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

I have received a letter from the Hon. Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's failure to be upfront with the Australian people about its $22 billion cut to schools.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

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

I thought the member for Menzies might join us, and he is belatedly standing and agreeing that this is a matter of definite public importance, because future funding for our schools—government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools—is in chaos as we speak now. It takes something close to a miracle to unite advocates of the public system, representing about 70 per cent of schools in this country, with advocates of the Catholic system, representing about 20 per cent of schools in this country—together, 90 per cent of schools in this country—against this funding model. And today we hear from representatives of the independent schools that they are looking at withdrawing their support for this model too. Why is it? It is because this government has delivered only chaos to parents, to teachers and to the members of their own backbench, who have been fed dodgy data in order to get their support in the Liberal Party room. We have seen the minister selectively releasing dodgy figures, dribbling them out day after day to try and get the support of his backbench for a funding package that, in the government's own document, cuts $22.3 billion from the schools over the decade. It gets very complicated when you have competing numbers out there, but, if we cannot trust the government's own briefing to journalists on the day this package was announced, then we cannot trust anything that comes afterward. This document says:

Compared to Labor's arrangements, this represents a savings of … $22.3 billion over 10 years …

That sounds like a cut to me.

We also see the government telling one thing to parents and one thing to the party room, to the backbench, and then trying to slide out selective data on the weekend to try and get the Greens party room over the line to support this funding package. They think that, by releasing figures that show a $4.6 billion cut from Catholic schools, they are going to get the Greens over the line. Whoopsie! Own goal! They did not really think about the Catholics on their backbench who are a bit upset about the fact. The leaking of the Department of Education figures by the government, for the brilliant tactical reason of getting the Greens over the line, has actually meant chaos on their own backbench and insurrection in their own party room. We have had the member for Menzies saying:

To do a deal with the Greens seems madness to me, that we're hell-bent on driving our own base away in return for votes from the Greens in which we'll never be rewarded at the ballot box.

We have had an unnamed Liberal MP saying:

It leaves me with a very sour taste in my mouth. I'm wondering if Minister Birmingham deliberately misled the partyroom when he gave his briefing.

We have had another unnamed Liberal MP saying that it 'made a travesty of the party room process' and:

If the consequences of this policy are far more dire for the Catholic and Independent sector than originally briefed than we need to be told.

Of course, we have seen a lot in the media the last couple of days from the Catholic sector and from independent schools, but from the very beginning public school advocates have been against this bill because the worst affected are the public schools, who will see billions of dollars of cuts. The Australian Education Union has said, 'Turnbull's education cuts are disaster for our kids.' And here is an unusual person for me to be quoting: Rob Stokes, the education minister from New South Wales, who says:

We recognise that budgeting is a difficult process, and every Government has to consider its priorities. As a Government we prioritised education, school education, because we see its benefits across every other area of government service. So the Federal Government really needs to consider what its priorities are in the way that the New South Wales Government already has.

The Catholic sector have lost confidence. They have made that very clear. They have said they will make the Liberals wear this like an albatross around their necks every day to the next election. Public schools never had confidence in this funding package and we now hear that independent schools are also worried.

We heard a little leak from the cabinet room this morning. There is full-scale leaking from the Liberal Party room this morning. The leak we heard from the Liberal Party room this morning was: 'It's okay; Minister Birmingham's got it all in hand. He's going to do a deal with the Catholics and we're going to work this out.' But here we have a statement from the National Catholic Education Commission saying:

Following our meeting with Minister Birmingham yesterday, there has been speculation about a compromise having been offered. At 2.45 pm, that has not happened. We have heard nothing. Accordingly, our position continues to be that this legislation should be withdrawn and all sectors invited to contribute to the redesign of a school funding model that will enjoy the support of Catholic, government and independent schools.

The reason that you have unity from educators and parents opposing this $22 billion cut is that they know that their children will miss out on the individual attention, the special supports, the one-on-one attention and the extra help with literacy, numeracy, maths, science, coding and languages—all of the things that the early years of needs-based funding have allowed. Parents know that this means gifted and talented kids will not be extended. They know it means kids who have a learning difficulty will not have that addressed.

Over the next two years alone, New South Wales public schools will lose $846 million while The King's School in Sydney gets a $19 million increase over the decade. Does that sound like it is needs based to you? Victorian public schools will lose $630 million while Geelong Grammar gets a $16 million increase. Does that sound needs based to you? Queensland public schools will lose $730 million over the next two years alone, while Churchie gets an increase of $17 million. Does that sound needs based to you? South Australian schools, mostly public schools, will lose $265 million, while Scotch College in Adelaide gets an almost $10 million increase. Tasmanian public schools will lose $68 million, while the Friends' School in Hobart gets a $19 million increase over the decade. Does that sound needs based to anyone in this room?

