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

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, which seeks to amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 in order to extend the current funding arrangements to non-government schools. This includes extending recurrent funding arrangements until 2013, using the coalition’s socioeconomic status, SES, funding model. Grants for capital expenditure are also to be extended until 2014. It has long been the coalition’s policy to maintain the existing SES funding model, and for this reason the coalition will not oppose the bill. While schools know exactly where they stand with the coalition on school funding, a very serious question mark hangs over the future of school funding under the Gillard Labor government.

Nine years ago, the Prime Minister described the SES funding model as ‘flawed and unworkable’. Today in this chamber we are considering, at the Prime Minister’s behest, whether we should extend this model. It is the sort of doubletalk we have come to expect from this Prime Minister and this government. The decision to extend the existing SES funding model was made during the election campaign as the government faced mounting pressure to outline what form the new funding model would take. No-one in the non-government school sector is in any doubt that this was done to avoid revealing Labor’s true plans for schools funding right before the election. It was a desperate attempt to avoid a showdown with the non-government school sector.

Further evidence of this can be seen with the initial refusal of the then Minister for Education, Simon Crean, to guarantee during the election that funding for non-government schools would be maintained in real terms, inclusive of indexation, beyond 2012. The coalition knew, based on published information from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, that indexation and supplementation for all non-government schools over the four-year life of a school funding agreement equates to approximately $1.3 billion. It was only at the eleventh hour in the election campaign that the Prime Minister, after intense pressure from the coalition and the non-government school sector, was forced to guarantee indexation for non-government schools until 2013 by extending the SES funding model for another year.

A $1.3 billion shortfall in funding would have resulted in higher school fees for families. Unlike Labor, the coalition acknowledges that many parents scrimp and save to send their children to a non-government school of their choice. It still leaves a potential $1 billion shortfall in non-government school funding in real terms over the life of the next agreement if indexation is not guaranteed beyond the end of 2013. Parents who have children in non-government schools deserve to be told by the Prime Minister and Labor whether they can expect a massive hike in their school fees in a few years time. The Prime Minister must also guarantee that, beyond the next election, no non-government school will be worse off in real terms. Labor have certainly promised a lot in education, but in reality they have delivered very little.

The coalition believes in excellence in both government schools and non-government schools. That is why the former coalition government introduced the socioeconomic status funding model for non-government schools, which ensures funding is distributed on a much more equitable basis than Labor’s former educational resources index. Because general recurrent funding under the SES model distributes according to need, the schools serving the neediest communities receive the greatest financial support. It means that parents at all income levels have a realistic capacity to choose the most appropriate schooling for their child. The SES funding model creates an incentive for non-government schools to attract students from low-income families.

Unlike Labor, we genuinely believe in the absolute freedom of parental choice when it comes to the education of our children. We believe that it is the right of every parent to choose the education of their children and we advocate that government should encourage and facilitate, not control or restrict, the exercise of this freedom of choice. Comments made by the members of the Labor Party remind us that it is the party of the ‘private schools hit list’ and the politics of envy. They voted against the SES funding model when it was introduced, and many of their members, including the Prime Minister, are on the record opposing equitable funding for non-government schools.

The Prime Minister once said of the SES funding model, on 20 August 2001:

This government, for its funding for private schools, has adopted a flawed index, the so-called SES model, which does not deliver on the basis of need. We know that model is flawed …

So I want to caution the parents of children at all non-government schools: Labor’s hit list of non-government schools will be more deadly than ever this year, given the review of schools funding will be led in the context of this new Labor-Greens alliance.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Collins interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to 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’—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I interrupt the shadow minister and ask him to refer to members by their positions.

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

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I momentarily forgot myself.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the third time. I have let it go through twice and I ask you to use titles.

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

He’s so absent-minded.

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

I was distracted momentarily.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the shadow minister at the table like to put that on the record?

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

The claim of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth last year that the curriculum was ‘historically’ endorsed suggests he did not understand the difference between success and failure. Far from endorsing the finished curriculum, the ministers appeared to have humiliated the minister for schools and the Prime Minister by accepting the patently obvious that a lot more work needs to be done to get this curriculum right. In fact, they in the end had to endorse a proposal from New South Wales to develop a blueprint to iron out issues such as the curriculum covering too much content, being overly prescriptive and lacking clear achievement standards.

It is a very sad day when the federal government have to take a proposal from the New South Wales government, arguably the worst government in the history of the nation, because their own minister for schools is so inept and incompetent that he did not realise the national curriculum was not ready for introduction. And do not just take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I doubt you would. The curriculum has been roundly criticised by the state governments, stakeholder organisations and education experts. It has been described as ‘overcrowded, incoherent and lacking depth’, ‘a step backwards’, ‘inferior’, ‘lacking quality and clarity’ and as being ‘unclear and not ready to teach’. Its rigidity is outlined in a letter last year to Minister Garrett from the Australian Curriculum Coalition, which consists of 13 peak bodies ranging from the Australian Education Union and the Australian College of Educators right through to the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia. The one thing the national curriculum has achieved is uniting the most diverse range of people imaginable across the sector. They argue that Labor’s curriculum lacks a clearly stated direction with no overarching framework:

There is no clear statement about the issues that a national curriculum is designed to address, apart from the problem of mobile students … There is a need for an overarching framework for the curriculum to provide clarity about the conceptual model underpinning it.

They went on to explain that the curriculum is overcrowded:

As they stand, the documents will lead to serious overcrowding of the curriculum. The documents include too much lower order content to be learnt at the expense of higher order skills and conceptual understanding, leading to a degree of risk to teaching quality and the chances of effective student learning.

Julia Gillard has long claimed the curriculum would take three years to develop and be ready to implement by January 2011. In April 2008, Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister, promised:

A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011.

This brings me to my final point. Last year it came to my attention that the Schools Assistance Act 2008 requires non-government schools and systems to introduce the national curriculum ‘prescribed by the regulations’ on or before 31 January 2012. Now that the curriculum time line is behind Labor’s original schedule, with some states and territories having announced they will not implement it until 2013, this obviously needs to be amended. But I note that the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill does not deal with this issue, as one might have expected. So, while the coalition will not delay the passage of this bill, we do make a simple suggestion that it makes sense to amend the act now and change the time line for the curriculum for non-government schools to be implemented in line with state and territory schedules. I foreshadow that I will seek to move the following amendment:

(1)    Schedule 1, after item 3, page 3 (after line 17), insert:

3A Subsection 22(2)

Omit “31 January 2012”, substitute “a date set by the Minister by legislative instrument”.

3B After subsection 22(2)

Insert:

        (3)    The Minister may not set a date for subsection (2) that is earlier than the date by which he or she is satisfied the national curriculum will be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory.

        (4)    If it appears that the national curriculum will be not be implemented in government schools in each State and Territory by the date that has been set for subsection (2), the Minister must set a later date.

Why is this so important? While it sounds slightly arcane—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just indicate to the shadow minister that, having talked about them, he will have to move them in the consideration in detail stage as formal amendments. He can talk more broadly then.

