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

It is good to see people turning up to hear this important speech. Obviously, education is something I am particularly passionate about and this educational transition bill is a part of the process towards changing Australia's education future; a future that is complemented by many of the other activities by this government—No. 1, obviously by doubling the education budget, especially the big part of that being that both sides of the chamber have been involved in, with the Building the Education Revolution component.

I have seen time and time again photographs of people from both sides of the chamber happy to acknowledge the contribution—albeit an economic program—to schools of the new facilities. I can go around Moreton and talk to school communities who were involved in decisions to bring in new school facilities; things like learning labs, new sets of classrooms, and school halls or performing arts halls. I have seen it at the Kuraby State School. I could list every single school in my electorate that has benefited from the BER program, but the doubling of the education budget is not only about an economic program; it is also about preparing Australia for a lift in educational standards. Sadly, we can look at state governments and we can look at national governments: the reality is educational standards have dropped in Australia in the last 20 years.

I finished teaching in 1997. It is sad to think that the students being educated now have educational standards, in some areas of disadvantage, that are two or three years below where they were 20 years ago. That is a shameful legacy for any government—irrespective of their political persuasion.

The Labor government saw that we needed to do more. As I said, the initial BER program was an economic program but then, look at the other reforms that we have brought in that I am very, very proud of when I talk to my teaching colleagues—I will be seeing a lot of them in a fortnight at a bit of a reunion. To be able to talk about a national curriculum—something that was too hard for this federation for 110 years, but now we have a national curriculum. When we look at improving teaching standards, when we look at reporting on the achievements of schools so that wherever you are in the country you can click on the web—if you are lucky enough to be connected to the web; obviously, when we roll out the National Broadband Network that will facilitate that because the NBN is not all about economic infrastructure; it is also about educational infrastructure—and as a parent or a student you can see how your school is performing by comparing like with like. Whether you are from a remote Western Australian school or a big inner-city school, you can make an assessment of where you are going.

The Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 and the Australian Education Bill 2012 government amendments are all about that rollout of educational improvements in terms of making sure that our commitment to Australian schooling provides a high-quality and equitable education for all students. That is in the Labor Party's DNA.

The government's response to the recommendations of the independent Review of the Funding for Schooling, which found—as everyone who has been lobbied by a Gonski parent, a Gonski-concerned citizen, a Gonski grandparent or the neighbour of a Gonski activist knows by now—that the previous school funding arrangements, or the current school funding arrangements, are not meeting the educational needs of all Australian children, particularly disadvantaged students. In every school, whether it be independent, Catholic or state—that is why people go into education so that we give as much advantage to students as possible. The amendments implement the National Plan for School Improvement, including new needs based funding arrangements for government and non-government schools from 1 January 2014.

Let's have a look at that. I stand here as a student who attended a Catholic primary school and a state high school, who has a child at a Catholic primary school and who taught in state schools and Catholic schools. I have also had a lot to do with Christian schools and other independent schools. I have a fair degree of background in education and I know the journey that Australian governments have made over the years from looking at the arguments about who should fund non-government schools—we go back a long time. In terms of the parliament getting it right, effectively, this Australian education bill is the pinnacle. It achieves what we are trying to do by moving funds and resources towards disadvantage.

The Commonwealth recurrent funding for schooling will now be delivered through fair and transparent needs based arrangements, providing new investment to support reforms that will help to improve each students' achievements at school. In the past we have seen the SES model, which was an idea that was flawed from the start by extracting the census collection district data from a parent then using that data to calculate whether the funds should flow to that school. We saw when the SES model was introduced that basically half the schools were funding maintained from the start. I understand that idea of making sure that schools do not lose a dollar, but when you have a system that effectively means half the schools are not in the system you know that you are not getting it right.

Under our new arrangements the participating schools will receive additional investment. Evidence based reforms will also be supported under the National Plan for School Improvement. We will look at the things that we know work—we have seen them work. You can go to the schools in my electorate that are national partnership schools. All we are effectively doing is rolling out that national partnership model on a national scale, to all 9,200 schools. Let us look at those things: quality teaching, quality learning, making sure the data that is produced is transparent and that there is accountability. We look at student needs and we also make sure that schools make decisions based on their community. Concerned parents working with professional educators and school staff are the best ones to make decisions for their environment, whether it be in Coolangatta or Cunnamulla or the cape.

Anywhere in Queensland, anywhere in Australia, local communities need to be involved and working with the educators. How will we do that? We will do it through a new schooling resource standard that will deliver a per student level of funding based on current funding levels for higher achieving efficient schools. So we will not be dealt that cruel blow that we saw in Queensland, where every single school had their funding cut under Campbell Newman. The reality there was every state school having their funding cut, combined with the Victorian and New South Wales cuts that I do not know as much about. Then, because the way they calculate funding allocations is based on how much goes towards a state government school, the funding cut to schools by Campbell and his Liberal cronies meant that every non-government school in Queensland received a consequential cut.

The funding cuts in Queensland were through things as simple as using a rounding-down capacity. Once upon a time you calculated the number of kids on day 8 of the school year, you came up with a number and if it worked out to be 23.8 teachers you got the resources associated with 23.8 teachers. But Campbell Newman, in a cruel blow at the start of this school year, rounded down so that instead of having 23.8 teachers you ended up with 23. If you are a big school you can perhaps accommodate a 0.8 reduction in staff. It has meant a lot of principals and members of the executive have gone back into the classroom, which is tough for them. Teaching colleagues of mine—people I have taught with in the past or that I know in my electorate—have had to go back into the classroom to plug this rounding-down gap. What we are doing now with the new schooling resource standard will abolish that because we will be able to give out funds according to the costs of helping a child overcome educational disadvantage, rather than using the reasonably arbitrary figures that have floated around in the evolution we have had over the last 40 or 50 years towards the correct funding model.

