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

I have stood in this chamber and spoken before about the critical importance of providing equal access to education and its opportunities in this country. In fact, some people might cruelly say that I only have three speeches, and the education one is my favourite one. However, this topic is crucial because education is the foundation we all need in order to go on and thrive in life—in our careers and in our heads. Education opens doors and leads to prosperity, to purpose and to wellbeing. It can offer transformative opportunities. One of the key features of this nation, I think, is that education can transform our lives. We are not consigned by our birth if we have a good education. Whether you live in the middle of one of our cities or in a small community in the bush, Australians should have the same educational opportunities, and the opportunities should be the same regardless of what your parents can afford.

That is where our mighty public school system comes into play. There are more than 6,700 public primary and high schools scattered across Australia, like St George State High School, which I attended; Trinity Bay State High School, which my wife attended; and Brisbane South State Secondary College, which my son attends right now. Hopefully, he's there today! These schools, our state schools, are open to everyone. The classrooms are filled with children of different cultural, religious and language backgrounds. Public schools also cater to the most disadvantaged children in this country—students from poorer families, students from rural and remote Australia, First Nations students and students with a disability. Every gate welcomes all to pass through it.

That is why I'm pleased to support the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill. It proposes to amend the Australian Education Act and increase funding for Australia's public schools to help to ensure equality of access. Importantly, the bill protects Commonwealth funding, going forward, and ensures that it cannot go backwards. It also includes requirements for transparency about outcomes, so school communities and families can see the positive changes occurring as a result of increased funding.

The funding is part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. This is due to replace the current National School Reform Agreement, which expires at the end of this year. The new agreement will run for 10 years, until the end of 2034, so it delivers much more certainty. With the joys of those four-year budgets, it's great to see a system where we will have funding certainty way out to 2034.

At the core of the new agreement is the assurance that all public schools will receive full and fair funding. It puts every public school on a path to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard or SRS.

Now, this gets a little boring, but, as to the SRS, you need to remember the recommendation of the Gonski review back in 2011. 'Gonski'—people have heard that name. You need to remember that he was a banker. He was focused on productivity and economic reform. He wasn't a teacher or a school officer or a school aide. He was someone who saw education almost as an economic commodity—and that was a good thing, because the SRS, the schooling resource standard, is an estimate of the level of government funding that a school needs to meet the educational requirements of its students—government funding. Parents would still have to make some contributions. Theoretically, it is free, but we all know that there are some things that you need to pay extra money for.

Currently, the base amount per student is $13,570 for a primary school student and $17,053 for a high school student. David Gonski recommended additional funding, or loading, for the following cohorts: students with disability and First Nations students—and, interestingly, that was all First Nations students; even though half of First Nations students live in the cities, overall there was still some generational disadvantage in there. He also wanted more funding for those with socioeducational disadvantage and students with low English proficiency, as well as extra funding depending on the size and the location of the school. As I said, this was not because David Gonski was some bleeding-heart liberal but because he saw the economic returns that would go to business and to this nation.

The Gonski model is needs based. This means that, at non-government schools, the base amount per student is reduced and takes into account the average income of the parents at the school—not just of those in the surrounding area, but the actual data of the parents that send their kids to that school. As a result, the school may only receive a percentage of the SRS base amount. It's a better model. Take what happened in the past sometimes—like in my home town of St George, which was a disadvantaged one. Kids from St George who went to a boarding school dragged the poor postcode with them to their boarding school, and the boarding school got the advantage, I guess, of that old postcode, even though those who'd go to a boarding school were perhaps some of the wealthier people in the town. So this is trying to correct that and going to the actual parents.

Every state school gate accepts everyone in its catchment—a defined catchment. Some go a little bit broader, but the general rule is: they have their enrolment managed. But it is also true that schools look like their surrounds. So wealthier suburbs do produce wealthier schools. Battling suburbs have students that have more challenges.

The way that Commonwealth government funding is split with the states and territories is different for non-government and public schools. For non-government, it's a different arrangement. For non-government schools, the Commonwealth is responsible for 80 per cent of the funding, with the states and territories contributing 20 per cent. With public schools, the Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the funding and the states and territories fund 75 per cent. You don't need to have passed maths at St George State High with the late, great Nick McMullen to work out that there is a five per cent shortfall.

The Albanese Labor government have been working hard to resolve this. The fabulous Minister for Education, Jason Clare, and his team are committed to getting all public schools on a path to 100 per cent of the SRS. This pathway opens up with contributions from both the Commonwealth government and the individual states and territories. The Australian Education Act currently indicates that the Commonwealth pay a maximum of 20 per cent of the SRS to public schools. This bill makes this 20 per cent a minimum, not a maximum. I see some graduates from Brisbane State High in the background there: Libby Crocker and Dene Crocker, who are still involved with Brisbane State High and the great work that it does. For all those people who go to state schools, such as Brisbane State High, what this means is that the Commonwealth proportion of funding becomes the new baseline for the states and territories. This will become legislation, meaning that the increased funding levels are confirmed and cannot be changed without further amendments to the act.

So far in 2024, the Albanese government has announced new public school funding deals with the governments of Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. This is good news for students and families and means funding certainty from 1 January next year. The road to full funding in these agreements is short and straightforward. Every public school in WA will be fully funded by 1 January 2026—good news for Western Australians, I would imagine. In Tasmania, the public schools will be fully funded by 2029.

The changes are even more substantial in the Northern Territory, an area in Australia that has a lot of educational challenges, especially once you move outside of Darwin. The Northern Territory currently receives less funding than anywhere else in Australia. It is unacceptable that students in the public schools in the Territory receive around 80 per cent less than they should get under the Gonski recommendations. The new agreement with the Territory government fixes this inequity. Funding for public schools in the Northern Territory will double—double!—and we have fast-tracked the path to full funding by more than 20 years. To repeat: the reforms in this bill mean that the new baseline level of funding from the Commonwealth for public schools will be 20 per cent in all jurisdictions except for the Northern Territory, where it will be 40 per cent from 2029 because of the special challenges.

The other part of the bill that is important is the accountability measures it puts in place for school funding. Transparency and accountability will be included as a purpose of the amended act. This includes a requirement for the Minister for Education to deliver an annual report on the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement and the states and territories. As the Minister for Education put it, the funding agreements are 'not a blank cheque'. They include reform targets, such as phonics and numeracy checks early on in a student's primary school journey so that adjustments and extra support can be provided if necessary.

Other measures include additional funding for mental health and wellbeing, with qualified staff to deliver services—something that's particularly important for those kids who went through the COVID 'hiccup', shall we say, that put them a number of years behind when it comes to educational attainment. Teaching staff and school leaders will be supported to access targeted professional development. There will be incentives for teachers to work in schools that need additional support. The states and territories will also be required to publicly deliver reports on progress, to ensure transparency.

This bill is just one part of a package of Labor reforms that support Australians in their educational journeys. We are boosting teacher numbers with an additional 4,000 places in teaching degrees and $56 million for Commonwealth teaching scholarships. Reflecting our commitment to equal access, the priority cohorts for these scholarships are First Nations people, people from the bush—rural, regional and remote areas—and people with disability.

The Albanese government has targeted the improvement of school infrastructure, particularly state school infrastructure, with $490 million for rounds 1 and 2 of the Schools Upgrade Fund for new and enhanced facilities, IT equipment and the development of outdoor learning spaces. I know that schools in my electorate have taken advantage of that scheme.