It is not needs-based funding and it is not sector-blind funding when it is funding model that entrenches the unfairness. It entrenches the unfairness because government schools will only ever be offered 20 per cent of their fair funding level by those opposite. That means Northern Territory public schools will actually go backwards, from 23 per cent to 20 per cent. We also know that it is not needs-based funding when the Northern Territory public schools are the worst affected and the Tasmanian public schools are the second worst affected. The unfairness is entrenched in the model, where public schools get only 20 per cent of their fair funding level and non-government schools get 80 per cent of their fair funding level.

We see the impact on low-fee Catholic schools around this country. I have to say that the parents who are here from the Broken Bay Diocese today have done a marvellous job of standing up for their kids. They know that for the little Catholic schools that are charging $1,500, $2,000 or $3,000 a year in fees their funding goes backward to the tune of millions of dollars. In this diocese, we are talking about $30 million cut in one year from 44 schools while some of the wealthiest schools in the country actually get an increase under this funding model. How is it fair and how is it needs based when a little Catholic school on the Central Coast faces a fee increase of thousands of dollars and a school like the King's School that is already charging almost $30,000 a year in fees actually gets a funding increase? On what planet is this needs-based funding?

Despite everything the Prime Minister likes to claim, this is not what the Gonski review panel recommended. The review panel recommended that states and territories work together to get every child in every school in every sector in every state to their fair funding level. This does not do this. This sends some children in some schools backwards, including some the most disadvantaged children in this country. The low-fee Catholic schools, the Northern Territory public schools and the Tasmanian public schools go backward, and some of the wealthiest schools get a funding increase.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak on this matter of public importance in relation to education. Many members would recall that we have been here debating this issue for a number of weeks now. Unfortunately, from the other side there is very little new material being added to the debate. I would say that we are at the point that we need to move forward now and concentrate on what is important to the mums and dads of Australia—that is, a quality outcome in education for their children.

As a mother of three children, I can certainly say that when I talk to the mums and dads at the schools that my children go to, or have been to, and at the schools in my electorate, what the mums and dads are keen to talk about is a quality education and a quality outcome—how their kids get the best possible education so that they are well placed to go on and take up the jobs of the future. That, unfortunately, is what is absent from this debate from those opposite.

I would like to, firstly, deal with some of the questionable statistics and dollar figures that the opposition has put up in this debate on a number of occasions, and make the record abundantly clear, yet again, that there certainly are no cuts. I have just been reminded of the ABC Fact Check. The fact that was checked was whether the government had cut $22 billion from schools. There is a lot of information in here which I do encourage people to go and read. There is a very nice photograph above the word 'misleading'. If I turn to the verdict, the first line says:

Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools.

What I would say to those opposite is: there are some very key facts in terms of the numbers here that we all need to be mindful of when looking overall at whether or not this is a good deal and a good outcome for our students and for our schools.

Under our proposal, funding for schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. That is a 75 per cent increase. It is 4.1 per cent growth per student. It is a significant amount of money that is being put into the system. Under our plan, schools will be $18.6 billion better off. The annual per-student funding increase over the next 10 years will be 5.1 per cent for the government sector, 3.5 per cent for the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent for the independent sector. There is a very positive outcome overall for schools and, of course, as a result of that, for our students. What I would say to those opposite is that we need to focus on what is important going forward in education, and that is, clearly, focusing on the fact that, whilst funding is important, it is what we do with the funding that is in fact more important.

I have to give an accolade to my senior minister, the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham, because what he has had to do is develop and negotiate a pathway through some very, very difficult funding arrangements that were put in place by the previous Labor government. What we inherited was actually a mess. Senator Birmingham has, very methodically and very deliberately, gone through a process of looking at what needs to be fixed to make sure that what we have going forward is fairer, simpler and more sustainable for all of our Australian schools. I have heard the member for Sydney say several times, 'How is it fair?' Let me ask those opposite: how is it fair that states and territories were treated differently by Labor depending on what deal they could negotiate? Why is that fair? How is that fair? How is it fair that we cannot, in this parliament, focus on what is important, which is certainly quality outcomes.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyons is out of his place and is disorderly.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now, I do talk about quality a lot, and it is fair to say that I am compensating for the lack of focus on the other side for a quality education outcome, but it is desperately important and it is, quite frankly, something that we all should be focusing on. What we see day after day—now week after week—is the same old rhetoric from those opposite. They want to talk about schools, they do not want to talk about other parts of education and they are totally ignoring the vocational education and training sector, which is really a very strong focus of this government going forward because, once again, we have to deal with the nonsense that gets put by the opposition about the facts in vocational education and skills.