I see the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is here. I did not see him at Nyanda State High School or at Yeronga State School, where I would have loved to have seen him. I wish he had been allowed to come and visit me at those schools. The kids there would have loved to have seen him. I would have loved to have taken him to Nyanda State High School, the school that the Newman government has flagged to close down, the school that produced Billy Thorpe and Lobby Loyde. How can you have a school that produced two musicians like that yet they are now talking about closing it down? That is a school I would have loved to have taken the minister to.

We know that no school will lose out under this model. We have committed that no school will lose a dollar per student under these new arrangements. Each year, every school authority will receive at least the per student funding level it received the previous year, plus indexation to cover real increases in costs. I heard today a Liberal National Party member say that Queensland schools are going to miss out under our Gonski model. I know that is not the case. The Liberal National Party member was misleading the House, as far as I was concerned. For a start we have a Premier who cut funds to every school in Queensland—and I am sure we will hear about the cuts to Victoria and New South Wales—and then there are those consequences when it comes to calculating what non-government schools in Queensland receive.

I am very proud of this legislation. I am proud to have been associated with this reform process of getting it right. Every school, from the richest school in Queensland to the poorest school in Queensland, can unpack this model, see that it is transparent, see that it is fair and see where the resources will flow to disadvantage. As a Queenslander, coming from the most decentralised state and from a little country town where the high school opened when I was in grade 8 and there were 12 people in year 12, I can say that the education I received was the only thing that gave me a decent chance in life. I understand how much it costs to get it right in a decentralised state like Queensland, because the reality is we have a lot of small schools, of little one-teacher schools, and we are changing with a moving population as the shearing population decreases and other industries are on the rise.

This Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will usher in a new series of changes that I am particularly proud to be associated with. I particularly want to commend the education minister, Minister Garrett, who has been a regular visitor to my electorate on this topic. I thank him in particular for a storybook he donated to St Brendan's school. On the public record, I can pass on from the principal how much they appreciated that gesture. When he turned a certain age—I will leave it to him to inform the House how old——they appreciated him coming to the school, they sang 'Happy Birthday' to him and he responded by sending them a lovely storybook. I commend this legislation to the House and look forward to it rolling out throughout the nation.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will put in place a framework for the implementation of David Gonski's review of school funding. I wish to draw the attention of the House to one illuminating experience from the past year in my electorate of Tangney. The petitions committee of which I am a member made the historic trip to Perth in Western Australia. It made the trip to engage with students at Santa Maria College in Applecross. It was my opinion and that of all the members of the committee that the girls who gave evidence and opinion to the committee were rational and intelligent and inimitably the epitome of a good education. So if the girls of year 12 in Applecross were so good and so enlightening, what is so wrong with education? Why would any government try to endanger the quality of education at Santa Maria that Santa Maria can offer these girls and the many other girls of Applecross today and into the future?

The situation this bill will initiate will be that many private schools in my electorate will have a future of uncertainty and relative disadvantage. Put simply, the message that this bill sends out is clear: we want to increase the average level of schooling but we want to do this by bringing down the tallest poppy by hitting over the head the brightest and best-performing independent schools. Let us not legislate tall poppyism into our future. Tall poppyism should have no future. Why do we act on this today? We act because we know that the empires of the futures are the empires of the mind. Good education reform is important. The Productivity Commission states that reform in this area could add 1.2 per cent gain to labour productivity and gains from human capital of four times other microeconomic reforms.

The coalition will not subscribe to any plan that will negatively impact on faith in our private schools. We know that choice is the key. That is what parents want and that is what they deserve—a better way forward. Focus should be put more on the quality of teachers, parental engagement and school autonomy, so the SES or socioeconomic status is the Liberal stance on funding of education. And it is working. Let us build on this, not tear it down. A better way forward for the education bill would be to use vouchers to address preprimary and primary funding and getting real with what business models illustrate and demand cost-benefit analysis of what capital employed would indicate.

By moving to implement this bill, the Labor recipe for education has a bitter lemon aftertaste in scrapping tax refunds in favour of cash payments. Problematically, because of the fungibility issue, how is one to guarantee that the money has actually been spent on education? Also, if it is means tested as stated, then there are administration costs and so it becomes inefficient and less equitable.

Additionally troublesome are the amounts of cash bonus. Labor appear to have got the emphasis all mixed up. Large amounts of capital should be directed at the primary level as opposed to the secondary level. The plan outlined by Labor gives $820 to secondary school students and $410 to primary students. This is nonsense as the costs associated with primary are higher and also get a better return for investment in the long run than secondary. The sense of primary investment and early intervention are backed up by the work of Blauer, Posner and Becker, noted economists of long-standing and international distinction. They have literally written books on good education and economic policy.

Investing early and often has many positive prosocial externalities. The spillovers are many and are compounded over time by a multiplication effect. Examples are in the area of crime and democratic participation et cetera. Per dollar return on investment is greatest at the earliest stages. You have an issue otherwise of diminishing utility. This is where mandatory preschool, as in WA from 2013, has a role. Finance could be found from ceasing to commit to overreductions in class size—and I repeat that 'overreductions in class size '. Reductions in class size do not pass the cost benefit of the capital-employed test and it is subject to unjustifiably high diminishing marginal utility. We must show a brave originality to break free of orthodoxy and heuristic reasoning. It is a message that is fed by the dominant teachers unions. While no-one can doubt the good work of teachers that the teachers of this nation do every single day, this is not about teachers. It is about the children.

So how can Liberals get smart education policy that fits with the Asian century? PISA has found that it is not the volume of money spent but the way we spend it—vouchers. Liberals believe in empowering parents through the market mechanism, expanding freedom and incentive through a Friedman-style voucher system. Performing schools will then be rewarded and incentive created. This formed part of the Liberal 2010 manifesto. We see Labor recognise this in how the NDIS will operate. Vouchers in education must also be linked with reform in personal taxation such that an earned income tax credit would recognise the value of work over welfare. Cash incentives for grades work. Fryer, Sadoff and Levitt—prominent, pioneering and visionary economic policy leaders—have shown them to do so.