We've increased the wages of our early childhood educators, underlying our commitment to the retention and growth of this crucial workforce—something that everyone involved in the childcare sector would be appreciative of, I'm sure. It also directly benefits the 1.8 million Australian children aged zero to five, the key years for brain, language and social development—in other words, the building blocks for good health, education and wellbeing later in life.

We have also invested in higher education. The Labor government directed $2.7 million over two years, from 2022 to 2023, to conduct a 12 month review of the Australian higher education system. The result was the Australian Universities Accord. The substantial reforms already underway, include wiping $3 billion of student HELP debt, providing a prac payment for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students and expanding the fee-free university ready course program.

We've also bolstered TAFE enrolments with our fee-free TAFE initiative. This has seen over 508,000 enrolments since January last year. The program has removed financial barriers to training, while focusing on addressing the skill shortages that we were left with. I'm proud that this program will continue under a Labor government.

On the weekend, Prime Minister Albanese announced 3 million Australians with student debt will have their debt cut by 20 per cent if neighbour wins the next election. For the average student, this means a cut of more than $5,000. For some with larger debts, it's more than that. Bizarrely, the LNP opposed this policy. That's a referendum at the ballot box that will make Julie-Ann Campbell, the Labor candidate for Morton, very happy and also make Renee Coffey in Griffith very happy I would imagine, Member for Blair, to go to the election on that. If you vote Labor, university students, you get a 20 per cent discount. That's a great campaign.

We know university used to be a lot cheaper. I know that when I went to teachers' college, I went for free. In fact, I was paid to go to teachers' college! I did have to pay for my—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was it a good investment?

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

It was a good investment—11 years of teaching that I loved. I did have to pay HECS on my arts and law degrees, which was fair enough. It's not fair for this generation of students who are paying a larger percentage towards their tertiary education than I did.

We are also raising the threshold that people can earn before they start having to make their HECS repayments. With these measures, Labor is taking action on intergenerational inequality and enabling many more Australians into further study after school. The coalition left us a skills catastrophe, and we're fixing up.

The reforms in this bill lead to an additional $16 billion in funding for Australian schools, if all states and territories sign up. I'm proud to say this is the biggest extra investment in public education ever. As a proud graduate of St George State High School, as a former state school English, geography and history teacher and as the parent of a kid at a state school, I know how important this investment is. Ultimately, we can only trust a Labor government to make sure students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are not being left behind. To do so is better for the nation, better for business, better for our kids and I commend the bill to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute on the second reading of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 and, even more importantly, the amendment that's been moved by a Greens member, because the position of the Greens when it comes to school funding is very important and very relevant to all Australians but particularly to the people of my electorate of Sturt.

In my electorate of Sturt, 56 per cent of enrolments in secondary education is with the non-government school sector. That's more than half of the families in my electorate of Sturt who send their children in secondary school to a non-government school. Regrettably, the Greens have a radical and frightening policy position to defund non-government schools. If they get their way, if they are successful at the next election and can implement their values when it comes to school funding, they will be ripping away the entirety of taxpayer funding to the non-government school sector. That is truly frightening to me, to the parents in my electorate of Sturt who send their children to non-government schools and to any parent around the country who either sends their school children to non-government schools now or intends to in the future. This will be the most radical defunding of education in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is the proposition that the Greens seek to implement if they succeed in having some kind of powerful position post the next election.

Why? The Greens are a communist party. At every opportunity they want government to do absolutely everything. They hate the non-government school sector because that is not the government providing an option for parents to educate their children. When it comes to the non-government school sector, it's even worse because almost the entirety of non-government schools are run by the faith based sector. One thing the Greens hate more than the government not doing something is the faith based sector providing services like education to our community. My position couldn't be more the reverse of the Greens when it comes to that. Whether it's education, aged care or the many programs that the faith sector provides in our community, we are lucky to have them and grateful for what they do. At every opportunity we will bitterly resist and oppose the hatred that the Greens have for the faith community and the faith sector.

Their position on defunding non-government schools is probably the one that would have the most frightening impact, particularly on my constituents. That's why I take the opportunity in this debate on school funding to make it very clear that there is an election coming up in less than six months. I think, regrettably, the Greens have had these crazy policy positions for a long time, and not enough attention has been put on the positions that they hold. In the last 12 months, I think people have started to wake up to the Greens—who they really are, what they really stand for and what the consequences of voting for the Greens, empowering them and putting them in decision-making positions might be on the lives of everyday Australians. My hope is that, at the next election, people take a much closer look at the policy positions of the Greens than they have in the past.

The Greens were a very different political force 10, 20 or 30 years ago. They were very much an environmental movement that became a political party. In the era of Bob Brown, certainly, they were focused on environmental issues and things that I have a great deal of support towards, like much better custody of our environment and addressing important issues like climate change and other environmental risk. But what has clearly happened in the last 10 years or so is that the Greens environmental political movement has been hijacked by the old socialists and communists, whose brand was completely trashed through the decades of the post-Second World War era up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. They were thoroughly, comprehensively and consistently rejected as a political option by the Australian voters through that time.

They have infiltrated the Greens political party and they have brought their insane policy positions with them, whether it's school funding and scrapping support for the non-government sector, whether it's private health insurance and getting rid of the private health insurance rebate or whether it's reintroducing death taxes on inheritance. In my home state of South Australia, they want to scrap the naval shipbuilding sector completely. That would mean more than 10,000 jobs in the South Australian economy gone. All these things will have an enormous impact on the people of Sturt, the people of South Australia and the people of Australia. But I actually think that the most significant and serious issue is their frightening position on funding for non-government schools.

I say very clearly to the non-government schools sector that we in the coalition back you and support you. We are here to make sure that you keep the quite appropriate, justified and necessary financial support that you receive from the taxpayer. Eighty per cent of school funding to the non-government sector comes from the Commonwealth. That will absolutely be there, reliably, under a coalition government. But the threat to it is the frightening scenario of the Greens political party holding some kind of balance of power after the next election and using that balance of power to implement their radical agenda. No. 1 on their list, unfortunately, is the non-government school sector and funding from the taxpayer to the non-government school sector. That will increase school fees for the parents of my electorate of Sturt by thousands of dollars a year, on average. In the middle of this cost-of-living crisis, the last thing that the people of Sturt need—56 per cent of the parents in Sturt send their children to a non-government school—is their school fees going up by thousands and thousands of dollars a year because the Greens have been able to implement their frightening agenda to de-fund the non-government school sector.

Now, this will be a debate that will, I think, be very significant in my electorate and many electorates through the campaign that is already under way, and there will be a spotlight on the position that the Greens have to de-fund non-government schools like there never has before. The unfortunate reality is that there is a higher likelihood than ever that they will be in a position to hold a future potential minority Labor government to ransom on these issues if we don't call them out on their policy positions and if we don't ensure that we defeat them at the next election. We are lucky and grateful to have the non-government school sector in this country. In some electorates, like mine, they educate more than half the students. Parents actively make a choice to send their children to a non-government school. We believe in choice and we believe in those options being properly and appropriately supported through taxpayer funds. Don't forget, an enormously higher amount of money goes to the government sector—generally and on a per-student basis—than the non-government sector. If we didn't have the non-government sector, the cost of providing education in this country would absolutely explode, and that means higher taxes for everyone. So, on top of the increased school fees for parents under the Greens' school funding policies, we'd also have to dramatically increase taxation on all Australians to fund the enormous growth that would be necessary in funding the government sector, because a lot of parents wouldn't be able to afford—if their school fees go up by thousands of dollars a year—to keep their kids in the schools that they're in right now.