The point I am making here is that education is not just about schools; education covers many factors. It covers early childhood education, schools, vocational education and higher education. Schools are certainly a very important part of that. I think it is probably fair to say that schools are the linchpin of the education sector. When we talk about schools, funding and education, we have to look at what the outcomes are going to be from our schools to make sure that we are equipping our students for the jobs of the future. I have said on many occasions in this place that what is important is to make sure that we are equipping our students for the jobs of the future. I hope that at some stage those opposite actually do put forward an MPI that talks more broadly about quality education and more broadly about vocational education and skills. I would be delighted to participate in that.

I only have a couple of minutes left in this debate and I would like to read onto the transcript a few of the, effectively, third-party endorsements for the plans that we have put up. I will start with David Gonski and comments that he made in a media conference on 2 May. He said:

… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.

…   …   …

I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

Dr Ken Boston, Gonski review member and certainly a leading education policymaker, said Australia is on the cusp of, and I quote, 'a new deal of historic national importance'. He went on to say:

There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle …

He also said:

It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate.

We also have some very interesting comments here from Kathryn Greiner, and it is interesting because she was also a Gonski review member. She was quoted in TheSydney Morning Herald on 13 June as having said:

I agree 100 per cent with what Ken said—it would be a disaster for Australian education if this doesn't pass.

This is the first time a government in this country has drawn a line in the sand, removed the funding anomalies and got everyone on the same page. Gonski 2.0 delivers what the Gonski report wanted: an accountable, transparent, equitable, sector-blind funding formula. And, of course, there are many more, but I would actually like to finish with this quote from Martin Hanscamp, the executive officer at the Australian Association of Christian Schools: 'AACS would like to express its profound support for the bold schools funding policy. We have two schools in the group of 24 and their hits are not insubstantial. However, rather than join the line of critics from those affected who have responded from their self-interest perspective, we would like to loudly applaud a policy approach that is good for all schools and sectors and, as has been said, provides an opportunity to put an end to the ridiculous school funding wars. We are sending in this short and strong message because we do not want good policy swamped by the loud voices of those who are negatively impacted. We are one of those. We have a further six schools also above SRS, and our collective of Christian schools across Australia want to stand and applaud what we see as good policy action.' (Time expired)

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate there is an important set of voices missing from the government perspective: the voices of schools, students and school communities. The government will not talk about them—and is that surprising? They hide behind these other voices because they will not make the arguments. On this side of the House, we see this debate very, very differently. When we talk about schools, we are talking about our kids, their future and the future of all of us. That is why this debate about schools funding matters so much to us.

For the Prime Minister, it may be a game. When he talks about schools and he talks about it being needs based, it is his needs—the needs of his political leadership, his political fortunes. For us, we are concerned about the needs of our children and, indeed, Australia's prospects. So it is no surprise that the assistant minister did not want to talk about schools. It is hard to blame her for that, but she must be accountable for the government, which she is part of, that is short-changing Australian students and, in particular, short-changing those most in need: those students in government schools in the Northern Territory and Tasmania. But, with this ridiculous formula, this ridiculous, baseless commitment to cap the Commonwealth investment in state school funding at 20 per cent of the fair funding standard, it is also foreclosing on the future of every kid in a government school in Australia. That formula is something that is nowhere to be seen in Gonski. It is not sustainable, and it is short-changing our kids' future.

But she did lay down a challenge, and on this side we are prepared to respond to that challenge. Minister, we will talk about every aspect of education across the life for this parliament. We will hold the government to account for its lack of certainty when it comes to high-quality early years education and the contemptuous way in which it has treated early years educators. We will stand up for public TAFE as the cornerstone of the skills agenda that is fit for the future. Every day we will come in here and hold the government to account for $3.8 billion of cuts to higher education and, also, a ridiculous additional imposition of higher fees and higher repayment levels that will deter too many people from participating in higher education.

But, in relation to schools, we look at the government and we remind them what Gonski was all about. What the Gonski panel said at the time was that every Australian school child deserves to be supported to a fair funding standard. That is the first point. The second point is that getting there is a shared responsibility of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and schooling sectors. Whatever else this so-called Gonski 2.0 package is, it fails that test. In fact, it does not even approach that test. Everything the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham say walks around those critical issues. All the Prime Minister is doing is looking for people to hide behind on the one hand and people to blame on the other. He is about as far from being a leader as it is possible to be.

This bill, which has passed this House and, hopefully, will be rejected in the Senate, is an exercise in how not to do public policy on any level, but particularly when the stakes are so high. There has been his continuous failure to consult anyone affected. The minister has attended I think four ministerial councils since his appointment. He has failed to put a proposal before any one of them. I remind the ministers at the table that the point of the school funding reform was a shared effort to reach a fair funding model. There has been no effort at sharing, no cooperative vision and no shared understanding. In fact, what they have put before us is a comprehensive abandonment of national responsibility for schooling in Australia.