Let's not waste time talking about radical change; let's just do it. We need bold ideas to tackle the declining number of students undertaking secondary studies in the hard sciences and maths and the flow-on effects this is having on the Australian economy. At present, students in years 11 and 12 are dropping physics, chemistry and maths in favour of easier humanities subjects such as history and politics to boost their entrance scores. A lack of interest in physics, maths and chemistry sees fewer enrolments at university, and this has a knock-on effect on Australia's research and development capabilities. Fostering an appreciation for the fundamentals of science will prosper a culture of excellence and create a strong base to ensure long-term economic growth. I firmly believe science and maths should be core subjects for every student right up to year 12. But the government then took two steps back, dismantling the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, which was a vital cog driving research in universities. This is a major blow to our research and development capabilities and will have economic flow-on effects.

China has made the seemingly obvious connection between investment in the sciences and maths and the multiplier effect on GDP growth. It is now reaping economic and technological rewards. More than half of all Chinese students graduate in the hard sciences and engineering, compared with a world average of 27 per cent and only 17 per cent in the US—and it is even lower here. During the period 1993 to 2003, China's R&D expenditures grew faster than those of any other nation, pushing its share of world R&D investment from 3.6 per cent to 9.5 per cent. During the same period, the European Union's share declined from 28.5 per cent to 25 per cent. Australia's R&D expenditure as a proportion of GDP remains lower than the OECD average—shameful—although it has increased in recent years. This is a terrible indictment of a nation as prosperous as ours. Given our economic and social position, our R&D expenditure should track the upper end of OECD nations. We should be in a race for the top, not for the bottom. In January 2006, China initiated a 15-year medium-to-long-term plan for the development of science and technology. The nation aims to become an innovation-oriented society by 2020 and a world leader in science and technology by 2050. Under the plan, China wants to develop indigenous innovation capabilities and leapfrog into leading new industries by increasing R&D expenditures to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2020.

Australia needs to set ambitious goals and commit funding to the long term. This is our space race moment. We need teachers trained in these areas of expertise. Paying these teachers as professionals while acknowledging the need to pay them more than other teachers and giving these subjects more weight when it comes to university entrance exams are just two measures to encourage more students to study maths and science. I congratulate the University of Western Australia, which has begun to give greater weight to these subjects. Hopefully this will help address the slide against maths and science based subjects.

Teaching, learning and advancements in research and development are at the core of ensuring Australia has a prosperous economic future. But it all starts with the basics—science and maths being a central cog in our children's learning machine. This education bill has nothing to say on this. Given the positive link between education and the economic multiplier, we have to ask ourselves what kind of economy we, the coalition, are hoping to shape through educational advancement.

I have one question for the Gillard government. It is the one question I am asked every single day in my electorate of Tangney. Young and old alike ask me: if education reform is really so important to Labor, why are they not putting any money into the Gonski review's recommendations until—get this—2022? There is no money until 2022—nearly 10 years over three governments. What hubris. What trickery. And where is this money going to come from? What a shame.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With considerable pride and pleasure, I rise to speak to the bill before the House, the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. We have had some rather interesting contributions here this afternoon from my colleague the member for Moreton, who, like me, before entering parliament spent a period of time as a teacher. I spent considerably more time in the classroom, I think, than the member for Moreton. The member for Lingiari, who is sitting there as well, is another teacher. I have to say that being a teacher is a professional experience in my life of which I am incredibly proud. I am one of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who became members of that great profession because, once upon a time in this country—well over a century ago—a man with vision for the future of the country, Sir Henry Parkes, responded to an understanding that grew at that time around the world about the power of education to change lives, about the importance of it for society and about the challenge to liberate children, through education, to the possibilities of reaching their full potential.

Happily, we have had a very successful range of schools on offer for young Australians to become a part of; but the reality is that in the last 40 years, since the last major inquiry into the outcomes of schooling was undertaken through the Whitlam era, we have seen a degradation of funding of schools to a point that, when the Gonski review was undertaken recently, it was found that young people who had started school together 10 years ago—young Australians born into the same country—through their experience of going to different schools and born into different families, being far away from the city, being from an Indigenous family or being born with a language other than English spoken before they entered school, when they hit school were unable to get the type of resourcing and education opportunities they needed to build up the skills to enable them to be as successful at school as peers who were from non-Indigenous family backgrounds or living in the city.

Essentially, we have a system in Australia where there is a great inequity in the outcomes of schooling. We know that there is a basic amount of funding that each school student needs. We also know that we need to provide additional funding for those five critical areas in which we can transform people's learning. The reality is that we want a fair system. We want to make up the gap of a failure to invest over many years in this country and do it in a way that ensures a great future for every young Australian who shows up at the school gate in kindergarten, no matter which school they go to, no matter what state they live in and no matter what family background they may have. It is an indictment on our country that poor children are failing at school. We simply cannot allow that to continue.

This morning I was very pleased to make some points in the public place about my hope for the young children who were starting school in Victoria. I am pleased to say that in New South Wales the Premier of our state has seen the light with at least one policy area minister. He has signed up to the reforms that we are proposing here to give to our country an option for better schools and a chance for all of our young people to have a great education. Sadly, at this point in time kids south of the border in Victoria are looking at a leadership team in the conservative leader of that state and his Minister for Education, Martin Dixon, who are deliberately going out into the public place and claiming that some schools will be worse off under the plan that we are proposing. The reality is that every school in every sector will get increases in funding every single year.

The deliberate misrepresentation of the sorts of funding options that are available for every student in every school is really mischief-making in the extreme. It is one thing for people to make claims that might give them a short-term political advantage. That is always a dangerous path to take, in my view. I think the Australian people see through that and expect us to do better on both sides of the parliament. The reality is it is totally atrocious to play with the futures of children by declaring incorrect facts and making the parents of schoolchildren, teachers, school systems and the whole community think there is something wrong with investing an additional $4 billion in the education of their children. That is quite disgraceful.