I condemn the Greens for this dangerous policy but I give them a commitment that I will join with them in making sure everyone knows where they stand when it comes to funding the non-government sector or, in their case, de-funding it.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. In fact, we have a good education system in this country, but it could be a lot better and a lot fairer. The legislation can help us achieve this by increasing funding to public schools—known in my home state of Queensland as state schools—across the country and removing the current funding cap that stopped the Commonwealth from providing additional funding to state schools.

At the moment, the maximum the Commonwealth government can provide to state schools is 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard, and the bill turns that maximum into a minimum. It turns that ceiling into a floor. The bill will enable additional funding to flow to the states and territories who have signed up to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, or BFSA. It's a landmark piece of legislation, this, and will allow us to deliver more funding to state schools and tie that funding to reforms to help lift student outcomes, set targets and improve school funding transparency.

The funding is not without conditions. We make no apologies for tying this additional money to reforms that support teachers and helps students catch up on, keep going in and finish school. It includes practical things likes phonics checks, numeracy checks, evidence-based teaching and catch-up tutoring. We want to identify those young people who are students who need additional support, and make sure they get it. We're investing billions of dollars in public schools and we're going to make sure that money makes a difference—clearly, it needs to.

The BFSA is a 10-year agreement developed in collaboration with state and territory governments, First Nations peoples, education representatives and non-government peak education bodies. To date, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have signed up to the Commonwealth's BFSA offer. We've put $16 billion of additional funding for state schools on the table and continue to work with the remaining states and territories to fully fund schools across the country. This will represent the biggest extra investment in state education by the Australian government in the country's history.

The legislation is about fully funding our state schools and tying that funding to reforms to keep students in education to finish their schooling. At the moment, nongovernment schools are funded at the level David Gonski set in the Gonski reforms. They are on track to get there or above it and coming back down to it. Most public schools or state schools aren't. We want parents to have the choice and decide which type of schooling their children should have—government or nongovernment. But we want our state schools to be cathedrals of learning. Children have a right to attend a well-resourced state school. My children attended Raceview State School and Bremer State High School, and they got a great education at both.

The Commonwealth government provides 80 per cent of the schooling resource standard or SRS funding for nongovernment schools, and the states and territories provide the other 20 per cent. For state schools, it's the reverse. The Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the SRS funding, and the states and territories are supposed to provide another 75 per cent. It means there's a gap of about five per cent. This legislation amends the Australian Education Act 2013 and enables the Commonwealth to lift its share of funding to state schools above 20 per cent. It removes the funding ceiling that stops the Commonwealth doing so. It means that 20 per cent becomes the minimum, not the maximum. It enables the ratcheting up of funding.

This funding will enable the government to fully fund public schools in Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and any other jurisdiction that signs up to the Albanese government's state school funding offer as part of the BFSA. It's a 10-year agreement for greater funding certainty. It's important to lock in the Commonwealth government funding for those schools to make sure they don't go backwards. It's increasing transparency, accountability and reporting mechanisms to the parliament by the minister on the progress of the national school and education reform. The legislation enables additional funding to flow to states and territories who sign up.

That's why we're putting this money towards education. It's not just about giving money; it's about making sure kids get quality standards, the best teaching, the best resourcing and the best schooling, which they need. We want to do the same across the country that we are going to do in Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, including in my home state of Queensland. I recently met with representatives of the Queensland Teachers' Union, and made it crystal clear that the Commonwealth government is prepared to increase its funding. But the Queensland government needs to do much better. That funding and what it's used for are important. We want children who need our help to get the most, to catch up, to keep up and to finish school. NAPLAN results tell us that one in 10 young people at the moment are below the minimum standard we've set. One in three from poorer families are below that standard. The number of children finishing high school has been going backwards from 83 per cent to 73 per cent over the last seven years, and that's simply not good enough. We need to fix this. We need to turn that around.

I was the first person in my family to attend high school and complete it, let alone go to university. I want other young people in my community to have the same opportunities that I did. That's what this agreement is all about. The sad reality is that how much your parents earn still matters. Your postcode is still critical. Where you live is critical, as is your ethnic background and the religious experience you have. If you're a child from a poorer family, you're less likely to go to child care. You're more likely to fall behind in primary school. You're less likely to finish high school, and you're less likely to go to TAFE or university. It's the same if you're from an ethnic or Indigenous background or if you grew up in rural and regional areas or in the bush.

Our new national school reform agreement, the BFSA, is a real opportunity to do something about that. We want to give our kids the opportunity and tools for success in life—one that doesn't hold anyone back and doesn't leave anyone behind. I want to make some comments about schools in my electorate and in my home state of Queensland, which has just seen a change of government following the election on 26 October. We have a lot of great state schools in my electorate, across Ipswich, the Somerset region and the Karana Downs region. I've been proud to secure funding for upgrades to a number of local schools in recent years as part of our $270 million Schools Upgrade Fund, which is being rolled out by the Albanese government to provide and boost school infrastructure for students. These include several projects I delivered as part of election commitments—namely, $2 million for a community sports hub at Ipswich State High which is about to be built; $100,000 for an outdoor learning space, and toilets and playground upgrades at Springfield Central State School; $60,000 for a prep-safe playground at Brassall State School; and $15,000 for an audiovisual equipment upgrade at Karalee State School.

This year, in the latest round of the Schools Upgrade Fund, Riverview State School, in the eastern part of Ipswich, received $800,000 to upgrade learning and teaching spaces; and little Linville State School, in the upper Somerset region, received $850,000 to upgrade an amenities block, playground and tennis court, and to install a new pathway. I was very pleased to see these two smaller primary schools in working-class suburbs like Riverview and Ipswich and in the rural Somerset region receive this much-needed funding. Small schools like these and the children who attend them need our support in particular.

That's why Labor went to the last election committing to work with the states and territories to get all students an opportunity in life and to get all schools on a pathway to full and fairer funding. Delivering that $16 billion over 10 years in additional funding is critical, and it's on the table now. Of this, an additional $3.1 billion has been offered to the Queensland government for Queensland state schools. It should be taken up. This is because it's the biggest increase in Commonwealth government funding to state schools that we've ever seen. It would mean an extra $3.1 billion. Just imagine the impact that would have on rural and regional parts of Queensland.

Last year the former Queensland Labor government committed to ensuring that every state school was on a path to reach 100 per cent of the SRS. They also said that the states are in the process of lifting their funding to 75 per cent of the SRS. Note that the former government agreed that the share of state schools in 2024 was 70.5 per cent, and that Queensland had lifted its funding share by 1.24 per cent since 2018. The offer on the table had the Commonwealth offering to lift its funding share by 2.5 per cent in the course of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Further, the former state government had cited the need to provide early intervention for Queensland students. The additional Commonwealth government funding will be tied to reforms to improve outcomes for students and their teachers, like in my community of Blair. These reforms will include initiatives to help attract and retain teachers and school leaders, and in-school wellbeing coordinators, and for targeted support for students who fall behind.