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

Okay. I am foreshadowing that I am going to do that. I am foreshadowing that in this speech. That is fine. Why are these amendments so important? They are very important because the absurd situation in which the government has now placed the curriculum and the schools sector is that the non-government schools, under the act, are required to introduce the national curriculum by 31 January 2012, but the national curriculum is not ready for introduction, and the state governments have announced that they will not implement the national curriculum until 2013 at the earliest. So this minister is so inept and incompetent that he has a situation where the non-government schools are being required by law to implement a national curriculum that is not ready and, if this law is allowed to stay in place, the state government school systems will not implement the national curriculum until after the non-government school sector does.

You would think that the minister would fix that problem. You would think that he would move an amendment to his own bill. In fact, you would think he would have included it in the bill in the first place. Unfortunately, it takes the opposition to fix this minister’s absolute and sheer incompetence. On a daily basis we are trying to help this government and save it from itself, and today we have to foreshadow an amendment, which we will debate in the consideration in detail stage, to fix another government bill.

We could just let it go through. We could just allow the government to place the non-government sector in the absurd situation of having to introduce a national curriculum which is neither drafted nor completed while the government sector does not have to do so. But we in the opposition are bigger than that. We want to help the non-government school sector, so we will move these amendments. I hope that the crossbenchers and the government will support them. If they do support and adopt them, we will be very happy. With that, while the opposition will not of course oppose this bill since it extends our SES funding model, I do recommend my amendments to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education is the best anti-poverty vaccine we have yet invented. It provides the foundations from which Australians can build a life of their choosing. Education lights a spark which can see a child from Cape York not just go on to university and become a leader in her community but also become Young Australian of the Year, as Tania Major did a couple of years ago. A great education means that a child from Ilfracombe can become the first female member of the Queensland bar and our first female Governor-General. This great building, this national parliament, is a showcase of the opportunities which education provides to children from all corners of the nation. So many members of the House acknowledged in their first speeches that they would not be here today were it not for a great education. I remember hearing time after time those stories of where a particular teacher or a certain educational opportunity had made the difference in someone’s life.

Providing a great education is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy as well. Raising the human capital of our workforce is the most promising way of increasing Australia’s productivity, which has been sluggish over the last decade or so. By boosting the quantity of education we will help our labour force deal with future changes in the economic structure. A great education means that children will be more resilient when, as workers, they face changes in the kinds of jobs they are expected to do. Improving the quality of education ensures that Australian children learn more from each given year at school, at VET or at university. The importance of education means that we in this place have a responsibility to ensure that our schools get the resources that they need to do the job that we know it is important for them to do.

The Gillard government, having recognised this, has invested a record amount in school building infrastructure. The great school modernisation program, Building the Education Revolution, has given schools great buildings which allow them to do extraordinary things in the educational space. I have to confess that I was a sceptic about the BER program. When it was introduced, I was not in parliament and did not have children at school, so I had not visited any of these schools. But one of the great things you get to do as a local member is to go out to your local schools to talk with the parents, the teachers, the children and the principal about how these new school buildings have made a difference to the work they have done. I have seen with my own eyes so many examples of how the BER program has transformed the quality of education in Australia. Yesterday morning that I was out with the Prime Minister and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett, at Turner School. It was my second visit to the school, because I had been there to open their new school library. Principal Ms Jan Day, the teachers, the children and the parents are as excited by their new school library now as they were last year when the library was opened.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Tudge interjecting

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Champion interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just indicate that the member is talking about school students being excited, not members of this House. Perhaps we could settle down with the interjections and let the member make his point.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are still as excited by this new school library as they were last year. I am sure the member for Aston would himself be very excited if he had the opportunity to visit it, an invitation which I formally extend to him today. The community got involved in that school library. There is a mural on the outside of the school library which was put together by Kirsty Verook, one of the local parents. She is a mosaic artist, and she worked with the schoolchildren. She asked them what designs they would like to have on the outside of their library, and she then put their ideas into a mosaic which I was pleased to show to the Prime Minister and Minister Garrett when we visited yesterday morning. Turner School’s is not a lone story. Across Fraser I have seen the impact the BER has had on our community.

At Black Mountain special school, a school for students with intellectual disability, the BER project was the building of a new school hall. I know that many in this chamber think that a hall is just a hall, but for students at Black Mountain the new hall means that for the first time students in a wheelchair can attend the same assemblies as able-bodied students; the school can now fit all of those students into the same hall. The school used to have a stage which was so steep that, when students in wheelchairs got an award, they had to receive it down on the floor in front of the stage. But now, with a well-designed stage, it is possible for the first time for a student in a wheelchair, when they receive an award, to go up and shake the hand of the principal and receive the award in the same place as every other child. This affords them the simple dignity that a great school experience provides.

I had the pleasure of opening new school facilities in Florey Primary School, which has seen renovations to its hall and also the introduction of science labs. That is particularly appropriate given that the school is named after Sir Howard Florey, the great Australian who invented penicillin—possibly one of the greatest Australians of all time. At Amaroo School, new classrooms with innovative learning spaces have been constructed. Students can learn in their traditional classroom or have lessons with their entire peer group. The dividing walls between the classrooms can be taken down and improve the quality of the teaching experience. Team teaching is now possible at Amaroo School thanks to the Building the Education Revolution program. When I was in school—as may have been the case when you were in school, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams—we just had blackboards. We then moved to the age of whiteboards. Now, in Canberra, whiteboards are being replaced by innovative SMART Boards. These are just some of the examples that Prime Minister and the Labor government have brought about through our commitment to high-quality education.

The Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 builds upon the Gillard government’s commitment to ensuring certainty of investment in all Australian schools. The government’s review of funding for schooling is a once-in-a-generation chance to build a community consensus around the education needs of our nation. It will enable us to further the aspiration that every Australian child should have the opportunity to get a great education. By amending the Schools Assistance Act 2008, the Australian government will be able to continue to provide recurrent and capital funding to non-government schools while the review is conducted. That will provide certainty to Catholic and independent schools to enable them to continue to give their students a good education. This bill will also enable the government to continue to work with school communities, parents and families in the non-government school sector to build on the partnerships that are so critical to improving outcomes for Australian primary and secondary students. This is just one part of our broader education agenda.

We are also investing over $64 billion in school education over four years—almost double that of the previous government. We are making more information about our schools available than ever before, through the My School website. As my wife, Gweneth—who I am pleased to acknowledge is here in the chamber today—and I went about choosing a school for our four-year-old we found the information on the My School website absolutely invaluable. My School 2.0, which will be launched tomorrow, will for the first time provide parents and the community with information about the resources that schools have and the changes in student performance over time. I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that the Liberal Party is going to oppose this information being made available to Australian parents—that the Liberal Party supports keeping the blinds down on this critical information.