I hope that as the week continues the Victorian education minister, Martin Dixon, will really take to heart his responsibility to ensure the young people of Victoria have the right and opportunity to see a future for their own education where they will receive the funding they need to be successful and the loadings we propose to add into the baseload of funding will provide the teachers with additional resources and the schools who need additional resources in the form of teachers and practical physical resources will get what they need to make sure it is possible for kids to learn.

I could best describe the reality through the experience of meeting a wonderful young woman in my electorate just over the weekend. She has a son who has struggled at school. He has been a part of the Reading Recovery program at his school. That is a renowned education program started by Marie Clay, and the outcomes for many children are absolutely life transforming. Kids who cannot read become readers. For her son, that program has not worked. He has now been withdrawn from that program; and, because there is no funding capacity for that school, there is now no special learning program for her son. This woman in particular understands why this is so vital. In her conversation with me she declared that she herself cannot read. She has survived her life and runs her own small business using her memory in an incredibly impressive way to manage the literacy demands of our community, but she more than anyone understands why her son needs the sort of program that this investment that we will put into schools—that this money that we will give to teachers and principals to do the right thing by kids—will pay for, but only under this Labor government.

Those opposite say the system is not broken. Those opposite say they do not need to put the money into schools. Those opposite say those children do not need those resources. The reality is that, while this debate is going on and many fine ideas can be put, every single parent who shows up with their kids at school every morning expects that they are going to be able to send them to school, whatever school they are at, and have adequate resources provided for teachers to do a great job.

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

I am pleased to speak and outline the coalition's stance on this transitional and consequential amendments bill to the Australian Education Bill 2013 that the House of Representatives passed in the last sitting week and which is now in the Senate. We do not oppose this bill, as we did not the Australian Education Bill, because it is a measure of the confusion of the government that they are now passing bills through the House of Representatives to implement new school funding plans before these plans have even been agreed to by state governments. We are in the extraordinary position where the House rises on 27 June, and the agreements with the states to implement a new school funding model can be agreed to anytime up to 30 June. So the House will rise on 27 June, and five out of eight jurisdictions—three have already signed up—could sign up between 27 June and 30 June, which would make the new school funding model work. But, equally, none of those five might sign up to the government's new school funding agreement. The House and the Senate will have passed a new school funding model bill, and the consequential and transitional amendments bill that goes with it, for a national school funding agreement that has no agreement and does not have national implications because it is not agreed to by an overwhelming majority of states.

The government has got us into the ridiculous position where we are debating a bill to implement a new school funding model when not all of the states have agreed to a new school funding model. It is very different to the way that the government and the opposition handled the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was handled in a bipartisan way. Therefore, the states and territories knew that they could sign up to the agreement for a National Disability Insurance Scheme and that it would be implemented by either a Labor government or a coalition government. In this case, on the other hand, it is very clear that there are some states that have very strong views opposing the introduction of this new school funding model—and I will go through some of those in a moment.

The coalition has very serious concerns about this new school funding model. The first of those concerns is that it is all far too late. For this government to try and implement a new school funding model to begin on 1 January 2014, this debate needed to be held last year, in 2012. As I travel around Australia—and I have been the shadow minister for 4½ years—principals tell me that to implement a new school funding model takes about 12 to 18 months. This government has potentially given non-government and government schools less than six months to implement a new school funding model, assuming one is agreed to by all the states. It is far too late, at five minutes to midnight, for the Prime Minister and the minister for schools to try and implement a new school funding model in Australia which would normally take 12 to 18 months to do properly—and they have given themselves six months to do it.

If we were faced with a government with a record of achievement and competence, that we knew were capable of putting pink batts in the ceilings of people's homes, or building school halls that were not overpriced, or managing the live cattle exports trade—or any of the other examples I could give—then you might give them the benefit of the doubt. But we do not have that kind of government in Australia at the moment. We have a government that we know is manifestly incompetent. The prospect of them introducing an even more complicated model than the current model, that is less transparent and has had less time for consultation and negotiation with the states and the non-government sector—and the idea of them implementing that successfully—is a long way from the expectations of the opposition. For that reason, we have very serious concerns about this minister's capacity to implement any kind of new school funding model, let alone one that applies differently in different states to different sectors. Even within those sectors and within those states, depending on whether they have achieved the student resource standard or not, it applies different levels of indexation to those non-government and government schools in the same state. It is much more complicated and much less transparent than the previous model.

It also provides a much greater concentration of power in the hands of the federal minister for education than has ever been precedented before in Australia. The Premier of Tasmania got this right on Friday when she said that Tasmania was very reluctant to sign up to a new school funding model because she did not want the opposition having that much power over Tasmanian state schools. Now, quite apart from the fact that it appears that the Premier of Tasmania has already given up on the prospect of the Gillard government being returned—which seems to be running up the white flag rather prematurely since we have 90 days or 89 days to go before the election—the Premier of Tasmania is correct inasmuch as this new funding model would give unprecedented power to the minister for schools at the federal level. The Premier of Tasmania is right: schools are run by state governments. They employ teachers, they own the infrastructure and they make the decisions in their schools. This new model, apart from creating another new bureaucracy called the Australian School Performance Institute—yet another institute and another bureaucracy in Canberra—also devolves enormous amounts of discretionary power to the federal minister for education to intervene in state government and non-government schools.

This is one of the reasons why the National Catholic Education Commission is so concerned about signing up lock, stock and barrel to a new school funding model that allows the federal minister for education to determine whether they can vary from the school funding model that is proposed in this legislation. The Catholic system has always been run very independently. They cross-subsidise between their schools, and they do not want to have to go back, cap in hand, to the federal minister for education if they ever want to vary those arrangements. I can understand their reticence. I can also understand Western Australia's, Tasmania's, Victoria's, Queensland's and the Northern Territory's reticence at signing up to a model which allows the federal minister for education to determine the operations and management of schools in the state systems. Western Australia particularly has been doing very well in terms of its student outcomes since it shifted to a model that had greater autonomy for school principals; they call it Independent Public Schools in Western Australia.