Instead, the Prime Minister hides behind weasel words and human shields. How appalling was it when, in question time today, he defamed Pat Byrne from the WA teachers union? He did not have the decency to apologise when he was proven wrong. He is completely unworthy of the office that he holds. Again, when the government were asked about disability loadings in Tasmania they failed to talk about disability and they failed to talk about Tasmania. How contemptuous can they be? This is why they do not talk about school communities, teachers and our kids.

The government talks about ending the school funding wars. This is a message for government members and school communities around Australia: we will not end the school funding wars by surrendering. We are fighting for our kids' future because that is fundamental for Australia's future. We are fighting for the real Gonski, a vision for needs based sector-blind funding, which is everything this proposal is not.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In an effort to be as unequivocal and as brief as I possibly can: this MPI claim is incorrect. Minister Andrews was absolutely right just before when she pointed out that ABC Fact Check has already looked at this question. It states:

RMIT ABC Fact Check takes a deep dive into the figures.

The verdict

Ms Plibersek's claim is misleading: the Government is not cutting $22 billion from schools.

Commonwealth budgets set out spending over a four year period.

According to the … budget handed down on May 9, Commonwealth schools funding will continue to rise every year.

I could almost stop there. That is all the Australian people need to know. The plain fact is that this MPI claim is completely misleading. It is utterly false. Labor are misleading. That is the quote from the ABC Fact Check. Members opposite have proven time and time again in this parliament their tenuous grip on reality, let alone facts and figures, when it conflicts with their own political interests. There might just be for once a member over there who can still slightly detect reality, even when it is not convenient to them, so for their benefit I will continue.

There is no cut. There are funding increases. Schools will receive more money next year compared to this year, and their funding goes up for each and every one of the next 10 years under our plan. Let us cut to the heart of this. Labor's alleged cuts are compared to fantasy figures. They are not compared to the actual spending figures this year, last year or next year. They are not compared to actual numbers contained in the budget passed by this parliament. They are trying to compare our plans to a set of numbers that Labor once promised in the death throes of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. They never funded those promises. They never had any idea how to fund their crazy promises in that crazy period, and they are not even committed to delivering that funding now.

As the Prime Minister said today in question time, Labor are comparing fantasy figures that are not locked in anywhere. They are perpetrating a massive fraud, 'a hallucination'. The only fact Labor really knows is that this MPI topic really has little to do with education funding and much more to do with their politics. If it was all about whether funding should be higher, funding should be equitable, funding should be needs based or funding should be transparent, our historic reforms would have been legislated by now, because that is what our reforms deliver and that is why David Gonski has endorsed them. Labor has been exposed. For years they mindlessly mouthed and repeated the name Gonski, but now they do not dare speak his name. Neither of the two former speakers did. It is almost quite funny and comical. David Gonski has become the Voldemort of the Australian Labor Party: he who shall not be named.

David Gonski does not practise the dark arts, nor does he lurk in the halls of this Parliament House looking, searching, for the shadow education minister. And if he were here he probably would just want to chat with the member for Sydney. He probably would just want to know why the sudden change of mind, why all these backflips and why these Labor politicians and union leaders are tying themselves into pretzels compared to the former positions that they very recently held.

There is no $22 billion cut. We are increasing funding by $18.6 billion, in fact, compared to current funding levels. But don't take my word for Labor's hypocrisy, don't just take the word of the ABC's Fact Check, take The Sydney Morning Herald's Matthew Knott. He said: 'The Labor Party is in a position that has grown increasingly absurd as the debate has progressed.' Or here is Pete Goss, school education program director at the Grattan Institute, on Labor and the unions' complete misrepresentation of the facts:

Having won the philosophical war on needs-based funding of schools, the union is now in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If the amendment fails this week, government schools will get less money, not more.

Or how about this salient editorial from the Fin Review, which says: 'The true saga of education under Labor is one of extravagant promises, lost opportunities and overblown rhetoric.'

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am thrilled today to rise on this MPI because everyone in this place knows how important I think school education is. I am very pleased too because I had a question for question time that I did not get to ask—because the Prime Minister finished question time. So I suppose I could posit it now; perhaps the member for Brisbane might help me in answering this. The member for Menzies called for the government to give the details of the funding model to the party room because the crossbenchers have them but the party room do not have them.

So my question is now to the member for Brisbane: have you seen the detail? We would like to call on the government to bring it in here. I would like to see the detail, and so would all of the parents of kids in schools in my electorate of Lalor. Every parent across Lalor would like to see the government's numbers. They have seen the fantasy numbers; now they would like to see the ones they are shopping around the crossbench. It is important for the member for Brisbane to understand that apparently there is a quote from Senator Roberts, from One Nation, that says: 'We like the fact that this proposal from the federal government will reduce spending.' The crossbench know it is a reduction, the gallery know it is a $22.3 billion cut, but those opposite on the backbench have been kept in the dark. They might want to go and spend some time with Voldemort.