That's why the new Queensland government needs to take up this offer and come to the party as well. The reforms are particularly necessary given that the NAPLAN results that the Albanese government released recently showed an increase in the percentage of Queensland students who need additional support in reading. The government will introduce legislation into parliament that will remove the funding cap that stops the Commonwealth providing additional funding to state schools, and that's what this is about. The Northern Territory and Western Australian governments have reached agreements. The new Queensland government needs to do so as well. We need to do a lot better when it comes to this space.

So, in the interests of my local community and the broader Queensland community, I'm urging the new Queensland LNP government and the new minister for education, John-Paul Langbroek, to do the right thing and join in good-faith negotiations. Better still, just go ahead and sign the agreement to ensure full and fairer funding for state schools in Queensland, including in my electorate. I'm the product of Ipswich East State School for my primary education, I graduated from what was then called Bundamba State High School, now Bundamba State Secondary College, and I got a good education. I want young people to get the good education that I received.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a small town like the one I grew up in, Coonabarabran, in north-west New South Wales, schools are a really big deal. Whether it's the community based preschool originally built by parents back in the seventies because, hey, someone had to do it; the Catholic school in Coona that still educates young people through to year 10; or the local infant and primary schools scattered in smaller towns like Binnaway and Baradine around the larger regional centre of Coonabarabran, each environment is not just a place of learning for young people but an actual beating heart of a community.

For me, my learning experience was pretty much a straight run from Coonabarabran infants school to Coonabarabran primary school to Coonabarabran High School. While being part of such a small community meant everyone knew everything, I'm grateful to my public school education, to the teachers that guided and coached me along the way and for the opportunities my education has afforded me. Yet, recently returning to my hometown, I was struck by the fact that the gap in what students there can expect and will experience today may be wider than it was for me. As with all public schools, the community out there is operating in a constant state of juggle as they try to meet every students' learning needs without the necessary funding.

Meanwhile, in my community of North Sydney, while there is much I love about it, the overcrowded public infant and primary schools, which are incredibly well respected but also generally feature demountables stacked on areas that were once green play spaces, and the lack of multiple publicly funded co-ed high schools are not on that list. Yet my community in North Sydney cares deeply about education. The local government area of North Sydney has one of the highest concentrations of educational facilities in the country, with 21 primary and secondary schools in just a 10½ square-kilometre area.

Recently, we had a couple of great new public schools open in our area: Anzac Park Public School and Cammeraygal High School, which both opened their doors during 2015 and 2016. In a relatively short period of time, both of those schools have contributed significantly to our community whilst ensuring young bright minds across North Sydney have access to some of the best learning experiences in the country.

In this context then, while I welcome this bill, which will increase the Commonwealth's minimum share of funding for public schools, I question whether it goes far enough to address what is a fundamental problem in our public education system, that being chronic underfunding. In that context, I strongly encourage the government to acknowledge the differing needs and circumstances of the states when making these funding agreements, as not all states are equal, with the state of New South Wales currently struggling to fund everything it needs following the recent GST reforms. I'd also encourage the government to go further by guaranteeing a Commonwealth funding share of 25 per cent at a minimum to make sure our public schools can meet the needs of our children regardless of where they live or their family's socioeconomic status.

Since 2013, in the wake of the Gonski review, Australia has based its goals for school funding on the schooling resource standard, which estimates how much public funding is required to meet students' educational needs. Under that model, the obligations to provide the funding needed are shared by the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments, with our current agreement seeing the Commonwealth contribute a maximum of 20 per cent for that while states and territories contribute 75 per cent. Thanks to my public school education, even I can do the maths on that and can see there is a current funding shortfall of at least five per cent that has persisted from government to government. Surely, after 11 years, it's time we rectified this situation.

As a nation, we have a proud history of public school education, with two-thirds of all Australian students educated in our public school system. Yet 80 per cent of the children being educated in this way currently come from families with low socioeconomic advantage. At the same time, more than 80 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and more than two-thirds of children with a disability are educated in the public system. So, while public schools give our children the guarantee of an education regardless of their circumstances, any short-sheeting of this system ultimately is far more likely to impact people who are already vulnerable. Today, only 1.3 per cent of public schools in Australia are fully funded—1.3 per cent—and that should be intolerable to our wider community.

The government's Better and Fairer Schools Agreement then aims to close this funding gap by raising federal funding to 22.5 per cent of the schooling resource standard with states covering the remaining 77.5 per cent. To do this, the bill amends the Australian Education Act to allow for this increased funding share. Its central provision turns what is currently a 20 per cent Commonwealth funding ceiling into a floor, meaning the federal government would have to provide at least 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard going forward. There is a special agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory to ensure the Commonwealth can provide 40 per cent of funding in that region. On top of this, the bill introduces a ratchet mechanism which would ensure the Commonwealth funding share cannot be less than the year before. Finally, the bill removes the requirement for the Commonwealth funding share to be consistent across all jurisdictions, allowing funding percentages to differ depending on the needs of the states and territories.

But here's the rub. Digging further into the details of the bill, my community in North Sydney has strongly advocated for this funding increase to be supported, but many are also confused as to why the bill doesn't codify the full funding share committed to in the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. While the government has outlined its intention to fund 22.5 per cent of the schooling resourcing standard, the bill sets the Commonwealth funding floor at 20 per cent. When explaining the apparent disconnect between the legislation and the intention, the Treasurer said the ratchet mechanism will ensure the 20 per cent floor is effectively increased over time. But, having survived in this environment for the past 2½ years, I can't help but ask the obvious question: why not simply raise the funding floor to align with the 22½ per cent agreement from the outset and avoid any risk of confusion? Or, better yet, lift it all the way to 25 per cent, and close the funding gap once and for all. After all, I've personally seen how quickly good policy can be neutered by different political ideology, and for this reason I would encourage this government to begin in a way which is consistent with how it would like to see the policy proceed.

This year alone, public schools across the country will be underfunded on average by $2,509 per student, and every year that funding gap goes unfilled is a year our public schools do not have the resources to fully meet the educational needs of the 2.6 million students in our public school system. We need to address this issue with the agency it requires.

At the same time, however, I've heard from teachers and experts in my electorate that the government's proposed 22½ per cent funding agreement doesn't account for the differing fiscal circumstances from state to state. We know different jurisdictions have different needs. In fact, the government has considered this by agreeing to move towards a 40 per cent funding share in the Northern Territory. But, in the case of my state of New South Wales, this consideration of fairness appears to have been lost. For example, compare New South Wales to WA. It's no secret WA has high revenue from its natural resources. On top of this, recent changes to the distribution of GST revenue have given WA a much greater share, estimated to be worth somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion by 2030. These extra payments to WA are initially being funded through general Commonwealth tax revenue, yet New South Wales has received none of these 'magic new payments'. Indeed, our GST take has decreased, yet the Commonwealth government is arguing our state should expect to pay no more than what WA has already agreed to take in this circumstance. This just seems unfair and almost unnecessarily impunity to my home state of New South Wales. Our kids deserve the best education we can provide them, and this government should be more open to negotiating appropriate terms state by state.