Why should they allow the federal minister for education to ride in over the top of the state minister for education and say, 'We don't like the way you are managing your schools and, because we now have this new power under the National Plan for School Improvement, we can tell you exactly what we want you to do.' The coalition does not support that. The coalition believes in the devolution of power to the levels of government to whom it should be devolved and that state governments run state schools. State governments should be the primary decision makers in state schools.

I have talked before about how this new school funding model is a swindle. I will not delay the House at great length about that tonight other than to remind the House that the Gonski report into school funding called for $6½ billion each year in new school funding. Over the forward estimates, which is four years, you would expect that to be $26 billion. What does this new school funding model deliver? It delivers a cut to school funding of $325 million over the next four years.

Those states and territories that have signed up to it—the ACT, New South Wales and South Australia—have signed up to a new school funding model that cuts school funding over the next four years by $325 million. Then you have to suspend everything you know about this Prime Minister and this government to believe that, miraculously, in 2018 and 2019 rivers of gold will flow to the school sector to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. That is $7.8 billion in year 5 and year 6.

It is like your boss saying, 'I am giving a big pay rise and you should go out and plan on that basis.' Out you go and you change your mortgage or you do whatever you like with credit cards or you buy a new car and then you get your pay packet and there has been a cut. You go back to your boss and you say, 'How come you promised me a pay rise? I have relied on that to make all sorts of decisions and there is actually a pay cut in my salary.' The boss says, 'No, no, you get a big pay rise. You just have to wait five or six years for it to happen.'

No Australian would accept that from their boss and no state or territory government should accept that from the federal government. I might be cynical, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister will win the next three elections in a row and deliver rivers of gold in 2018 and 2019 to schools when she could not even keep a promise for six days not to introduce a carbon tax before the last election. This is not the Gonski report being implemented. This is a swindle being visited on schools. Principals and parents know it. Another one of our concerns is the confused data.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw his term which appeared unparliamentary to my ears.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! For the benefit of the House I ask the member for Sturt to withdraw.

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

I am not sure what term it was, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said 'truthful'—I do not believe the Prime Minister—or 'swindle'.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will withdraw.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly never referred to anybody as a 'swindler', but I said this was a swindle.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The member will withdraw unequivocally and get back on the bill.

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

I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, if it suits the House to do so.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is good.

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

One of our other concerns is with the confused data that is associated with this new school funding model. Every time the government gives data to the states or to the non-government sector, and the non-government sector and states model that data to determine how many of their schools will be worse off, they then publish a list showing how many of their schools will lose money. The government says, 'You have got the wrong data. We will give you the right data. We do not know what data you are relying on but it is the wrong data.'

The only data the schools are relying on is the data given to them by the federal government but, apparently because it does not spit out the responses that the government wants, it is always the wrong data. Of course, the truth is the government is giving the right data to the schools and they are modelling it and it is showing that hundreds and hundreds of schools will lose money under the new school funding model—300 schools alone in Queensland will lose money under the new school funding model if it goes ahead.

Only the coalition can promise that not one school can lose a dollar in real terms because the coalition has promised to deliver the current quantum of funds plus the current indexation called the AGSRC model of indexation. The coalition can promise every school principal and every parent in Australia that it is not mathematically possible for schools to go backwards under the coalition because we will provide the current quantum plus the AGSRC indexation. Yet this government is implementing a new school funding model and tries to pretend that it will deliver rivers of gold to school communities while it is cutting funding for the next four years by $325 million. That is putting aside higher education, early childhood, child care, apprenticeships and training. At the same time it is not keeping pace with the indexation that the coalition can promise so that only the coalition can promise that no school could be worse off after the election. This government has admitted that schools will lose money over the next four years.

Each time I have asked the minister—and I will ask him again and maybe he will tell us in his summing-up to the second reading—how many funds will flow to schools in 2014 and 2015 and 2016, school by school, the minister fluffs the answer, obfuscates and comes up with all sorts of riddles, none of which answer the question that principals want to know. That is how much will they get in 2014, 2015 and 2016. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I suspect the answer is that he does not know, and therein lies the problem. Under this school funding model, schools cannot plan for the next three years because not even the government knows how much money they will lose.

Another one of our concerns is the hidden hooks in this legislation. The hidden hook that causes me the greatest concern is schedule H to the national agreement that the government has made with the states that have signed up to it which refers to the use of the socioeconomic status data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to determine funds to non-government schools between now and 2016, but then in 2017 a new tool will be developed called an individual parental capacity to pay

When I raised this issue, the minister publicly said what that meant was the aggregate parental capacity to pay in a school. But that is not what the agreement says. The agreement says 'an individual parental capacity to pay', so those states and territories that are signed up to this agreement have signed up to a means test on the parents of children in non-government schools.

We know Labor have a propensity towards means tests. They means-tested the pension under the Hawke government in 1984. They means-tested the private health insurance rebate. The parliamentary secretary would know this because he is a bit of a savant when it comes to dates and numbers. In 1986 they means-tested the pension against the wishes of the coalition. They then means-tested the private health insurance rebate, which we know is in their DNA to means-test. And so when I discovered that schedule H said 'an individual parental capacity to pay' and I raised it, everybody in the non-government sector realised what it was—that is, a means test. And that is where the government are going. If the government are re-elected, if this government form another government after 14 September—if this parliament lasts that long—then they will, as sure as night follows day, introduce a means test on the parents of children in non-government schools. And those people who are considering voting for the Labor Party at the election, who have children in non-government schools, cannot come back to the coalition in 2017 and say, 'Why didn't somebody warn us about this,' because I have warned about it again and again and again in this place and in the media.

One of the great failures of this new school funding model is that it does not actually address any of the transformational issues that will change student outcomes in Australia. And if the only purpose of government funding for government and non-government schools is to affect the outcomes of our students in schools, then why doesn't this bill pass that test? This bill does nothing to try to address the transformational measures that are required in our schools across Australia to bring about better outcomes for our Australian children who are of school age. I talk specifically about things like teacher quality, a robust curriculum, principal autonomy and parental engagement.