The Labor government is implementing an Australian curriculum for the first time, working in partnership with states and territories to make sure our students get a great education no matter where they live. I have to say to the member for Sturt that students in my electorate are learning from the national curriculum today. Classes are being taught in ACT schools based on the national curriculum. So, despite what the Liberal Party may say about the national curriculum—and despite what the member for Sturt said before the election when he said that, if you did not like it, the coalition would ‘scrap it and start again’—the national curriculum is a success and it is being taught in schools just a few kilometres from this building.

Labor is supporting students in low-socioeconomic school communities, and improving literacy and numeracy, through a $2½ billion investment in national partnerships. Those national partnerships are investing in over 2,000 schools across the country. They are not just government schools—though many of the low-socioeconomic status communities are served by government schools. Some of them are independent schools and some are Catholic schools. For us in the Labor Party these debates between the government and the non-government sector are very much a thing of the past. We are investing to ensure a quality education for all students, focusing on making sure that every school is a great school.

We have recognised that having high-quality teachers in every classroom is absolutely critical. That is why we are implementing national professional standards for teachers and principals. That is why we are investing in rewarding great teachers and attracting new people to the profession through Teach for Australia and Teach Next. We are empowering principals to manage their schools in a way that best suits their local needs and we are providing rewards for school improvement.

We are investing in infrastructure in schools through, as I have already noted, the Building the Education Revolution program, trades training centres and the digital education revolution—making sure that students have access to modern facilities and equipment to ensure they are prepared for work and life in the 21st century. The National Broadband Network will be another part of this—making sure that e-education provides all students in Australia with a great education.

But great education is not just about dollars. Sometimes when we talk about school buildings and the huge injection of funding—a historic injection of funding—into Australian schools, we can miss the fact that great education is really about a teacher making a connection with a student. It is nothing more complicated than that. Many of us in this chamber will remember a great teacher who made a difference to our lives. For me it was probably Judith Anderson, my high school English teacher, who showed a devotion to the great works, whether it was Browning, Shakespeare or Donne, and provided us with an opportunity to learn outside school hours. She was willing to be there for a group of us who wanted to practise plays. She showed through everything that she did at the front of the classroom her love of education.

But a teacher’s job is not a simple job. I would like to quote from one of my favourite books on education: Teacher Man by Frank McCourt—the great writer of Angela’s Ashes, who sadly passed away recently. He wrote in Teacher Man:

In the high school classroom you are a drill sergeant, a rabbi, a shoulder to cry on, a disciplinarian, a singer, a low-level scholar, a clerk, a referee, a clown, a counsellor, a dress-code enforcer, a conductor, an apologist, a philosopher, a collaborator, a tap dancer, a politician, a therapist, a fool, a traffic cop, a priest, a mother-father-brother-sister-uncle-aunt, a bookkeeper, a critic, a psychologist, the last straw.

In closing I would like to pay tribute to Australia’s teachers, who each and every day do extraordinary work in improving the lives of Australia’s children. I commend the bill to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. This is an important bill and broadly speaking it is a good bill. It is important because it concerns the largest and most significant part of our education system—the school education system—and because it concerns the funding that they receive from the Commonwealth.

Our schools cater for 3.5 million students: 2.3 million in the government school sector and 1.2 million in Catholic and independent schools. By and large we have outstanding schools in this country, as judged by the international PISA results—although there were some concerns which showed themselves in the most recent PISA results and I have made comment on those previously. Our schools educate our children for the future. Our schools are about the future and, importantly, they have the greatest influence on our children outside that of parents. So any bill that concerns schools is an important bill. School funding bills are particularly so.

This is a good bill, by and large. I say that because it extends the existing funding arrangements for schools for another calendar year to the end of 2013. Importantly, it also extends the funding system for non-government schools—the socioeconomic status system—until the end of 2013. By the end of 2013, that system will have been in place for 13 years. That system was introduced in 2001 by the Howard government, under Dr David Kemp. In 2004, Dr Nelson brought the Catholic schools into the SES system, so now all non-government schools—independent and Catholic schools—are part of that system.

The model is based primarily on providing funding to schools according to the wealth of those families that those schools serve. So the wealthiest schools receive the least money; they receive 13.7 per cent of the cost of educating students in a government school. The schools which cater for the poorest families receive the most money; they receive 70 per cent of the cost of educating a child in the government school system. The system is also based on some fundamental core principles, and I will mention two in particular. The first is the principle of school choice. This is a very important principle on this side of the House, and we will continue to uphold that principle and continue to fight for it. It is also based on the principle that every student should attract some level of funding, regardless of which school they attend. The only thing that should differentiate the level of funding which that student attracts is the wealth of the parents of students attending that particular school.

Parents under the SES system are encouraged to also contribute financially, if they choose to do so. They are not penalised for doing so. The SES system also enshrines what is called the AGSRC—the Australian government school recurrent cost—indexation method, which typically ticks over at about five to six to seven per cent per annum, so that school funding basically keeps up with rising school costs. These are very important attributes of the SES system. It is a good system and it is a transparent system. It is by no means perfect but it has worked very effectively now for 10 years, and with this bill it will work effectively for 13 years.

The weakness of this bill, however, is that it only extends the system for one additional year. Most student assistance bills go for four years. The 2000 to 2004 schools assistance bill went for four years; the 2005 to 2008 schools assistance bill went for four years; the 2009 to 2012 schools assistance bill went for four years. If the government were serious about the SES system—as it seems to indicate by putting this bill forward—then it should extend it for a further four years, not just for a single year. We know that the government is not serious about the SES system. It does not support this funding model. So, while we are happy for it to extend the system for an additional year, we fear what is planned from 2014 onwards.

We know that the government do not like this system because they have been explicit about it since the system was introduced in 2001. They have maintained a campaign against this system since 2001, and often against the non-government school sector itself over the last 10 years. I point to a number of comments from senior frontbench members of the government. I will start with Julia Gillard: she said that the system was ‘fundamentally flawed’. She said that it did not deliver on the basis of needs. She complained that it made no allowance for the private resources that a school has. Jenny Macklin, when she was education minister, used to rail against the SES system, day in, day out. Kevin Rudd said that he had ‘grave problems’ with the system. Craig Emerson criticised the system. Mike Kelly said that the system was ‘ridiculous’ and ‘totally crazy’. But probably the most stinging criticism came from the Hon. Stephen Smith when he was education minister. Stephen Smith, the dark horse in the leadership race on the other side of this House, said:

You see there the destruction of our egalitarian society. The destruction of a chance for a fair go, a fair opportunity for access to education for all Australians.

When he was education minister that is what he had to say about the SES system, but I presume he will be coming into this chamber to support the extension of it for a further year.

Let us look not just at what the Labor Party have said about this funding system but also at what they have done. At every election they have promised to repeal or at least review the system. At the last few elections they have promised to cut funding to non-government schools. No-one in this chamber would forget the 2004 hit-list election when it was promised that dozens of schools would have their funding cut and hundreds of others would have their funding reduced or cut over time. They also promised to cut funding for non-government schools at the 2001 election and at the 1998 election. They have only supported this particular system for the 2009-12 quadrennium, and now for a further year, largely for political reasons. They did not want to have a fight with the non-government school sector and 1.3 million parents going into the 2007 election. Despite those stinging criticisms which I have mentioned, they continued to support it. And we supported that; we thought it was a good thing.