On the day this policy was announced, the Prime Minister said to the press gallery, 'I will end the funding wars in education.' We all heard the man. Well, hasn't he had a lesson! This is the biggest funding war we have seen in 50 years. You could not divide the sectors any more. You could not be any more anti David Gonski's vision if you tried. He has the Catholics wanting to tear out his throat, he has the public sector wanting to tear out his throat and now, today, we think the independent sector are going to want to tear out his throat. He has restarted the funding wars. He has absolutely set the dogs loose. And now these funding wars are being played out in his own party room. This man is a genius, isn't he? As the member for Sydney said, 'This is some special kind of genius.'

Of course, we all know that our Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham are the smartest people in the room—just ask them. They are right. Despite teachers saying they are wrong, despite principals saying they are wrong, despite leaders of sectors across this nation saying they are wrong, despite state governments saying they are wrong—even those of their own colour—despite parents saying they are wrong, they continue to march in here and tell us that they are right. Honest to goodness, you could not read about this. I have stood here for four years now, and when Minister Pyne was in charge of education he would stand at that dispatch box and say, 'Money doesn't matter,' and, 'Labor's dishonest because it promised funding beyond the forward estimates.' Remember those? Guess what? Those across the other side of the chamber are promising funding out to 2027. I think that might be beyond the forward estimates.

Now, I do need to include a report card for Minister Birmingham. Teachers across the country are writing reports this week, so I am sure they will all enjoy listening to this. My message to Senator Birmingham is really simple: you should spend more time bringing people together; you should spend less time playing favourites; you would get along much better in the classroom if you united people rather than divided them. That is my assessment of Minister Birmingham's social education. All kids have to learn to collaborate, and the key to collaboration is bringing people together.

Of course, that is what we on this side did. The former Labor government saw a major problem and they put their heads together and said, 'How can we solve this problem? How can we ensure a needs-based funding model for every child in every school? How can we bring everybody together around an idea?' And they delivered it. It is a pity some members opposite have not read that review. They keep quoting the man who wrote it, but they forget to read it.

The other point that I have to make before I finish is that there is only one party in this parliament that does not want to punish one sector in comparison to another. There is only one party that wants to bring in needs-based, sector-blind funding, and that is— (Time expired)

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank the member for Sydney for providing government members with the opportunity to put on the record, yet again, the Turnbull coalition government's record level of funding for schools—the highest amount provided by any government thus far, and only set to grow in coming years—as well as our genuine, needs-based Gonski funding.

The matter for discussion today is an absurdly misleading piece of propaganda from those opposite. Every government member who has spoken on our education funding has repeated that there are no cuts to schools funding. This is a blatant attempt by those opposite to confuse and mislead the Australian public. Funding to schools nationwide is set to increase by $18.6 billion, and Labor is opposing this funding increase. Shame! I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is a pure fiction to proclaim that funding changes are a cut when the original proposal by Labor when they were formerly in government was, in fact, unfunded and therefore meant nothing. The ABC and RMIT fact checked this, noting that the claim that the government had cut $22 billion from schools was misleading. The fact that the opposition continues to bring this misleading news before the parliament is a shame, particularly for schoolchildren. It is therefore the opposition's failure to be up-front with the Australian people about funding for schools that should be the centre of debate and the point of this discussion.

What we have done is remove 27 different funding agreements and put in their place one uniform agreement which ensures fairer needs-based funding for our education sector. We have brought in transparency and consistency. The pushback from Labor on our needs-based Gonski reforms is hypocritical, to the point where they do not want the public to see that, in fact, all Australian students are treated equitably, based on fairness and quality. This is an attempt to hide the fact that their promises are without real substance.

Furthermore, today I want to focus in particular on some of the comments that have been made by those on the Gonski panel. David Gonski himself said:

… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.

…   …   …

… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

Also, Dr Ken Boston said that Australia is on the cusp of 'a new deal of historic national importance', in that there are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle, and that it will be 'a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate'. These quotes are from members of the Gonski panel. I thought I would also mention the changes for Catholic schools and the benefits that our Gonski 2.0 changes will bring.

The Catholic sector is perceived to be the most adversely affected. However, in Dunkley all nine Catholic schools, not just government schools but also independent schools as well, will receive an increase in funding. The Catholic schools in my electorate will have their funding increased per student by about 40 per cent over the next decade—a total funding increase of over $101 million over the next period up to 2027. I recently met with representatives from five of the nine Catholic schools in my electorate of Dunkley to discuss their concerns and address the campaign of misinformation spread by those opposite. The principals of St Francis Xavier's, St John's, St Augustine's, St Thomas More's and John Paul College met with me in person and together we spoke by phone to the minister for education for over 45 minutes on the questions that they had. The minister answered each and every question in great detail that the principals raised and the meeting was received very well. The minister and I continue to work with all schools in Dunkley to ensure that the information they receive is accurate and complete, and not the political spin that has come out recently from those opposite.