Anyone who has read up on the issue of school education will know that the Grattan Institute's report, and many other venerable public advocacy organisations and academic works, have turned themselves to the question of what are the important issues in schools that bring about the best results for our students. They are: principal autonomy, parental engagement, a strong and robust curriculum, and teacher quality. The first one of those must be teacher quality, and yet these bills before the House tonight, that follow the Australian Education Bill, do not address the fundamental issues. And the member for Griffith is right when he says that the government has not made the case for the link between new spending in 2018-19 and the impact that that will have on student outcomes.

We spend a great deal of money now on schools. In fact, we are spending 40 per cent more on schools today than we were—we have increased our spending on schools, I should say, by 40 per cent over the last 10 years, and in those 10 years our outcomes have declined. We spent 40 per cent more in the last 10 years on school education and in that time our outcomes have demonstrably declined—not just relatively with our Asian competitors and neighbours, but in real terms both our literacy and numeracy have declined. So if money was the answer to every problem, why is that so?

The answer is because this government has not addressed, and the state Labor governments—they have been mostly state Labor over the last 20 years—have not addressed, the fundamental issues of teacher quality, parental engagement, principal autonomy and a robust curriculum. Except in the last three years in Western Australia. The member for Stirling is here in the chamber tonight, and he would know that Western Australia is the only state in the entire federation that has introduced the most far-reaching principal autonomy in the country in government schools and it is the only jurisdiction since 1977 that is now seeing a drift from non-government to government schools because parents are looking at the independent public school model in Western Australia and saying, 'That is where we want our child to be educated.'

The No. 1 feature of government schools in Western Australia, independent public schools, that is different to every other state is that the principals have enormous autonomy in their schools. They are one-line budget items in the Western Australian budget—school name, amount of money; decisions are made by the principals and their leadership teams and their advisory councils. Now more than 50 per cent of all children in government schools in Western Australia are in independent public schools and the market is telling us in WA that the parents like principal autonomy. These bills do nothing to address the issues of principal autonomy and the flow-on effects to parental engagement, robust curriculum or higher teacher quality.

People are entitled to know what the coalition would do. If the coalition is fortunate to be elected on 14 September this year, we will immediately move, if there has been no national agreement—and national agreement means an overwhelming majority of states—to repeal agreements made between the Commonwealth and those states that have signed up, unless there is national agreement. We will introduce a one-page bill that will roll over the current funding model from the end of this year to the end of 2015, which gives us two years to sort out the chaos and mess that this minister and this Prime Minister have presided over in the new school funding model. That will give schools their current quantum of funds, plus indexation under the average government school resourcing standard, the AGSRC, and schools can, therefore, plan. They will get no less money—in fact, they will get the same amount in real terms because of indexation—for at least two years.

We will focus relentlessly on the four priorities that I have talked about tonight: principal autonomy, a robust curriculum, teacher quality and parental engagement. We will implement a new capital infrastructure fund for schools across Australia because we know that schools are growing and in new areas of large cities and in many regional and rural areas there is enormous need for new schools, for growing schools to get capital infrastructure and for some schools with dilapidated infrastructure to get continuing support for capital.

The so-called Building the Education Revolution, like so many of this government's policies, was just another flash in the pan—the money is gone; the money has been spent—and now the government is saying to schools: 'There's no more capital infrastructure for you. You've had your share.' The member for Riverina, the member for Stirling and I know that the needs of schools continue far beyond the so-called Building the Education Revolution so, when the budget allows because of good economic management—from a, hopefully, new government in September—we will implement a capital infrastructure fund that meets the needs of school communities across Australia.

I know I said I would speak only briefly and I have spoken instead for 25 minutes because there were so many important things to put on the record, but in conclusion one of the most important things in the Gonski report was their acceptance of the coalition's policy that the funding of children from disadvantaged backgrounds should be sector blind. Hitherto, if you were a student in a government school, you would be funded in some cases at 10 times the rate of the same child in a non-government school, for example, for disabilities. I believe that is wrong and I think most Australians do believe that is wrong. One of the good things about the Gonski report is that they accepted the coalition's policy from the last election that funding of children in non-government schools should be the same as funding of children in government schools, whether that is for children with a disability, for low-SES children, for children in remote and rural areas, for children in small schools or for children from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

We believe that no matter who wins the election in September they should implement a policy that is blind to the school sectors and that allows the funding to follow a student for disadvantage. That is what the Gonski report talked about in terms of loadings. How we will make that work is something that I think we will need two years to work out with the sector. Under the coalition, the national partnerships that have been redirected into this new funding model but short-changed on the way through will continue, the targeted programs that have been cut in this budget will continue and the current quantum will continue plus the AGSRC. We will look over the next two years at how to implement a loadings policy that is fair to everyone, where the funding follows the child with disadvantage and can be afforded by the Australian taxpayer. I am quite sure that is not beyond the wit of the new government—or, indeed, of this government, should we be unfortunate to have them re-elected.

With those few words, I point out that the coalition will not oppose this bill. Of course we cannot oppose a bill that has not yet even reached national agreement. We cannot support it and we cannot oppose it, so we will let it through and we will wait to see where the states land in terms of their support or not for a new school funding model.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I endorse the remarks of the shadow education minister, the previous speaker, because, as he pointed out, the government's handling of this bill has been shambolic and chaotic. Indeed, it has been farcical the whole way through. Like everything else that this government does, it has been rushed in with indecent haste, as the shadow education minister pointed out, at five minutes to midnight. Barely a few days before the 43rd Parliament finishes, we are expected to come in here and absorb, firstly, 71 pages of amendments and, now, this consequential and transitional provisions bill. We will not have time to take it all in. It has been rushed in in typical Labor fashion. We all know that our children are extremely important. Health and education are two of the most important sectors which we deliberate on, which we try to make good public policy for and which deserve far more than what we are giving them by rushing this bill through this House and then through the Senate without the due diligence that this bill requires.