But what is to come? We know that they do not like the system. We know that the government is doing a review of the SES school funding system. But we also know a few other things in relation to non-government schools in particular. We know that the Labor Party has been deeply antagonistic towards Catholic and independent schools in the past. We know that their alliance partners, the Greens, are even more antagonistic towards Catholic and independent schools. The Greens committed to not providing any public funds to non-government schools. We know that some of the key funders of the Australian Labor Party, the teachers unions, have similar views to the Greens. We also know that the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the Hon. Peter Garrett, will not guarantee that schools will not lose real funding in the future.

I believe that parents whose children attend non-government schools should be very nervous about the review that is coming up and the proposals which will be put in place following the expiration of this schools assistance amendment bill. What is more, I am concerned that subsequent to the expiration of this particular bill a model which has been tried in the past and discredited in the past will be put in place. It will most likely be a model which is based on the fees that a school collects rather than on the wealth of the parents—that is, it will assess the fees first and, if required, provide top-up funding to a school, from the public purse, to meet a defined benchmark of $12,000 or $13,000 per school. This was basically the model that existed before the SES model came into place in 2001. The detailed model was taken to the 2004 election, elements of it were taken to the 2001 election and all the indications are that a similar type of thing will be introduced from 2014 onwards if the government is still in power.

It may sound superficially attractive to take the school fees into account before you determine the public funding which a non-government school receives, but it has fundamental flaws. Most importantly, it creates a disincentive, if not a penalty, for parental investment into schools. Under such a model, if parents put more money into their school through higher fees then the government funding would be reduced. That makes no sense to me. We have also seen in the past that the system can be somewhat corrupted. That was the case with the ERI system that existed before the SES model was introduced. Importantly, this moves away from the core principle that every child should receive some government assistance for their education regardless of which school they attend, the fees and the contributions made by the parents.

In practice, if such a model is introduced, it will likely mean that many schools will have their funding cut in nominal terms and certainly in real terms. It may be in the first instance that only a couple of hundred schools will be listed to have their funding cut but, if the model that is introduced is anything like the previous models that have been introduced, over time hundreds of non-government schools with relatively modest fees will also have their funding reduced in real terms.

We will be watching very closely the school funding model that comes out of the review that is currently being undertaken by the government. We are concerned that this is being overseen by Mr Garrett; that does not inspire confidence in us. We are concerned that it will be negotiated in conjunction with Bob Brown, so it is likely to be even harsher on non-government schools than the Prime Minister herself would want. The proposed model would have to appease the teachers unions—the Prime Minister cannot afford to lose more support from the Left of her party or she will suffer the same fate as Mr Rudd.

We will be watching very closely in the months ahead, and parents will be very nervous. I said at the beginning that the current SES system is not perfect, but it is transparent, it is difficult to manipulate and it creates the right incentives for parental investment. I support this bill, going forward, because it extends that system for a further year, through to the end of 2013. But we will be watching very closely what the government proposes for school funding following that period, and ideally the SES funding model will continue after that time.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. Before I do so in great detail, I just want to respond to a couple of comments made by the member for Aston, who obviously does not quite have a full grasp of the SES system. He failed to point out the most obvious point, which is that two out of five schools have funding maintained, which effectively means they are outside the SES system; 39.5 per cent of schools have funding maintained. To have a system where two out of five schools are not effectively part of the system shows that you have to recalibrate. I understand the logic behind the SES model in trying to look at the needs. The ABS data gives a bit of insight into where parents who send kids to a school might come from, but there are some obvious flaws. I taught in Catholic schools, I taught in state schools and I was a union organiser working in private schools—every sort of private school, from grammar schools to Anglican schools, Lutheran schools, Christian schools and Aboriginal schools. I have been closely associated with those schools, as well as schools in my electorate, so I have a fair understanding of the SES model.

One of the obvious flaws is that you import ABS data using a postcode from, perhaps, a poor area, but you could be the richest person from that particular area. That is one of the problems with it. Particularly with regard to boarding schools, you might have the richest kid from the country area and you are importing the ABS data for a poor SES part of Australia. That is one of the many flaws with it. The most obvious thing is that two out of five schools have funding maintained.

The bill before the House does not remedy that but it goes some way to giving funding certainty to non-government schools right here, right now. It will support the operating costs of non-government schools until the end of 2013 and capital expenses until the end of 2014. Like any other industry, schools need funding certainty to make investment decisions and to plan for the future, especially when it comes to the more complicated things such as capital projects. This is exactly like the energy and resources sector, which is obviously also crying out for certainty when it comes to something such as a carbon price.

The good thing is that this piece of legislation follows on from the biggest investment in schools in 100 years, via the BER program, which I note was not actually mentioned by the member for Aston, even though it is slightly outside the legislation in front of us. Now the Gillard government is undertaking the biggest review of education funding in 30 years. Let’s be up-front: the Labor Party passionately believes in education. We are a party based on opportunity that comes from education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels and everything in between—before-school care, TAFEs and everything else. This review of funding for schools, due to report later this year, is looking at how we can best support quality education outcomes—the funding allocations, the most effective funding mechanisms and appropriate accountability. We passionately believe in federal accountability.

Everyone expects that government funding must be transparent—fair, financially sustainable and obviously useful. The review that the Gillard government is undertaking will help achieve that. However, as the government is yet to receive the report, we need to ensure funding security now for our Catholic and independent schools, and that is why this legislation is before the House. I know from talking to schools in my electorate—schools like St Thomas More College at Sunnybank, Southside Christian College at Salisbury, the Murri School at Acacia Ridge, St Aidan’s Anglican Girls’ School at Corinda, Christ the King Primary School at Graceville, and Our Lady’s College at Annerley—that they need this certainty. This bill provides that certainty by extending the funding arrangements, including indexation, for a further three years. We want to ensure Catholic and independent schools can plan for the future and ensure that schools can give parents and carers greater certainty when it comes to setting school fees for future years.

The basic philosophy of the Gillard government is that all kids deserve a great education, regardless of the name on top of the school fence. The member for Aston dredged through history for a couple of incidences where the Labor Party might not have made that as clear as it needs to be, but the Gillard government—especially since the Prime Minister is the former education minister—can be proud of its achievements. Admittedly, they might have been particularly generated by the global financial crisis, but we poured money into educational facilities to give schools opportunities that they would never otherwise have had. I was at a school in my electorate the other day, Our Lady of Fatima at Acacia Ridge. It was just a community barbecue, using the school hall facility. One of the parents made the point that they would not have even dreamed of beginning to sell lamingtons and the like to build such a facility. The Gillard government has a proud record when it comes to investing in education and making sure that the education system is as good as it could possibly be. We want to be world leaders in education.

