Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister is his last answer refer to funding as 'consistent' when his own briefing document reads, in relation to the funding standard, that it is 'misleading to say a consistent share'?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot follow the honourable member's question, but I can add to my previous answer. The—

Mr Burke interjecting—

Well nobody else understood what she was talking about. I am not Robinson Crusoe. The honourable member mentioned St Clair High School in New South Wales. Consulting the education department's app and website, I see the estimated Australian government funding for that school this year is $2.4 million. It will increase by $121,000 next year. To 2027, it will increase to a total funding of $31 million, increased by nearly $7½ million over that period.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

Government members interjecting—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

Members on my right and the Leader of the House. The member for Sydney on a point of order.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance: I was asking about the Prime Minister's own comments in his last answer and his own briefing document distributed to journalists about his own education funding package.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sydney will resume her seat. Members will cease interjecting. As all members know, the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble at the start of his answer. He has used that in reference to the previous question. The Prime Minister has the call.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's funding model is as recommended by David Gonski; it is the Gonski model. The model is that government schools are funded based on the Schooling Resource Standard and non-government schools are funded on the Schooling Resource Standard adjusted by the community's capacity to pay, as estimated through the SES data, which has been used, as honourable members know, for the best part of 20 years for that purpose. The model sets out, as the government has described and laid out, that 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard will be met for government schools, with the addition, obviously, of loadings for various categories: disabled children, children from very low socioeconomic groups, children from non-English-speaking backgrounds and so forth. There are five categories; I think the honourable members are aware of that. That Schooling Resource Standard is the benchmark as recommended by Gonski and the Commonwealth will fund 20 per cent for the government system—with the balance, obviously, being covered by the states and territories—and 80 per cent for the non-government system. Reaching that level will be achieved at the end of the 10-year period. That is the commitment. It is thoroughly consistent across non-government schools and across government schools.