We have gone from a situation where there was no detail contained in the Australian Education Bill to a situation where we now have the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill that we, let alone the government members, have had no time to consider. We all know that the government members will blindly like sheep vote en masse because, if they do not, they will get ejected from their party for life. This is too important to not properly consider it. Our children are far too important to not give this bill due consideration.

The coalition have had very little opportunity—no chance—to consult with the schools in our electorates on how the new amendments might affect them. In saying that, it is important to note that many of these people are extremely concerned about what it is going to mean for them. I quote from a letter from the principal of the Mater Dei Catholic Primary School at Wagga Wagga, Danny Malone, who wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 June, because this is quite important and needs to be placed on the record:

In response to your recent email I, and the entire school community of Mater Dei Catholic Primary School Wagga Wagga, request further clarification. There are many facts and figures in your email and, indeed, being reported in the press. The National Plan for School Improvement adds additional information to be absorbed and worked through, but still does not provide any real clarification to four key areas which are of concern to Catholic schools Australia-wide. We seek your response to questions below:

1) When will the final financial outcomes for each of the next six years of the rollout—2014-2019 inclusive—for each state and territory Catholic Education Commission and each non-systemically funded Catholic school be known?

2) Would you explain your claim on Sunday 19th May that the average non-government school in New South Wales will lose $800,000 if the new funding model is not adopted?

3) What guarantees do we Catholic schools have that the full funding for the model will ever actually be found or delivered by 2019?

4) How can the government even predict funding for 2016 at this stage, given the 2015 review of indexation?

Mater Dei Catholic Primary School is part of the Wagga Wagga Catholic diocese which provides wide-ranging support to our systems of schools that, in turn, allows for the efficient use and equitable allocation of all funds and resources. The new model to fund schools individually would undermine our diocesan system which is already in place and working! Parents of Mater Dei Catholic Primary would like answers to their questions about how our school will be affected and what this new funding model will mean to staffing and resourcing for 2014 and beyond. Planning for 2014 cannot be waylaid until after the next federal election.

Sincerely,

Danny Malone, Principal

He is a good man, Mr Malone. He was a teacher or principal when my three children went through that particular school. But he, like so many other principals, is asking questions. He, like so many other principals—Catholic, independent, Christian and public school principals—has to put budgets in place. I know it is not important for those on the opposite side to put budgets in place. I know they do things very willy-nilly and with indecent haste. It is not their money they are spending—it is the taxpayers'. But the thing is, schools need to be able to budget. Schools need to be able to make sure that the money they have coming in is not going to be overtaken by the money they have to spend. Unlike the Labor government, they need to meet their budgets. Unlike the Labor government, they need to make sure that their key stakeholders—parents and, moreover, students—have a properly-run school system and a properly-run school budget so that they make ends meet. That is something that could well be a good lesson for those opposite.

Danny Malone is not alone in his questioning of the Prime Minister, the school education minister and, indeed, this government about these reforms. Last week I had New South Wales Teachers Federation representatives from Griffith, Richard Wiseman and Melina Ragusa, visit me and they were very much in favour of the Gonski review. I know that the New South Wales education minister, Adrian Piccoli, was the first to sign up. Certainly, there are things in the Australian Education Bill—in the Gonski reforms—which I agree with. I can actually see that, for the schools I represent, the initial Gonski bill as put forward by the Labor government had some things in it which would have been beneficial for the schools I represent. However, that was before Labor decided to plonk on us 71 pages of amendments. I was waiting in turn, as I am sure so many other of my colleagues were, to speak on the amendments and all of a sudden—bang! The member for Lyne, just behind me, said: 'I move that the motion be put.' So, effectively, we were gagged. He made out as if it was his idea: 'I will bring this on; let the amendments be put.' Of course, he supported this government from day one. In fact, he put this government in place, and so it was no surprise that the member for Lyne wanted the 71 pages of amendments put so that the bill could be rushed through, as indeed it was. He and the member for New England have a lot to answer for in that respect.

There are huge questions over this consequential and transitional provisions bill. Individual non-government schools do not know how the proposed funding arrangements will impact upon them financially. They are writing to the Prime Minister, as Mr Malone did. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, despite repeated requests.

We have heard from the school education minister that there will be $325 million worth of cuts over the next four years. The rivers of gold—the so-called rivers of gold—will be in the Gonski reform process from years 5 and 6 of this whole reform package, but that means that is at least two, if not three, elections away. The Prime Minister, who is having enough difficulty at the moment, cannot guarantee that Labor will be there next election, let alone the one after that or the one after that, to ensure that these so-called rivers of gold are in place for schools in years 5 and 6 of this package. We know that the government is trying to pass this bill and has put a 30 June deadline in place. We also know that the majority of states and territories have not as yet signed up to it. Mr Piccoli signed up to it because he got what he thought was a good deal, and that any subsequent deals done would have no financial impact on New South Wales—if they were, indeed, better than my state's deal, which was signed up some weeks ago. But again we hear that word 'deal'. Really, this government should not be doing deals to force wedge issues between the federal coalition and its state coalition partners; or, indeed, between the New South Wales Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell and the National Party state education minister Adrian Piccoli and the federal coalition. But that is unfortunately the way that politics 2013, with this current Labor government, works. It is always about wedge issues and playing the politics, rather than doing what is right for the people who matter most in this, and they are the children who are going to school.

I note with much concern that meetings are being held to explain Gonski and that there are meetings with key stakeholders about this legislation. I also note with concern that these meetings are not going to be held west of the Great Divide. That is of great concern, because country kids matter too—and certainly, country kids in my electorate matter a lot to me. The key stakeholders in this situation—that is, the principals, the Catholic diocese, directors of schools, the New South Wales Teachers Federation and others who at their very heart want what is best for the students who go to their schools—need to have the whole reform package and process explained to them. But unfortunately it has been symbolic and typical of this government not to care about regional Australia—and I would not call it just an oversight.