More broadly, the key message I've heard over and over from my community is that the 22½ per cent Commonwealth resourcing share is just not enough. Public schools have now experienced more than a decade of federal promises to help meet the needs of schooling with no results. Under Julia Gillard, the Labor government promised to bring the school to 100 per cent of the funding standard over six years. However, the subsequent coalition government cancelled the final years of funding increases, and over the following 10 years the total funding gap between promised public school funding and reality ballooned out to $14 billion. To add insult to injury, in 2018, the federal funding ceiling of 20 per cent was implemented by the coalition government, locking in the funding gap that persists today.

For all of these reasons, the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is an important step in addressing the current shortfall, but it leaves schools dealing with years of underfunding before reaching their goal. Ultimately, even with the 40 per cent provided to the Northern Territory, the community there will not reach 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard until 2029. Meanwhile, public schools continue to be forced to juggle staffing shortages as teachers try to manage large class sizes with limited support, while other schools are forced to limit subject choices, reduce library services or make cuts to essential literacy and numeracy intervention programs that help students in need. We can and must do better if we are to continue to stand as a nation that believes in public education.

As the largest recipient of tax revenue, the Commonwealth government has the capacity to close this gap much faster by ensuring future investment decisions prioritise education over things like, say, fossil fuel subsidies. Ultimately, the investment required by the federal government to immediately meet 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard in 2024-25 would be $2.8 billion, which either could be generated by increasing the petroleum rental resource tax to an appropriate level so that those extracting our non-renewable resources are compensating our nation appropriately, or, conversely, could be provided by redirecting the funding of diesel fuel subsidies for mining companies back to our schools.

Ultimately, it's important to remember that beyond the numbers this issue is about real people, real children and real futures. It's about schools, who must make hard decisions about which programs they can and can't afford offers students, it's about students in remote communities, who are already working to overcome the tyranny of distance and still don't have access to the additional teaching staff they need, and it's about an essential profession in the form of teachers, who can't access the materials and resources they need to provide our kids with the best possible learning experience.

Ultimately, both the ask of and the opportunity for this and all future governments is clear: commit to a minimum Commonwealth funding share of 25 per cent of the schooling resource standard. In advocating for this position, I am joining the calls of organisations like the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Education Union and Save Our Schools, and countless parents and educators who recognise the need for our federal government to provide greater support in this area.

At the same time, it's important that any investment in this area is not just seen as a pity move or as a sunk cost, as recent analysis from the Australia Institute found that funding public schools at a hundred per cent of the schooling resource standard would ultimately generate a fiscal gain of $3 billion to $7½ billion annually for the government over two decades. Education increases productivity and economic output, because it enables people to build their skills and live the lives they wish to create for themselves. All we need to do to realise this gain is to take a long-term view of the value of investment in education.

Ultimately, I urge this government, in the strongest possible terms, to listen to the experts, communities and educators on this issue and increase our federal funding commitment to at least 25 per cent of the funding for public schools in Australia so that we can meet the needs of every child, no matter where they live.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My Irish granny always told me, 'Education changes lives.' She would tell me stories of growing up in poverty in Northern Ireland and how she made sure her children—my mother and her brother and sisters—got a good education, so they could avoid the same poverty that she grew up in. And the stories always ended with this message: 'Education is important. Education gives you opportunities. Education means you can look after your family.' She and my grandad were lifelong Labor voters, because they knew that Labor supports public education—education for everyone, not just those who can afford it. I count myself very lucky to have grown up in a family that values education and values education for girls, and I'm incredibly lucky to be living in Australia—a country we chose to come to; a country that values universal education; a country that values the high levels of literacy and numeracy that universal education brings.

As we move from the information age into the digital age, or the data age or the AI age—whatever the preferred term is—education will only become more important. Education helps people make sense of their world. It helps people gain skills, to make the most of the opportunities that come their way—and, increasingly, we know that those opportunities will be the skilled jobs that we need now and that we will need even more in the future. We want Australians to be ready for those opportunities. We want Australians to prosper as individuals and Australia to prosper as a country, and that requires, as my Irish granny knew, education for all, so that we are all ready to grab those opportunities.

Labor values education for all, which brings us to this bill. The Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 allows the Commonwealth to deliver more funding to public schools. It puts in place protections to ensure the Commonwealth's share of public school funding can't go backwards. It also introduces new transparency reforms, so that parents and school communities can see what improvements this funding is delivering to students across the country.

The 2011 Gonski review stressed the need for an equitable school funding system; it stressed that government should fund schools based on need, to the schooling resource standard, or SRS; that the system should ensure that differences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions; that social disadvantage shouldn't impact educational outcomes; and that each child gets educational opportunities according to their abilities, talents and efforts. That shouldn't be controversial.

So the Australian government has committed to working with state and territory governments to get every school on a path to a hundred per cent of its fair funding level. The Australian government has negotiated the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement to deliver the pathway to full funding. The agreement will run from 2025 to 2034, providing a consistent focus on key reforms for schools and teachers to implement over the next 10 years. This will see the Australian government lifting its share for government schools in states and the ACT, if they sign up to the agreement, to 22.5 per cent and to 40 per cent in the Northern Territory. If agreed by all states and territories this equates to an extra $16 billion in Australian government funding for schools. This is the biggest investment in public education by an Australian government in this country's history.

Amendments to the Australian Education Act 2013 are required to enable these new funding agreements. This bill will enable the Commonwealth funding shares for government schools to be tailored to support the varied funding arrangements across each jurisdiction. It will set a funding floor for the Commonwealth share of government schools at 20 per cent for 2025 and later years and at 40 per cent for the Northern Territory government schools from 2029. It will establish a ratchet mechanism that ensures that, once the Commonwealth share is set by regulation, it cannot be reduced without further legislative change. It should be self-evident that the provision of good, quality education to all children is a public good that benefits the whole country and should therefore be a key role for government. So establishing this ratchet mechanism in legislation means the funding cannot be sneakily reduced without scrutiny.

The bill is essential to delivering full funding to government schools, changing the current inflexible funding cap to instead be a floor. The current provisions in the act do not allow for the Australian government to set different shares across jurisdictions. This means that the uniform and inflexible funding cap in the act does not allow the varying agreed final funding shares and trajectories of jurisdictions agreed in the BFSA. This includes the increase to 40 per cent for Northern Territory schools by 2029 and to 22.5 per cent for Western Australian schools and Tasmanian schools by 2026 and 2029 respectively. Legislative agreements are also required to deliver other important funding mechanisms, including the funding floor and the ratchet mechanism, which strengthen the certainty of Australian government funding shares.

The bill will also strengthen transparency and accountability of school funding, including establishing transparency and accountability in relation to funding arrangements for school education as a purpose of this act, and require the Australian government minister to prepare an annual statement to parliament relating to progress made or to be made in relation to school education reform agreements, including the BFSA. If you believe, as I do, that the role of government includes the provision of basic community-level services, such as education, that help individuals but also set up our country for future success and that the role of government is about enabling the provision of public goods at a community level, providing benefit back to individual taxpayers in both the services they directly use and the broader standards of the community that they live in, then this is something that's worth protecting and monitoring.