I note in particular the Victorian Catholic school funding goes from $8,825 average per student in 2017 to $12,249 in 2027. There is an average annual growth in per student funding to Victorian Catholic schools of 3.5 per cent from 2017 to 2021. Currently, Victorian Catholic schools receive block funding by the Catholic Education Commission in Victoria. There will continue to be block funding so Catholic schools can distribute these funds equitably as they want to. I encourage those opposite to support our education bill and our changes.

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

School funding needs to be seen with a couple of facts which I will put on the table. The first thing we need to understand is that the number of students going to schools over the next 10 years will increase. So, of course, there will be an increase in funding—something that those opposite hide behind as if that is the only thing we need to understand. When we spoke of education funding before the 2013 election, there seemed to be one ticket and the former shadow education minister said, 'We will support the sector-blind, needs based funding model.' After that, the coalition government retreated from that model, and we have seen that in their own document, where the Turnbull government have outlined that they will cut $22 billion from school funding. I taught English for 11 years, not maths, but my understanding is—and I will take my advice from the member for Fenner—that if you take $30 billion with one hand and then give $22 billion back with the other, that is actually not a funding increase. My understanding is that this is just a misrepresentation by those opposite. What does it mean? What will it mean for Australian families?

A $22 billion cut to education is equivalent to a cut of $2.4 million for every school in Australia over the next decade. That is on average; I understand you need to drill down to find the details. But it does not take much drilling to understand why 90 per cent of the schools in Australia—those represented by state school bodies and Catholic school bodies—are upset about the Turnbull government's funding model. It is faux Gonski 2.0 that does not actually deliver sector-blind, needs based funding, which was what the original expert panel was all about. In the media today, we see that the Catholic schools have said they have absolutely no confidence in Prime Minister Turnbull's school funding policy. When you betray the contract that the Howard government had with middle-class and aspiring Catholics, you know you are in deep trouble!

We know that it is unfair that there are funding cuts for public schools while many private schools get multimillion dollar increases. This is going back a decade or so to the old funding models that did deliver fairness. Remember, Gonski approached it as a banker and through the eyes of an economist, and looked for productivity gains rather than, with respect to my colleagues, as a bleeding heart teacher. He saw it as an economic gain for Australia. He saw that the investment in needs-based funding would deliver the best outcome for the Australian economy. This is the Turnbull government's schools policy, where private schools get 80 per cent of their version of fair funding, while public schools get just 20 per cent. We know it is particularly unfair for the Northern Territory and a couple of other areas.

I point out to those opposite, who keep going on about 27 secret deals, that we are a federation. We have this thing called the Constitution, and that means we do not just hand money straight over to the Catholics or the Lutherans or whoever. We have to go through a proper constitutional process. I do know that it is unfair that, in the state of Queensland, public schools will lose $730 million under the Turnbull government's schools policy.

We know that those opposite have been caught out. We know that by listening to what Senator Back, Senator Abetz, the member for Menzies in Victoria and many others are saying about this. This is a disaster, a slow motion train wreck, with the Prime Minister wearing the engineer's cap. It is a disaster.

We need to get it right. Dare I say it, we got this right six years ago. We had this battle and were on the road to getting an egalitarian outcome for Australia, where we get the smartest people getting the best chance in life, where parents who are prepared to invest extra in choice are not punished for that and where, no matter what the sign is above the school gate, the kids will get the best possible chance in life. Sadly, the Turnbull government's schools policy is not fair; it is not sector blind; it is not needs based; it is a disaster. We will keep fighting for every child in every school so that they have an opportunity to reach their educational— (Time expired)

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again. In this parliament alone, the member for Sydney has proposed seven MPIs, moved two private member's motions and one censure motion and asked umpteen questions—

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Still not fixed!

Opposition members interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left, I have been very tolerant so far. Any more interjections and I will be removing you under 94(a). I am particularly speaking to the member for Braddon.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister has asked umpteen questions on notice all about education funding, but she has had nothing to say about skills, teacher quality, school standards and student performance. I admit education funding is an important topic, but surely there are other important topics as well. The member for Sydney seems to be obsessed with inputs and not at all about outputs, and that must be the focus of any debate about education policy more generally.

If she were right about some of the inputs, she would not be constantly being pulled up by ABC Fact Check. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that, in relation to these claims about $22 billion, the ABC—that noted right-wing organisation!—has said that she is 'misleading', that the government is not cutting $22 billion from schools. But that is not the first time they have called her out on this. Back in 2014, Fact Check found that what she was mouthing involved 'rubbery figures'. So there is a long history of Labor lying about school funding.