This bill appears to represent a dramatic new intervention in the running of state government schools by the Commonwealth. State schools were always called just that, state schools. Now, through creeping federalism and everything else, this government is trying to take over the running of these schools, just as this government has tried to take over a lot of things in health. This is causing quite a bit of alarm in the community. It makes the Commonwealth government a significant operator of government schools, or state schools. Does any Australian think that the Prime Minister and the school education minister are better able to run their child's school from Canberra than principals and teachers are able to run their schools on the ground? I think not.

We heard from the shadow education minister about the four key planks of the coalition policy. The first of these planks is teacher quality—very important. The second is to have a robust, strong curriculum. The third is to have principal autonomy, what I have just referred to in saying that the principals on the ground are best placed to know their students' parents' demands, needs and expectations. The fourth strong plank of educational priorities for the coalition is parental engagement. Our kids deserve the very best—we all know that. We all know that our kids deserve this, but we need to be able to afford to give those kids the best. There is nothing that I have seen in my time in this place to show that this government is capable of managing its finances and, moreover, managing the nation's finances to ensure that the sorts of policies being put forward will be properly funded.

The government is proposing policy that is the complete opposite of increasing principal and school autonomy. It is an invasive new incursion into schooling, the exact opposite of what we need to do to lift student outcomes. I was concerned to see, in a recent round showing which schools were performing best under NAPLAN and other student outcomes, that featured in the top 50 was only one regional school, and that was a private school. That is alarming, to say the least. We need better outcomes for students—all students—and certainly for regional students who are put so far behind the eight ball when it comes to student outcomes from years kindergarten to 12. And, when regional students go to get a tertiary education—and I know the shadow minister for employment participation, child care and early childhood learning agrees with me—they are behind the eight ball when it comes to getting good vocational, TAFE and other tertiary education outcomes. This is not helped by this government not doing independent youth allowance for regional students in the Riverina, Farrer and lots of other regional electorates. This government has never shown, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is concerned in any way, shape or form with the outcomes for regional students, especially regional students trying to get a tertiary education.

This bill will not be opposed by the coalition, but we should have had more time to talk about it and to think about it. (Time expired.)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members who have contributed to the debate. The Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill is consequential to the enactment of the proposed Australian Education Act 2013. The bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to enable Commonwealth recurrent and capital funding for all Australian schools, including funding for schools participating in the reform arrangements and government schools in states and territories choosing not to participate to be exclusively appropriated under the proposed Australian Education Act 2013 from 1 January 2014. The bill also contains transitional provisions relating to certain requirements under the proposed Australian Education Act 2013 in order to ensure a smooth transition and to reduce the administrative burden on schools and governments associated with moving to the new arrangements.

This bill supports the government's historic national school education reform agenda which will enshrine in law a national approach to funding school education that ensures that schools are funded according to the needs of their students. The reform also importantly links school funding to key school reform directions embedded in the National Plan for School Improvement. These are real reforms that evidence shows will lead to better schools and better outcomes for our students. These are reforms that include investment in quality teaching, recognising the commitment, dedication and potential of every teacher by supporting them with better opportunities for development and career progression. The national plan will continue work already underway in this area by raising entry standards for teaching courses, annual performance assessments for all teachers and providing more support to teachers in their first years in the classroom.

The reforms will invest in quality learning, ensuring that all schools are supported to provide an engaging and responsive environment, one that recognises and takes advantage of changes in technology. It is something we have started through the national curriculum, the National Safe Schools Framework which addresses student behaviour in the classroom and in the playground, and the Digital Education Revolution.

The reforms include empowered school leadership: we recognise the importance of principal autonomy—principals in their schools making local decisions that meet the local needs of their school communities—and teachers in their classrooms being exemplars.

The bill will deliver transparency and accountability, and ensures that parents and the wider community know what governments and schools are doing with school funding: what we are achieving, what we are learning from reforms and how we are sharing what works. The bill will help meet student need. The link between student background and achievement is strong, and too many students from less-advantaged backgrounds are falling behind. We recognise this and we are seeking a shared commitment by all states and territories to support the provision of a high-quality schooling experience for all students.

Better, fairer funding based on the needs of schools and students, together with these National Plan for School Improvement reforms will ensure that all Australian students get the education they deserve; not one dictated to them by what school they go to, where they live or what their parents do for a living. Having the best education possible will help every Australian child to achieve their true potential. It will ensure that we as a nation have the skills and knowledge to compete internationally.

I want to address two issues that were raised by the member for Sturt in his speech to the chamber earlier this evening. At one point the member for Sturt suggested that the government had a secret plan for means testing. Let me be clear: there will be no means testing of parents who send their children to non-government schools under the new school funding plan. The government has always ruled this out, and nothing has changed.

It is important to recognise that the current funding system introduced by the Howard government already takes into account the capacity of a school community to contribute to the costs of education. It is the government's view that reflecting capacity to contribute is the fairest approach, and that is an approach that is supported across the education sector. What the Gonski review found was that the current method of assessing the capacity to pay is flawed, and does not provide an accurate picture. The review recommended that the government should:

… develop, trial and implement a better measure of the capacity of parents to contribute in consultation with the non-government sectors.

The non-government sector itself has also requested that a more accurate method be developed. That work is now underway and it is referred to in the National Education Reform Agreement.

Another suggestion that the shadow minister made was a claim around school funding indexation. The fact is that current Commonwealth indexation for school funding is 3.9 per cent, having fallen from 5.9 per cent last year due to state government reductions in school spending. The shadow minister is basing projections from a period in which many states and territories had Labor governments which were investing strongly in school spending. But with many Liberal-National party governments having taken over the reins, state government spending on schools has fallen and that has affected Commonwealth indexation for school funding.

Page 120 of budget paper No. 2 in the recent budget shows that should AGSRC fall to three per cent, schools would lose $16 billion over the six-year period. It is important, I think, for members of the House to be aware of the facts around indexation and the facts around means testing.

I commend the bill to the House. This bill is a small part, yet an essential part, of our vision for Australian schools and students and Australia's future in the global economy.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Debate adjourned.