Catholic and independent schools play a very important role in our education system. I saw that when I worked as a teacher in Catholic schools. I saw that when I was a union organiser working in all sorts of independent schools. So the Labor government is committed to ensuring that all students—whether they are public or private, rural or metropolitan, primary or secondary, boy or girl, rich or poor—receive a quality education. This bill amends the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to appropriate $8.2 billion in 2012-13 and $8.9 billion in 2013-14. I mention these figures just in case there is any concern about this government’s commitment to support non-government schooling—to combat some of the scare campaigns, which is such a novice approach from those opposite, as exhibited by the speech by the member for Aston. It also includes about $140 million each year to go towards capital expenses in non-government schools. As we know on this side, every school principal has a list of projects. Every parent group has a list of things that they want to do in their school community. We took advantage of that during the global financial crisis, because every community has a school, they all have a list of projects that they need done and they all have connections with their local tradespeople. Whilst we went some way to changing those tasks, you might suggest that we did 20 years worth of work in one year, basically, in response to the global financial crisis.

I hasten to add for the sake of those with an interest in economics that, overall, we are talking about costs that, at worst, were three, four or five per cent over budget. In a lot of cases, particularly in Catholic and non-government schools, they were under what would be the going rate, because they had great relationships with their builders. That might make a front-page story in the Australian tomorrow, but I am not holding my breath. We are talking about a huge investment. That is why it was so important for the government to get the review of funding for schooling underway to ensure that this huge outlay in taxpayers’ dollars will achieve the educational outcomes that we want for Australian kids in the future. I guess our economic heaven will come from how we educate the kids of today. That is why the partnership with non-government schools is so important and so valued. This partnership helps deliver funding for important capital infrastructure that some schools, particularly emerging schools, cannot fund alone.

The capital grants are available for schools to help purchase land and buildings, to upgrade utilities and purchase equipment and technology. They also help with library resources and teacher accommodation and support for students with disabilities. When you go to modern-day schools, as I am sure you have done recently to open some of those BER facilities, and look at the library, you can see how much they have changed. The library when I was a kid, sitting at home watching F Troop

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not that old!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I remember Agarn and O’Rourke and all those people. When I was at primary school at St Patrick’s in St George, the library was where all the knowledge was and if you ordered a book it would take months to come in. But nowadays, with the internet, students have access to the world at home. It does mean that their filtering system is not quite as good as a librarian’s, obviously—and I did meet a roomful of Commonwealth librarians the other day, actually, up on the second level. Librarians have such a different role now. Instead of being the ‘sage on the stage’ they are now the ‘guide on the side’ to bring people into where the data and resources are. So things have changed a lot.

We are proud of our record on education on this side of the chamber. I would suggest that for those opposite, particularly the former teachers—and I think that we have one in the chamber now, the member for Canning—the record is not as proud, unfortunately. Maybe it is just because the Labor Party is so committed to opportunity and investing in schools—all schools. Sure, it was great to see that schools were able to access that great contribution to learning, the flagpole, and I do admit that there were schools in my electorate that did not have flagpoles before John Howard was elected—15 years ago yesterday—and they ended up with flagpoles at the end of his time. It is good that there is a flagpole and that there was a ceremony and a name of the member at the time near their flagpole. That is a good thing, for a flagpole is an important part of any school, I guess.

But it is also great to go along and open a language lab, as I did at Yeronga State High School the other day, or to open computer labs or classrooms. They are the sorts of things that schools particularly appreciate, especially when you can add in the interactive whiteboards and the like. That is the way of future education. We do understand education particularly, and hopefully those opposite will start to embrace some of these things. I would like to hear a member opposite say a good thing in this chamber about the BER program. I have certainly seen lots of photographs of them giving the thumbs-up out in their electorates. I am sure that the member for Canning would not be so hypocritical as to vote against the program in here and then go out and cut a ribbon in his electorate, but some people might. Some people might give a big thumbs-up out in their electorate but in here say: ‘No, no, no, we are against that. It is not a good thing.’

Unfortunately there has been a bit too much hysteria about the Building the Education Revolution. The BER program was about a job-saving, economy-boosting, massive capital injection into education. It could have been in the military, it could have been into roads, it could have been into lots of other things, but I am very proud as a former teacher that it was into educational facilities. Every educator, every parent of every schoolchild, needs to remember that if those opposite had had their way the BER would not have happened.

The BER program delivered what we promised—modern educational facilities that double as community facilities. BER facilities in my electorate on Brisbane’s southside actually became evacuation centres during the floods, including St Aidan’s Anglican Girls School at Corinda, Yeronga State School Hall, and the Oxley State School Hall, which was also used for community meetings. So these community centres used in a time of crisis came out of the BER program.

Last month I attended ceremonies to mark the opening of a new international language centre at Yeronga State High School and new and improved classrooms at the autism centre in Sunnybank and, as I said, I was also at a community barbecue at Our Lady of Fatima at Acacia Ridge. So no matter what those opposite say, these investments will always be good news stories—good for students, good for support staff, good for teachers and good for the communities in my electorate. And I am sure it could be said by all 150 members of this chamber if we were totally honest.

So I am pleased that this bill provides funding certainty. Once upon a time there might have been a different story about the members on this chamber concerning where they had come from, but now I think that all sides the chamber would come from private and state, Catholic and other schools. I think that there is quite a mix of people in terms of backgrounds. I went to a Catholic primary school and then to St George State High School—in fact I was there on the very first day that it opened. So the mix of educational backgrounds has completely changed over time and we are committed to supporting our non-government schools and our Catholic schools. They do a great job. I could perhaps have declared a conflict of interest, as my son does go to a Catholic school, but I do not think that was completely necessary. This bill provides funding certainty that non-government schools need and deserve, and I commend it to the House.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011 today, and if the member for Moreton wishes to stay a little I am happy to respond in a positive way on this bill. In fact while he is here briefly, I will. Yes, you can hear it from me, Member for Moreton: the BER itself—the principles behind the BER—were excellent, providing greater resources and greater infrastructure for schools. I do not think that there is a member in this House who would not agree with that. Where we depart though, Member for Moreton, is over the fact that that bill was cobbled, as you know, along with other initiatives such as what we call the ‘cash splash’—the $900 giveaway. It was also a program which under the previous minister, now the Prime Minister, became legendary for its mishandling.

To be fair, in Western Australia the BER is going along very well mainly because the state government has taken out several layers of interference, which are some of the mates along the way. In other words, consultants and others cannot get their hands on the cash on the way through, force up the bill and have it blow out to an extraordinary amount for sometimes very ordinary, plain school buildings.

Now the member for Moreton has gone I am willing to continue to say that, when decoupled, this was a good initiative and was part of the stimulus package. The only problem is that some of the packages are still stimulating and we are now supposed to be into reasonable economic times. The problem is that this Gillard Labor government has a continued stimulus package operating when the Reserve Bank is trying to dampen the economy by increasing interest rates. You have this conflict going on at the moment because it was beset and beguiled by so many problems, particularly, as I said, on the east coast rather than on the west coast. The fact is there has been a lot of criticism of what could have been a really good program in terms of school infrastructure and facilities. I will move on to the nub of the bill now that I have addressed the member for Moreton’s challenge.