I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the incredible benefits of school funding that the government is putting forward for my electorate of Berowra. Total federal funding for all schools in my electorate amounts to $1.12 billion over the next decade, and that supports 51 government, Catholic and independent primary and secondary schools and over 26,000 students who attend Berowra schools. Over the next decade, 35 government schools in my electorate will receive more than $514 million in funding. Hornsby South Public School will get more than $16 million in funding; Hornsby Heights Public School will get more than $11.8 million in funding; Hornsby North Public School will get more than $22.8 million; Asquith Boys High School will get more than $21.5 million; Mount Colah Public School, more than $12.5 million; Mount Kuring-gai Public School, more than $5 million; Berowra Public School, almost $11 million; Wideview Public School, more than $11 million; Murray Farm Public School, more than $25 million; Beecroft Public School, more than $22 million; Cheltenham Girls High School, more than $40.6 million; Cherrybrook Public School, almost $22 million; Normanhurst West Public School, more than $13.7 million; Pennant Hills High School, almost $36 million; Pennant Hills Public School, more than $15 million; West Pennant Hills Public School, more than $17.8 million; Thornleigh West Public School, more than $15 million; Annangrove Public School, more than $2½ million dollars; Glenhaven Public School, more than $11½ million; Kenthurst Public School, almost $6½ million; Hillside Public School, more than $1.2 million; Dural Public School, more than $11.7 million; Middle Dural Public School, almost $1 million; Galston High School, more than $25 million; Galston Public School, more than $7½ million; Cowan Public School, more than $2 million; Brooklyn Public School, more than $2.8 million; Wisemans Ferry Public School, more than $2 million; Maroota Public School, more than $1.6 million; Cherrybrook Technology High School, the largest high school in the state, more than $64 million; Oakhill Drive Public School, more than $19 million; Clarke Road School, more than $6.4 million; John Purchase Public School, more than $18 million; Glenorie Public School, more than $7.6 million; and Arcadia Public School, more than $2½ million.

The 11 independent schools will receive more than $467 million in Commonwealth funding: Arden Anglican School, more than $35 million; Lorien Novalis School for Rudolf Steiner Education, almost $22 million; Mount St Benedict College, more than $73 million; Oakhill College, more than $117 million; Pacific Hills Christian School, more than $72½ million; the Warrah village Rudolf Steiner school, almost $8½ million; Tangara School for Girls, more than $29.6 million; The Hills Grammar School, more than $48 million; Northholm Grammar School, more than $28.2 million; Berowra Christian Community School, more than $6.2 million; and Redfield College, more than $7 million.

Over $137 million will be contributed to the Catholic education system on behalf of the four systemic schools in my electorate: St Agatha's Catholic Primary School at Pennant Hills, St Bernard's Catholic Primary School at Berowra, St Madeleine's Primary School and Marian Catholic College, both at Kenthurst. This government is delivering record levels of funding for Australian students in a manner which is fair, needs based and endorsed by David Gonski.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to follow the member for Berowra because what he talks about is the government's failure to be transparent with the people of this country, and they have been pretty shameful thus far, so on school funding I am not surprised—although, so has their competence and their ability to be fair.

In an extraordinary decision to reduce school funding by $22 billion, this government is condemning thousands and thousands of schoolchildren around this country to a lower educational outcome. They are being neither transparent nor fair about what they are planning to do, and I note the comments of those education experts in the media. Many of them, who are conservative commentators, say funding in schools does not matter. The interjection from the minister at the table earlier said that funding did not actually matter. I note the comments of those people, so I am going to speak really slowly and I am going to try and reduce the number of syllables and ask them this: they say school funding does not matter, so, if it is not about the dollars and not about the outcomes that are linked to being well-funded and well-resourced, what do you expect our teachers to do with thin air? What outcomes can you achieve with less money?

This government wants to give The Kings School, a very elite private school where parents are paying $28,000 per year, a funding increase of $19 million—and they tell me funding does not matter. Why are parents paying $28,000 a year to send their children there? Yet it wants to cut opportunities for kids in my Western Sydney community by $23 million, in every one of the 43 public schools I proudly represent. In the Cranebrook area, kids are facing more than $2.5 million of cuts—schools in the area that have high needs and low means; students facing complex issues, where kids need investment. This is not The King's School. These are schools like so many others around the country whose electorates support diverse communities.

Next year, the number of students with disability who need support will jump and, to respond to this, the Turnbull government is increasing funding by a tiny 3.1 per cent. On average, that means that, under the Turnbull government's policy, support for students with a disability will plummet by 50 per cent per student. One of those students will be my son. He is doing well in his public school because of the investment in his education, because of the additional support that funding brings. It is not thin air he receives as support, but aid time, programs and one-on-one support. So many kids with a disability have done better because of the support they have received. This will have a positive economic outcome when they are employable post-school and when they are not claiming a disability support pension. The government seems so hell-bent on demeaning anybody who needs that pension. Backing in needs-based education funding also supports the vital work of the NDIS. We all know this government cares so much about the NDIS! They were all here championing the need for everyone to contribute. Yet, here we are: they are actively undermining it by cutting needs-based funding. Where is the commonsense on the part of this government to understand the link between supporting kids with a disability through the NDIS and early intervention, and then following that support into the school system where it is critical that those children who require learning support are able to access it? That is what needs based is about.