Boothby has many fantastic schools, from Hamilton Secondary College, which I visited with the Speaker a year or so ago and which features a 'mission to Mars' educational experience, and Brighton Secondary School, which is a selective music school, to Suneden Specialist School and Springbank Secondary College, which provide inclusive education for children with disability, and so many others. I love visiting these schools and hearing from students about what they are learning and what their hopes are for the future. Our children deserve the best education that we can provide them, and our country deserves the best education. This bill gives these students and the students that follow them a great education and a great start to life.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, which is intended to address longstanding issues in the funding for Australia's public education. This bill includes three main measures. First it amends the Australian Education Act to allow the Commonwealth to increase its funding share beyond its 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. This is a welcome step in addressing significant historical funding gaps which persist more than a decade after David Gonski's landmark review. Second the bill introduces a ratchet mechanism to ensure that the Commonwealth contributions cannot fall below that 20 per cent baseline. This is essential for guaranteeing stability in school funding in the future. Third this bill enables the Commonwealth's funding agreements with Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory to come into effect even if new funding arrangements with other states are still being negotiated.

Before I entered parliament I had the pleasure of running the Australian Business and Community Network. ABCN, as it's well known, is a not-for-profit organisation that connects workplace mentors with students from low socioeconomic schools, helping to close gaps that exist in education and workplace opportunities. It's a fantastic organisation, and, through this work, I was able to see firsthand the amazing talent and dedication that exists within our public schools. Many of the schools that I worked with, I'm very proud to still be connected with—schools like Cabramatta High School, where I had the great pleasure of working with Beth Godwin, who is one of those school leaders who really inspire you in terms of the work that they do. But I also saw the challenges, the frustrations and the need to improve how effectively and efficiently our public schools function and how to better support our educators. Since entering parliament, I've had the privilege of witnessing the incredible work being done by public schools in my electorate of Wentworth. I want to give a particular shout-out to Rose Bay Secondary College. But I have also seen that many of the same challenges persist.

Every child, regardless of their background, deserves a good start in life. That's why public education is a priority for me. That's why I'm campaigning for a new public high school in Wentworth. Whilst Wentworth is fortunate to have some incredible schools—some schools that really perform at the top of the state and show enormous excellence, as well as care for the students—the options for a public high school education are very thin on the ground. Half of our kids in Wentworth attend a public primary school, but less than one in five continues to high school in the state system. This isn't because there's a lack of demand, with three-quarters of parents, in a recent survey, saying they would prefer to send their child to a co-ed public high school but the options aren't there for them. Then there's the high cost of private schools, with private schools in Wentworth costing, on average, $29,000 per year for a child. Families are struggling with the cost of private school fees, and many families are moving out of Wentworth because of their lack of access to public education. Whilst I'm thrilled that the community pressure has delivered $42 million of investment in an upgraded co-ed public high school in Randwick, it's clear we need more options. That's why I've been working with a local architect and expert in urban school design to help develop a vision for a new high school in the east. The options are incredibly exciting, but we need the state government to back us and to plan for an additional public high school in the east in the future.

My commitment to public high schools and public education is also why I support all public schools reaching 100 per cent of their SRS funding as quickly as possible. In Wentworth, data from the Australian Education Union suggests that an additional $19.1 million per year is needed to bring all our public schools up to 100 per cent of the SRS. Statewide, the requirement is $1.8 billion per year across New South Wales. It's clear we have work to do and, because school funding is a shared responsibility, both Commonwealth and state governments need to step up. That is why the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 is a step forward. But I do have some concerns, both with this legislation and with the funding agreements being negotiated alongside it.

Firstly, while the bill makes some important changes, the deals negotiated with the states so far mean that public schools in Western Australia and Tasmania are not due to be fully funded until 2029. Public school students need to be fully funded sooner rather than later. Further delay risks depriving students of essential support, resources and opportunities.

Secondly, I'm concerned about the potential lack of accountability mechanisms if states and territories do not keep their side of the bargain. It's one thing to set a target; it's another to make sure it is met. Without proper accountability measures in place, there is a risk of these funding commitments continuing to fall short.

Thirdly, as noted by the Productivity Commission, the previous National School Reform Agreement did little to improve overall student outcomes. That's why it's critical that future funding agreements made under this bill must be about more than just money. We, as a country, have invested tens of billions of dollars more of money into public education since the Gonski review, and I support that investment. However, we are not seeing results in terms of outcomes for our students—educational outcomes, but also wellbeing outcomes. You see that Australia has had a steady decline in its PISA scores over the past two decades, with performance in maths declining by 37 points since 2006, equivalent to almost two years of schooling, and performance in reading literacy falling by 30 points, equivalent to a year and a half of schooling. This is us as a country going backwards in terms of the educational outcomes of each generation of children, and that is a problem.

National NAPLAN scores are no better, with the latest results showing that one in three Australian school students are performing below literacy and numeracy benchmarks. There is a lot of talk of productivity in this country, and I think this is certainly an example where we have spent more money but are not getting better results. This is an enormous challenge for us as a country. We need to make sure that the funding agreements set out in this bill drive real, measurable improvements in student performance and wellbeing and ensure that resources are allocated in ways that genuinely benefit students and staff.

As the Productivity Commission set out in its 2022 review of the NRSA, we need to 'support quality teaching and effective school leadership' by 'reducing low-value tasks and out-of-field teaching, disseminating best practice and producing evidence-backed resources' for teachers to use in the classroom. I saw this firsthand when I was running ABCN. I spoke to incredibly passionate and effective teachers and school leaders who were spending more and more of their time on low-value administrative tasks and didn't have the same time and energy for their classrooms—when we know that a great teacher, and the relationship between a student and a teacher, is what makes an enormous difference. We have to make sure that our teachers can spend more time on the differences they can make to our students, rather than on administrative tasks.

That also applies to evidence based resources. Again, I spoke to many teachers who were reinventing the wheel year after year in their schools, trying to cobble together great resources for their students. We have one curriculum in New South Wales. There's no reason why we shouldn't have truly excellent curriculum resources that all teachers can draw on and adapt differently to their classrooms. We need to have better resources for our teachers so that they can bring the best of themselves to their relationship with students.

The Productivity Commission review said secondly that we need to 'support all students to achieve basic levels of literacy and numeracy with 'specific targets and measures' to accompany this ambition. If students don't leave each year with appropriate levels of literacy and numeracy, they will fall further and further behind and their opportunities post-school will be limited. There has to be a real focus on getting those basics right.

The Productivity Commission also said we need to reduce differences in achievement across students by supporting those students who face particular challenges. In Australia we have some wonderful high performers, but we also have students who are not performing at that basic level. If we can lift them up it will make a difference to our educational outcomes but it will also make a difference to people's lives and the opportunities they have in the future.

These are the kinds of essential productivity reforms that must be a core part of future funding agreements. I implore the government to learn from some of the experiences of places like the UK, where they focus on evidence for learning. I know that the government has made investments in this space, but this needs to be the piece: evidence for learning and evidence of what actually makes a difference in the classroom, such as phonics instruction. If we can adopt that widely across our education system then we will have the greatest chance of improving the outcomes for our students. Again, the piece I urge the government to do is to make sure that the states, who control what actually happens in the classroom, deliver on things that will make students learn better—on actually improving the productivity and the outcomes of our education system, not just giving the education system more money.

My fourth concern is that this bill does not address the accounting loopholes that currently exist in our school funding arrangements. These loopholes allow states to allocate up to four per cent of total SRS funding towards areas unrelated to schools. These include public transport, capital depreciation and regulatory bodies. In 2019, Labor indicated from opposition that it would address this issue, but it appears that these loopholes may be allowed to persist under this bill.