The bill amends the School Assistance Act 2008 to extend the existing funding arrangements for non-government schools including indexation arrangements until the end of 2013 and grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014. This will ensure certainty for Catholic and independent schools. Can I again point out that, as the member for Moreton mentioned, my bona fides are that I was a schoolteacher for some 18 years—one of the few in this place—as was my wife, my brother and my two sisters. So we come from an education family and we are very proud of the fact that we were all educated in government schools in Merredin, a tiny wheat belt town in Western Australia. We were very happy with the education we got and we were big supporters of the government system. But on the record, I am now making sure that people understand that in this country there is need for choice and that is what this bill goes to address.

If you listen to the teachers unions, they are not interested in choice that much and I will get onto further details about the choice that the teachers unions are trying to stymie and the penalties that they are bringing to parents who wish to exercise their choice. This bill needed to be extended because the then education minister in the lead-up to the election, the now Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for months and months would not commit to any maintenance of school funding, particularly for non-government schools. I recall being at the opening of the Catholic school in Dawesville when Senator Glenn Sterle opened the BER project there and Bishop Holohan from the Bunbury diocese was very critical of the government not giving any certainty to the education system by making any statements regarding this issue. The Catholic bishops of Australia in particular became quite vocal in their call for the government to come out and say something about the continuing of the funding.

Obviously, as the polls closed up during the election campaign Julia Gillard was forced into making a statement and she did. Today this is what this legislation is about. The cynic in me says: ‘It’s good, but the timing of this is interesting. This is going to be extended to 2013 and the capital expenditure to 2014.’ What do we have in 2013? Probably a federal election, so it gets them past that because 2012 would have been a terrible time to have come down with any variation on the funding model. The SES model is one that has stood the test of time. It is not perfect, like most things, but flexible enough to deliver into the areas because it certainly hits all the buttons. It includes the dimensions of income, education and occupation in the census collection districts and it drills down to those levels where in a CCD you have on average 250 houses in any one area, so it gets quite sensitive in the information that it draws upon.

As I said, this funding needed to be retained in real terms for non-government schools. An interesting article by Janet Albrechtsen in the Australian on Australia Day this year pointed out a number of issues regarding the Gonski inquiry and some of the hypocrisy surrounding the input, particularly by those who do not want to see growth in non-government schools.

Let’s just get this fact clear—this is an irrefutable and indisputable fact: the growth in government schools across this country averages about one per cent per annum; the growth in the non-government sector is about 20 per cent per annum. What does that tell you? It tells you that the parents of this country are voting with their feet and exercising their choice. When they exercise a choice they know that it is going to cost them whether it be a low-fee school—and I have a number of them in my area like the Pioneer Village School in Armadale, which is an independent school, and of course I have a number of Catholic schools and other independent schools. The low-fee schools cost roughly $2,000 a year at most. Then you can go to some of the other schools in my area such as the Frederick Irwin Anglican School and the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Grammar School, which started not so many years ago—which, by the way, the then Premier of West Australia, Alan Carpenter, tried to quash but it is full now and they are trying to extend it. So these parents do make a commitment on education. I will refer to this article by Janet Albrechtsen where she talks about this mentality of the rich taking from the poor. She said:

Take Trevor Cobbold, convener of Save Our Schools, who likes to highlight average total expenditure. In government schools in 2007-08 it was $10,723 a student, compared with $15,147 in independent schools and $10,399 in Catholic schools. It’s true that total expenditure in government schools is about $10,500 per student. But now add the relevant facts. State and territory governments provide about 88 per cent of funding to public schools, the federal government provides about 8 per cent and parents the remaining 4 per cent.

Understand this: 88 per cent of the funding for state schools—as their very name suggests, they are owned, run and financed by the state—comes from the state which they are in and the rest, 12 per cent, comes from other means. Ipso facto, non-government schools get 12 per cent funding from various sources. As for where the rest comes from, I will return to the article. Ms Albrechtsen said:

Almost the reverse funding pie applies to independent schools. State and territory governments provide just 12 per cent of the funding per student, the federal government picks up the tab for 31 per cent …

And here is the rub: the rest, 57 per cent, is provided by the parents. It is estimated that if parents did not fund the $3.1 billion which they take out of their own pockets every year to send their children to these schools, the federal government would have to pick up the tab.

This is where the slur on the non-government sector comes in, from those who want to make some mileage of this. The slur is that the people who go to these schools are filthy rich and it is abominable that they are getting such a walk-up start. The fact is that a lot of the parents who send their children to these schools are single parents, those who are doing it hard. I know parents in my electorate, for example, who get a second job or take a second mortgage on their house to send their children to some of these so-called elite schools. It is their choice.

I am not saying for one moment that we should say, ‘Isn’t it terrible that they are not getting more money?’ The fact is that they pay taxes and they are entitled to some money. But they make this choice and, as I said, quite often some of them go through distinct hardship to do so. But, as the member opposite said earlier, they see education as the path to the enhancement of opportunity, a better career path and therefore a better income. Most parents want to see their children have better opportunities than they had. My daughter and my son went to a government primary school and then went to a non-government school for their secondary education. I am glad the pain has finished. It cost a lot of money. But we did that because we thought, like many other parents in Australia, that that choice would give them better opportunities in tertiary education and therefore better career paths.

So let us not in any way say that this bill is anything but the right thing to do. As I said, I am a bit sceptical about its timing, but, at the end of the day, as has been said, real funding in real terms is something that needs to be maintained. We do not want to go back to the threat that we were getting from the then shadow education minister under the Latham opposition, the member for Lalor, that there was going to be a schools hit list. We have to get past that and realise that the education opportunities in this country are something that should be available to all. Choice in education is something that is desirable. Therefore, we are keen to see this go ahead and in no way be undermined after the review. We do not want to see the review being used to reduce opportunity for the taxpayers of Australia, the parents, who make a choice. We do not want to see their funding being in any way eroded because of this class warfare that sometimes goes on from other sections of the community, particularly the education unions in this case. Therefore, I support the intention of the bill.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the government’s Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. At the 2010 federal election, the Gillard Labor government made a commitment to support independent and Catholic schools across the country. With this bill, we are honouring that commitment. Whilst there is a review into school funding currently underway which is expected to be released this year, we are providing schools with the certainty and security that they want, because education is the government’s top priority. Education has always been a Labor priority because we believe that a good education is a great start to life, equipping our kids with the opportunities and skills that they will need for the future.

The bill amends the Schools Assistance Act 2008 and guarantees and extends the current funding, including indexation arrangements until the end of 2013 and grants for capital expenditure until the end of 2014. As members are aware, my electorate of McEwen is a diverse electorate which encompasses many rural areas. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill will continue funding support for both rural and remote schools, particularly for the disadvantaged Catholic and independent schools which are in rural and regional areas. I and this government alike believe that, no matter where you choose to live, accessibility to good education is essential.