The government would not have a clue. They do not get it. They would rather offer their big business mates a $65 billion tax handout on the backs of schoolkids across this country. They come in here and, in their Dorothy Dixers at question time, ask, hilariously—it is great entertainment for us, by the way, guys: 'Are you aware of any alternative approaches?' Well, I do have some alternatives. As I am helpful, I would like to offer to the government and to all of the Dorothys on the back bench some of these alternatives. Alternative option 1: get out of the way and let a Labor government fund our schools properly. Alternative option 2: locate a dictionary and look up the meaning of 'fair'. Alternative option 3: do not give big businesses a $65 billion tax handout on the backs of the children that the Prime Minister says he cares a lot about but rarely acts on.

I already have 99 problems in my electorate with fairness. We suck up a lot when it comes to the government and their disgusting choices, but now they are attacking schoolchildren to save $22 billion out of the budget by cutting education funding. Yet, millionaires are getting a tax cut. The Prime Minister cares less about the children of this country and more about his big business mates.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The future of education is certainly a matter of public importance. But it is simply absurd to suggest, as the member for Sydney and others opposite here today have done, that this government has not been upfront about real, needs-based funding for our schools. The fact is: under this government, funding for schools will grow from a record $17.5 billion in 2017 to $30.6 billion in 2027. This equates to 4.1 per cent growth per student, as we have heard all the way through this debate. This is not a cut; this is an increase. This is not Monopoly money, as members opposite would like to play with; this is real money. It is certainly an increase from what has already been delivered for schools in my electorate and, indeed, around the country.

For members opposite, the fact of the matter is: a cut is not a cut if it was not funded in the first place. It is just a fiction. So let's stop the fiction, the rhetoric and the ideological posturing that is not delivering a single extra cent of real money into real schools for real students in my electorate on the Central Coast. Let's talk about the facts. The fact remains that, in my electorate of Robertson, all 48 schools will be receiving significant increases in funding because of our needs-based funding model—an additional $3.11 million over the next 10 years. This is great news for each and every one of these schools and their 23½ thousand students. It is great news for parents on the Central Coast who do want to see a level playing field when it comes to funding. It is great news for all of us on this side of the House who believe that the government should ensure that funding is fair, such that a student with the same needs in the same educational sector receives the same level of federal support regardless of where they live.

What does this mean in practice? Let's pull together a few examples, as members on this side of the House have done in this debate, and look at the schools funding estimator. In my electorate, for example, funding will increase over the next 10 years to: Brisbane Water Secondary College at Woy Woy by $14.928 million; Kincumber Public School by $3.18 million; Henry Kendall High School by $6.591 million; Gosford High School by $8.546 million; Terrigal High School by $8.755 million. If I have a look at some of the non-government schools in my electorate, for instance: St Philip's Christian College at Narara—my old school—$11.617 million; and Green Point Christian, College $24.489 million. So, on my reading, it does sound pretty fair, and these reforms are certainly very transparent. In fact—and this is probably another fact that members opposite do not like—every parent, teacher and student can now find out how their school will be better off by using the new online school funding estimator. This is an estimator that gives our local principals and teachers the information they need to make long-term plans for their school. It is all part of our commitment to real, needs based funding that is fair, consistent and transparent.

This week in parliament I have been speaking with parents of Catholic school students and with local stakeholders about these changes and what they mean for the Catholic sector. I have told parents in my electorate the facts: that, in the 10 years to 2027, for instance, St Joseph's Catholic College at East Gosford will receive funding increases of more than $17.8 million, St John the Baptist at Woy Woy more than $9 million, Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic primary school in Terrigal more than $8 million, Holy Cross Catholic primary school at Kincumber more than $6 million, and St Patrick's Catholic primary school at East Gosford more than $6 million. This does not sound like a cut to me. In fact, Catholic schools in New South Wales as a whole will see an increase in their funding of more than 47 per cent over that same 10-year period and a 43 per cent increase to schools in the Broken Bay diocese.

To be clear: I support Catholic and independent education wholeheartedly, as I do the public state school system. As the daughter of an independent school principal from a low-fee-paying school in a demographic that draws parents who value choice and faith in education but who also make significant sacrifices to ensure that their children are afforded that choice, as my own parents did, I understand what these low-fee, independent and Catholic schools mean to our local community and the families whose children attend them. This is another fact that members opposite are ignoring: that the Commonwealth will continue to provide a single block of funding to the New South Wales Catholic school system for them to distribute as they see fit, as they currently do and as they will continue to be able to do. It is time to end these special deals and this ideologically-driven warfare where the people who miss out are those we purport to care about—our children.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The time for this discussion has concluded.