Finally, my biggest concern is that funding agreements have not yet been reached with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Without agreements in place, public school funding is at risk from the beginning of next year. This would be a devastating outcome for students, teachers and families in these states. I strongly urge both the states and the Commonwealth to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible. I note that the Commonwealth has come up with a significant investment and put that on the table for the schools, and I urge the states to accept this and work with the Commonwealth on this. I urge them collectively to deliver a pathway to 100 per cent SRS funding for our public schools that is both equitable and prompt. Our students deserve no less.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, but I also have an ask. As I stand here, my daughter Daisy is in her first transition session to her new primary school. I will acknowledge that I have locked in a FaceTime with Daisy for 10 minutes from now to see how it went. Daisy and some of her kindergarten friends have started their transition program for Camp Hill Primary School, a public school in the heart of Bendigo. We are quite spoilt for choice in Bendigo in terms of our big network of independent, Catholic and public schools. But Daisy and her kindergarten friends are not alone. Sixty per cent of her kindergarten class will go to public schools in our area. What frustrates me the most as I stand here to speak on this bill is that those children—all children going to public schools—will not receive 100 per cent of the resource standard. The children in her class going to Catholic and independent schools will.

I think about the journey that so many families are going on—those anxious times when their little ones start to enter primary school. It is a big transition moment not just for the children but for their families. That that school is not going to get the same resources as the other kindergarten children going to independent and Catholic schools is unfair. I say this with an ask to all of us in this place and to our colleagues and state governments: that is on us. We cannot hide behind the rhetoric that it is a Liberal government holding back our schools and that will not fund them properly. It is on us. Within my speech, I'd like to make and ask of and to encourage our Labor ministers at a state and federal level to work this one out. We know that this system is unfair. We know that our public schools are receiving less money than they should. If we want to live up to the ideal that every school student gets 100 per cent of the resource standard, and that it is not your postcode that determines your school and education outcome, then we have to get this right.

I do speak in favour of this bill, because it does allow the Commonwealth to deliver more funding to public schools. It also puts protections in place to ensure the Commonwealth gets its fair share of public school funding and that it can't go backward. It introduces a floor of 20 per cent for that and allows the government to negotiate each individual arrangement in each of the states to deliver the funding. I do believe that the Minister for Education in our government is genuine and in there fighting to ensure that we get the resources needed for our public schools. To ensure that every kid has access to the resources that they need to be successful, our schools need this funding. It is critical. It is critical for schools that might have a big make-up of children from a low socio-economic background, students from culturally diverse backgrounds and students with a disability that these schools get this funding.

It's also about ensuring that the school has the resources to deliver not just the basics but the extracurricular activities that keep kids engaged. We all have those experience of going out to primary and secondary schools and seeing how independent schools can put on great, grand school productions, while the public school up the road, because of the funding they receive and the demographic make-up of their students, just don't have the capacity to put on those productions. Productions are just one example of the inequity that exists within our schools. There's the ability to retain teachers, to have up-to-date equipment and to ensure they have support structures in place.

School funding is critical. It isn't just an impact that happens today. It becomes a legacy issue. You could trace the challenges that we have with school funding back to the Howard era and the divergence that we saw happen within our education system. We are unfortunately seeing an increased bleed of students from the public system to the independent and Catholic systems when they get to the secondary school level, and I've noticed that in my own electorate. That is why this bill is so critical. It's about putting a line in the sand and saying that this is the new floor and we hope to work it out to get the extra funding flowing to our schools.

The Australian government is committed to working with the states and territories to ensure that every school is on the path to 100 per cent. The Schooling Resource Standard is a fair funding level, recommended by Gonski all those years ago. It allows the government to negotiate a better, fairer funding agreement with each of our states. We know that there are agreements that have been reached with the Northern Territory, Tasmania and WA. And, yes, I appreciate that the bigger states with higher students numbers—Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—are still to go. I strongly urge all governments to get together to work this one out.

If all states agree, this equates to an additional $16 billion, from the Australian government alone, to go into schools. It represents the biggest investment in public education by the Australian government in its history. The bill before us amends the Australian Education Act 2013, to enable these funding arrangements to occur.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the schools in my electorate. Being a regional electorate, I have lots schools, from very large schools to quite small schools. There is Bendigo Senior Secondary College, for years 11 and 12, the largest provider of VCE in Victoria. Last Thursday, it had the biggest cohort of students in the state of Victoria sitting the English exam. From the largest to the very smallest of schools, Langley, a primary school which has three students, there are great public schools with a fantastic teaching network trying doing what they can. I know that, with his extra funding, they'll be able to support all students achieve an outcome.

Having the resources, one of the things that you can do is be able to run a program like the NETschool program, which a senior secondary school does. For students who've disengaged, are at risk of dropping out or have dropped out, the school gets them together off-site from the main senior secondary campus and runs a program that re-engages through art, sport and other activities. It is literally a 'net' school that captures kids falling through the holes—the gaps. It's a model that works but is only possible to be funded, the school says to me, because they have a large student cohort. Funding, by getting to the resource standard of 100 per cent, guarantees that they will always have the resources to keep such a program going. They say that they save lives. I believe they are also helping us to stop the statistic of one in five adult Australians not having the numeracy, literacy and life skills required to work in this country. This school helps children transition to a career, whether it be at TAFE, back into VCE or into work. It's a model that works and other schools could roll out something similar, if they had the resources.

This legislation helps all of our small regional country schools who have smaller student numbers. An increased resource standard means that they have more money in their budget. They don't have to make that choice between an art class or garden program; they have the ability to do both. They don't have to rely on donations for pencils or paper to do their art classes or other classes. These are the types of differences this makes.

We have an amazing network of Catholic and Independent schools in my electorate. When I've spoken to Sandhurst Catholic education department as well as my independent schools, they agree with this legislation. They too want to see all schools get to that 100 per cent resource standard. They don't want to see the competition that's in place, because they see the importance of having well-funded public schools in our area.

This bill is critical to ensure the investment required for our public schools for every student, not just Daisy, my daughter, and the next generation of young primary school students, but for every primary and secondary student currently studying in our public school system and every future student going into our system. This bill delivers for regional schools. It will deliver for Victorian schools. But, again, in my closing remarks I will say that it's up to us—and I really call upon our education ministers—to work this one out.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 16:00

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should raise the Commonwealth contribution to public schools to at least 25 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, so as to ensure that all public schools in Australia are fully funded in 2025".

Public schools in this country are in crisis. They've been left to flounder, abandoned by both state and federal governments, which seem neither interested in nor capable of delivering 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard, the level of funding that means a fully funded school. Only 1.3 per cent of public schools nationally receive the full SRS funding they desperately need, while 98 per cent of private schools are overfunded. This government is throwing more money at private schools while our public schools, where the majority of Australian kids study, are left behind.

Let's be very clear about what the schooling resource standard, or SRS, is. It's the absolute bare minimum of funding. The SRS is designed to get only 80 per cent of students across the line. The impact is very real. Across Ryan, we see this underfunding play out in schools every day. Our public schools are known for their fantastic teachers and engaged communities, but that goodwill isn't enough to keep them running without adequate funding. We have the latest numbers, and they're damning. Ashgrove State School is $1.7 million short per annum. Kenmore South State School is $2.5 million short. Ferny Grove State High School is $5.3 million short. Kenmore State High School is $5 million short. Mitchelton Special School is $1 million short, and that's nearly $12,000 per student. Ironside State School is $2.3 million short. And Indooroopilly State School is underfunded by a staggering $6.3 million.