As I said, we are undertaking a review. We have established a review panel, headed by Mr David Gonski, to examine in depth how school funding arrangements can be made fair, transparent, open and financially sustainable. The review has enabled parents, educators and the community alike to have a say on the issues that are important to them. The Gillard government are listening to stakeholders, listening to the views of people who work in the education sector and to parents and students in the Catholic and independent schools. We believe it is crucial to listen to their opinions and get the feedback from the people and the sectors that are directly involved and affected. This review will be the foundation that we work from to improve the current school funding system, because that is what the parents and school communities want.

This government supports all schools and this was evident through our Building the Education Revolution. Local principals have told me that this has brought education forward by 20 to 30 years.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha, ha!

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon laughs and we know how unhappy he is to see that investment in his electorate. He is so ashamed of it, which is really an embarrassment and an indictment of him. Can you imagine if the coalition was in government and cut the BER? Education would probably go back that 20 or 30 years. Schools would end up looking like a fort out of F-Troop.

I have many fantastic catholic and independent schools in my electorate and many I have recently visited as part of the BER, schools that have praised the government’s BER program. When you stand there and feel their excitement it truly makes you proud to be part of a government that makes a genuine difference to the education of our children. I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth for their support of education in my electorate. The principals and students of schools like Eltham College, Plenty Valley Christian College and Ivanhoe Grammar School in Mernda have also asked me to extend their thanks. I recently attended a BER project at Eltham College for the junior campus extension. I will read out a speech by student Kathryn Clarke. She said:

In early January 1999, I arrived to start my first day of school, walking in excited and ready for a new experience. The day I began I made my first walk up the long path towards the prep house. It had such a homely feel, instantly welcoming. 13 years later I stand before you with the honour of being part of this opening at Eltham, part of yet another year and a new beginning.

I’ll admit to you I was somewhat nervous you could say about seeing the building finished and ready when we had a look recently with Jodie. But the moment we walked in it had that same feeling, that immediate warmth that makes our school special as it is still today.

This isn’t just another building with 4 walls and a roof; it’s a place where futures will begin, where the next college captains will have their first day at school.

So I’d like to personally welcome each and every one of you to this new place, as it will become a part of our community as much as every other part of our school.

It is exciting!

Our school on a whole has put so much into this development though we couldn’t have done it without the support of our current government led by Julia Gillard, who financially assisted in a very large way towards this build, so thank you.

Enjoy the change, embrace the development and I hope you will be able to feel as at home in this new space as I know we do, already.

That was a fantastic speech by a student about the children and young adults whose education and lives will benefit from the BER and our ongoing investment in their education. Eltham College is a fine example of what can be achieved in our independent schools. The staff and students are doing great work. Also, one of their key projects is eliminating homophobia, racism and prejudice. The principal, David Warner, said last year when launching the program:

Any school will have elements of homophobia but it is much easier to deal with in our culture.

We are not about putting people in boxes and our community needs to accept that behaviour such as harassment and homophobia is not acceptable.”

I commend David Warner and the staff at Eltham College for their great work in stamping out discrimination through education, which in my opinion is the best way to do it. It was fantastic to tour the junior campus with students Riley, Milly and Eliza. These young kids did a great job, proudly walking me through their school, informing me of what they were learning and what projects they had been undertaking. The confidence and level of knowledge they have about their school and education was incredible, and I formally thank them here in this House for the great work they did. I am pleased to report to the Prime Minister that Riley is a Western Bulldogs supporter, much to my dismay! I also acknowledge the college captains, Caitlin, Cummane and Daniel Patrick, for taking part in the celebration of the new building.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you could sit here and listen to the rhetoric and negativity we get from the opposition when they talk about how the BER is a waste and how it would be scrapped if they get into government, but remember that one of the key problems we see with BER is a skills shortage that was a legacy of 12 years of the Howard government. It is a skills shortage that we know is going to take a long time to rectify.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chester interjecting

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you had put tradesmen on, you would have had tradesmen to do it. You know that is a fact, too. You could listen to that rhetoric, listen to the negativity and listen to the wrecking attitude or you could go to schools and listen to what the parents and staff are saying. For all those students like Riley, Milly and Eliza, I am very pleased that we have a Gillard government that invests in education. With this government’s support, it is kids like these that will learn, grow and gain from these new learning centres. I invite members of the opposition to go into schools and talk to the students and listen to the teachers and parents who are overwhelmed by the new buildings, pleased that they have a government that takes education seriously.

This government supports and will continue to support our schools, whether they be independent, catholic or public—as we always have. All catholic and independent schools in the electorate of McEwen have received funding through the BER. There are 26 non-government schools in McEwen—14 catholic and 12 independent schools. There are 50 projects: 26 National School Pride projects, three science and language centre projects and 21 Primary Schools for the 21st Century buildings in McEwen. They either have been completed or are currently underway.

Besides this, there has been a great deal of cooperation between government and non-government schools in McEwen, which has been fostered and demonstrated through the Gillard government’s trade training centre initiative—another program that would have been scrapped and left us with more skills shortages had the opposition fallen into government.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Lyne want the call?

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am just cleaning up.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had me worried then, Rob. The education sector has come together as a whole to support young people being educated in McEwen. There are 10 schools—two catholic and eight government—in my electorate that have pooled their resources in order to give students every chance to succeed. Last November, the minister for school education announced that a consortium of schools in McEwen had been successful in obtaining funding for the Trade Training Centres in Schools program. The Gillard government has committed $2.5 billion over 10 years to enable all secondary students to access vocational education through these trade training centres.

My local school, the Broadford Secondary College, is the lead school in the cluster. The schools have been allocated over $11 million to provide three training hubs in the central ranges area. Other schools involved in the trade training centre are Alexandra Secondary College, Euroa Secondary College, Seymour Special School, St Mary’s College, Wallan Secondary College, Whittlesea Secondary College and Yea High School. The trade training centre will offer qualifications in automotive, engineering, carpentry and joinery, and hospitality. These facilities will allow the schools to better manage any skills shortages with locally trained experts, while creating opportunities and training pathways for our students.

For these reasons and so many more, I support the government’s Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. As I said at the beginning, Labor support education and we will continue to invest in school education, as we always have done. We will continue to fund Catholic and independent schools and undertake this once-in-a-generation review of school funding to ensure that we get it right today, tomorrow and in the future. I support this bill and wish it a speedy passage.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011. But, before I do, I would like to respond on the record to a couple of points that the member for McEwen made about the Building the Education Revolution in reference to me. I agree wholeheartedly that the approach taken to funding Catholic and independent schools where the school parents, principal and community have been involved has led to some very, very good results. The sad thing about the BER is that, where public schools have been involved, principals and communities have not been allowed to have any say in what happens and that has led to some disastrous results.

