without pouring in a further $22 billion—totalling $40 billion—then be honest with the Australian community, make this an election promise in the next federal election and show how you will fund this within the forward estimates.

This leads me to talk about what the Nick Xenophon Team see as weaknesses in the current package. While much of the actual model has merit, like the previous Labor government, the package is relying on the Australian community to accept and believe that the money will be committed beyond the forward estimates and, indeed, over a decade. I say that a decade is far too long for all schools to receive parity in their SRS funding. If you are truly committed, you would increase the funding amount over a shorter period to give schools and state governments surety. I believe when it comes to something as important as school funding, getting the model right is the most important issue. It is how we use the money that is crucial, not necessarily the amount of money being distributed.

A further weakness in the model, and perhaps the greatest weakness in the model, is there is no compulsion for the various state governments to increase their share of funding. While there is transparency in this model—so that a school or indeed a parent can see exactly how much is allocated to their school and then the actual amount that they receive—if the state governments are not compelled to contribute, it makes a mockery of this reform. That is as the member for Denison stated, as his Tasmanian state government has been reducing funding as they have received Gonski funding.

At the moment, the states are required to maintain their existing funding under this legislation, but that is not good enough. We will likely see that the reform will not be fully implemented if states do not increase their share too. So the Nick Xenophon Team asks the government to address this issue of state compulsion. States should be required to top up funding at at least 95 per cent of SRS. Of course, if they want to go above this amount, then that is admirable; but we cannot have states continue on their current funding amounts and also have true needs-based reform.

I want to address some of the concerns raised by the Catholic education sector. I read with great interest the comments by Peter Goss of the Grattan Institute, which accused the Catholic sector of cherrypicking its statistics. This has been widely reported in a number of media outlets, including The Sydney Morning Herald. It is so disturbing that I feel it is proper to repeat it here. The data reveals that:

St Mary of the Cross MacKillop Catholic Parish Primary School, a low-SES school in Melbourne's Epping North, received $1.86 million in 2015—

That is from the Catholic education authorities. This was:

$1.49 million less than its federal government allocation.

So $1.49 million was withheld from this school by the Catholic system. Yet:

Meanwhile, St Columba's School … received 15 per cent more funding than its federal government allocation.

And that is a school in a high-SES area.

Under the new system, one of the most admirable parts of the proposed reform is its transparency component so that each school will see what is allocated to them and then what they actually receive. I think I speak for many of my colleagues and many of my constituents when I say that there needs to be more accountability with how the specific sector is distributing its funding—the taxpayers' money—for the education of students. Should this legislation proceed, based on the amount allocated from the federal government on a per student basis, 31 of the top 50 schools in South Australia in 2018—that is, those receiving the most per student—will actually be Catholic schools. So it is hard to understand, with figures like this, why the Catholic sector is unhappy about the school funding reform.

Unlike the Catholic school sector, the independent sector has largely come out in support of the package. I read earlier this week that Independent Schools Victoria has conditionally welcomed the government's proposal, calling it a 'pragmatic compromise'. I have also met with representatives from public school parents' peak bodies, who have echoed the cautious approach for this package. In my discussions with the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia, they also have cautious support for the package. I acknowledge their concern that South Australia has been funded below the national average for the past four years due to the current funding agreements that were signed between the previous Labor government and the South Australian Labor government.

Now let us look at the state school sector. For the last 40 years in Australia, school-funding public policy has largely dictated that the federal government provide funding to the Catholic and independent sectors, and the various state and territory governments largely fund their state school systems. This reform will see increased Commonwealth funding for state schools so that every state school in the nation receives a minimum of 20 per cent of their SRS funding from the federal government. This means that, for South Australia, state schools will receive an extra 5.8 per cent of funding over the next four years, then averaging out to 5.6 per cent over the following 10 years. Nationally, the increase for state schools will be 5.1 per cent—this is over and above their current funding.

It is a shame that the argument over school funding is so divisive. Ultimately, we are all working towards the same goal: better education outcomes for all children. If we are to believe this government's narrative that we must become an innovative and agile nation, then education funding must be the absolute priority for all of us to get right. So I reiterate that this must require the states to also contribute their fair share and there must also be a shorter reform period. A decade is too long to make this reform a reality.

I am pleased that David Gonski, the original architect of education reform, is again working with government to create Gonski 2.0—a review to ascertain the most effective way to invest the additional funding to maximise student results. We have a unique opportunity to get the school funding structure right, so every aspect of the legislation must be examined thoroughly. I will cautiously support the passage of this legislation in this House. However, as previously indicated in my speech, there are weaknesses in this legislation that must be carefully considered in the Senate and through the Senate inquiry so that the best possible framework for reform is created.

In closing, let us do what the Australian community want us to do—to work together and not play petty politics on reform. The Labor, Liberal and National parties have all performed badly in this regard over the years. Our children deserve this change to receive needs based education funding reform and reform that is in line with David Gonksi's vision.

See this speech in context