In the Herald Sun on Monday, this was again highlighted, unfortunately. Students at the Waubra Primary School have been in portable classrooms for a year now and, for the last three or four months, they have been looking out at their brand-new BER school while sitting in their portable classrooms on the oval—which means they cannot play footy or cricket—waiting to get into their BER project. It is all there for them to see, but it is surrounded by wire. The trouble is that no-one seems to be able to arrange to get the fittings in there so that the students can move in. This inefficiency and waste is another indictment of this program. Every day, when those students arrive at school, they are reminded of the Prime Minister’s incompetence because this BER program, which has seen such waste, is her program and it is, sadly, still not delivering the right outcomes for our public schools in Victoria, which so badly need them, and for our local communities. I wanted to get that on the record so that the member for McEwen is not in any way able to distort the picture of what is happening at the moment.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You just distorted it then!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for McEwen would like, I would be more than happy to take him to Waubra.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would love to!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He can come with me and help me to get the big wire cages—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You admit you need my help!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

removed so that the students are not still looking from their portable at their brand-new building and wondering to themselves, ‘When are we going to get in?’

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Mitchell interjecting

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen continues to interject, so I will continue, because there is more to this story. The school community had a meeting last week, and at that meeting they contemplated whether they had to reduce school hours. This is serious. Because the students are working and playing in such confined areas, the principal and the teachers gave parents the option of school finishing at three o’clock. What we are seeing under the BER program—such gross incompetence—is local communities having to contemplate reducing school hours. This is the wonderful, equal education opportunity that the government is presenting!

I have to remind the member for McEwen that this is the Prime Minister’s program. This is hers; this is her baby—yet we are still seeing problem after problem with it.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Mitchell interjecting

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are happy to come to Waubra, Member for McEwen, I will introduce you to the parents who came to me saying: ‘When are we going to get some action on this? When will we get the Prime Minister to take notice of what her “wonderful” program is doing to our poor students? Here we are having to contemplate reducing school hours.’ I think that says it all. I have that on the record now. The member for McEwen’s comments about me and the BER have been clarified, so we are all very clear on that. Before I turn to the bill itself, I say that I would also be happy to take the member for McEwen to see four, five or six BER projects in my electorate which are not shining examples of this Prime Minister’s program. Pity help us with future programs if they are going to be rolled out like this one was.

The coalition support the Schools Assistance Amendment (Financial Assistance) Bill 2011, as it extends recurrent funding arrangements until 2013 using the coalition’s socioeconomic status, or SES, funding model. While schools know exactly where they stand with the coalition on school funding, a very serious question mark hangs over the future of school funding under the Gillard Labor government. Nine years ago, the Prime Minister described the SES funding model as flawed and unworkable. The decision to extend the existing SES funding model was made during the election campaign, as the government faced mounting pressure to outline what form the new funding model would take. It was a desperate attempt to avoid a showdown with the non-government school sector. Further evidence of this was seen in the initial refusal of the then education minister, Simon Crean, to guarantee during the election that funding of non-government schools would be maintained in real terms, inclusive of indexation, beyond 2012. Based on published information from the department of education, that indexation and supplementation for all non-government schools over the four-year life of a school funding agreement equates to approximately $1.3 billion. It was only at the eleventh hour in the election campaign that the Prime Minister, after intense pressure from the coalition and the non-government school sector, was forced to guarantee indexation for non-government schools until 2013 by extending the SES funding model for another year.

Schools and school communities do have a right to be concerned about the Prime Minister’s commitment to this funding arrangement because we have seen already this year the commitment made by the Prime Minister that there would never be a carbon tax under a government she leads shamelessly, disturbingly and utterly ignored. There is a real concern that the same will happen when it comes to school funding. On 20 August 2001 the Prime Minister said:

This government, for its funding for private schools, has adopted a flawed index, the so-called SES model, which does not deliver on the basis of need. We know that model is flawed …

          …            …            …

The debate is leaving this government behind: as it is left defending its flawed SES index, we know that there is research, becoming available in Australia to the community that cares about education, which is challenging us to move on in terms of how we define need, and challenging us to realise that in fact using a socioeconomic status may in itself be a flawed idea.

On 4 September 2000 she said:

The last objection to the SES model is more philosophical, that the model makes no allowance for the amassed resources of any particular school. As we are all aware, over the years many prestige schools have amassed wealth—wealth in terms of buildings and facilities, wealth in terms of the equipment available, wealth in terms of alumni fundraising, trust funds, endowment funds and the like … it must follow as a matter of logic that the economic capacity of a school is affected by both its income generation potential—from the current class of parents whose kids are enrolled in the school—and the assets of the school. The SES funding system makes some attempt to measure the income generation potential of the parents of the kids in the school but absolutely no attempt to measure the latter, the assets of the school. This is a gaping flaw …

I could go on. There are many examples of Julia Gillard saying she does not like the SES funding model. That is why what is happening with the MySchool website is so disturbing.

We have received packs telling us how wonderful the MySchool website is going to be and how wonderful the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage is as a base tool for the website. We have been told that ICSEA was created by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, specifically to enable fair and meaningful comparisons of Australian schools. We have also been given a guide to understanding it. It is a long guide printed on lovely glossy paper. I am sure it would have cost the education department a lot of money to produce this. But in none of this do we get the true facts about ICSEA. A report in the Age last month stated:

PARENTS in the top income-earning occupations are not taken into account by the My School website when it calculates which schools are the most advantaged, prompting allegations it is producing grossly unfair results.

That is very true. The member for Herbert would not believe it, but it is true. The article continued:

They say it has led to bizarre anomalies, such as Douglas Daly Primary, a one-teacher school in remote Northern Territory, which was ranked the most advantaged in the nation according to the index used to calculate parental wealth, education and occupation.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those lucky Territorians!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, those lucky Territorians. That one-teacher school was ranked as being more advantaged than the elite schools in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The member for Murray is here and I am sure she would be happy to comment on the Goulburn Valley Grammar School, which is also in the same area on the index as the elite schools in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be shot once the Prime Minister gets her way because she wants to use this funding model to cut funding to independent and Catholic schools. There is no doubt about it—that is her long-term agenda.

I declare I have an interest in this because I have some children at the Hamilton and Alexandra College in Hamilton in western Victoria. That school has also been indexed the same as the elite schools. When the principal of that school wrote and asked about the flawed funding index he was bullied. He was told, ‘Tell us what your problems are.’ Did he get a response when he detailed all the problems he had with it? No. He was told, ‘Either you sign up and agree with what we are doing or you will suffer the consequences.’ There was no detailed consultation. Sadly, in our local newspapers we are getting headlines such as ‘Schools at risk’. This rural school in Hamilton that offers a very good education is all of a sudden at risk because of what this government is doing.

Sadly, this is the agenda of this Prime Minister. She does not believe in properly funding our private, independent and Catholic schools. She wants to get the indexation changed so she can rip the guts out of them. We on this side will not let it happen. We will be dubious about the MySchool website.

Debate interrupted.