What does this dire underfunding mean for the students? At Indooroopilly State High School, kids queue for the bathroom during their entire lunchbreak because there aren't enough toilets. Some have yet to see the inside of a science lab, a pivotal part of learning, purely because there's no space or funding for specialised classrooms. At Kenmore State High School there isn't enough space to hold an all-school assembly or ceremony. Other schools are relying heavily on already overburdened and overworked parents on the P&C to fundraise for basic classroom and school essentials. It's truly a testament to the amazing community in Ryan that these parents and these P&C members work so hard for the school communities. But they shouldn't have to beg for the bare necessities. It's shameful. Meanwhile, private schools rake in taxpayer money to build elaborate facilities like state-of-the-art science labs, Olympic sized pools or drama theatres. Every day this year, the federal government will give $51 million to private schools—that's every day!—while leaving public schools underfunded every day. How is that a fair system? It is not.

The SRS, remember, is a bare minimum standard. It's designed to fund only 80 per cent of students adequately, and still 98 per cent of public schools can't even reach that minimum. Under existing funding arrangements, the federal government contributes just 20 per cent of full funding to public schools, but it gives 80 per cent of full funding to private schools. The legislated 20 per cent default is a coalition relic. When the Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, introduced the original agreement, he was looking to completely end the federal government's involvement in public schools. At the time, Labor railed against this policy, so it's astounding that this bill does not guarantee more funding for public schools. It's just a recycled version of bad coalition policy.

This deal risks locking in the terminal decline of public schooling in Australia. Successive governments are eroding our public schools, forcing Australians to accept poorer standards or pay for a private system. Frankly, I find this embarrassing from a Labor government—no, more than embarrassing. It's absolutely destructive and an abandonment of the everyday Australians their party was set up to serve. What the Greens are proposing is common sense. Just ensure that all public schools are fully funded, and start by lifting the Commonwealth contribution to a minimum of 25 per cent.

Let's look at underfunding in Queensland. Public schools will be underfunded by $1.7 billion this year. That's $3,000 per child. This isn't just a dollar amount in a column in the budget. It's kids missing out on essential parts of their education—kids going without music classes or sports. It means there are just not enough teachers. Teachers are working themselves to utter exhaustion, even spending their own money—and I have seen this—on classroom basics.

Let me remind you here that schoolteachers are actually paying more in income tax than the entire oil and gas industry pays in PRRT. In the last decade, Australian teachers have forked out an average of $9.5 billion per year in tax; the oil and gas industry, $4.6 billion in PRRT. Teachers are getting squeezed and bearing the brunt of the underfunding crisis. The government will happily hand out billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies but are unwilling to realistically meet the bare minimum standard for schooling across the country. It's a harrowing indictment of where the government's priorities lie.

Let's not forget the skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs for parents in our free public school education—and in a cost-of-living crisis. Families pay thousands each year for laptops, stationery, textbooks and excursions, all to close that gap left by government inaction. The average public school in Australia charges $409 in fees per student per year. Yet this government actually has the funds. They're boasting about an $18 billion surplus. They find billions for fossil fuel subsidies which worsen the climate crisis, they pour billions into tax breaks for investors that worsen the housing crisis and they're forecasting nearly half a trillion dollars for nuclear submarines—but the bare minimum for our public schools, for our kids' education? It's absolutely appalling.

This funding crisis is taking a toll. School infrastructure is actually falling apart, teachers are exhausted and burning out, kids are missing out on the most basic educational opportunities and, if we keep going down this road, public schools face decades of decay. Every child in Australia—every child—deserves access to a fully funded high-quality public school. Public education is the bedrock of a fair society. It opens doors, builds communities and lifts kids up. It's an investment in Australia's future, but Labor and the coalition have failed time and again to deliver this essential service—this essential right. They have deprioritised it. Shame! This is a rare chance to end a decade of shameful neglect and fully fund public education.

There is a simple solution. Lift the Commonwealth contribution to a minimum of 25 per cent and ensure 100 per cent SRS funding for all public schools by 2025. Without it, we'll watch another generation of young people miss out on the education they deserve. The government has a choice. Will they keep entrenching a two-tier system that leaves public schools struggling, or will they finally invest in every child's future and fully fund public schools?

The Greens will support the passage of this bill through the House, but we reserve our position in the Senate and will be seeking amendments to this bill.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are few things more important than the education of our children. A quality education system is and should be a primary aspiration for every country on the planet because education changes lives and improves societies. But this aspiration can only be fully realised when our education system is founded in both quality and equity.

There is a clear correlation between the quality of a country's educational system and its general economic status and overall wellbeing. A high quality and equitable education system costs money, there is no getting around that. But, apart from health care and protecting our planet, there is no better objective, in my opinion, for a society to channel its resources towards.

What is currently happening to create a better and fairer education system for all Australians? The bill we're debating today comes about because the National School Reform Agreement is expiring at the end of this year. It is to be replaced with a Better and Fairer Schools Agreement which will run for the next 10 years. The stated purpose of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement is to ensure all public schools receive full and fair funding and to put every public school on a path to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. This schooling resource standard, known as the SRS, was conceived in the 2011 Gonski review and is the estimated amount of the total public funding required for each school to meet the needs of its students. When the SRS is 100 per cent, a school is considered fully funded.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority data shows that 98 per cent of private schools are funded above the SRS recommended by Gonski and more than 98 per cent of public schools are funded below it—excellent news for the independent schools, but obviously a long way to go for the public schools. The ACT is the only jurisdiction in the country that has achieved 100 per cent SRS funding. The Northern Territory is the lowest at 76 per cent. The rest hover in the high 80s or low 90s percentile. Until now, public schools have been chronically underfunded, with the Commonwealth contributing 20 per cent of the SRS and the states supposed to be contributing 80 per cent. However, the states in general have not met this mark, contributing just 75 per cent, and there has been a persistent 5 per cent gap in funding.

The fact is that public schools starved of resources have difficulty offering face-to-face teaching in the most demanding senior school subjects, let alone the full range of educational experience in the arts, physical education and competitive sport. One of the school leaders in my youth partnership program explained to me that she and other students at the local state high school 'are beginning to teach themselves'. Teachers are taking sick days as a poor attempt to stay afloat and students' educational needs are being neglected.

I visited the local state high school closest to my office on the northern beaches in Sydney, at the invitation of the P&C, who were desperate for support. I was deeply shocked at the substandard conditions of the school: toilets with no doors, staircases blocked off—too dangerous to use—leaking gas in the chemistry labs, mould on the ceilings, floors and walls, ripped up carpet and leaking roofs throughout the school, with committed and passionate teachers trying desperately to advocate for their students. I must admit, I was close to tears when I saw that the same art textbooks being used at that school were the same ones I used when I was in year 7, 40 years previously. What message are we sending our young people about the importance of education, if this is what we are offering them?

From a funding point of view, the Commonwealth is agreeing to lift its share of the SRS from 20 per cent to 22.5 per cent, in return for the states and territories lifting their share from 75 per cent to 77.5 per cent. Importantly, that funding cannot go backwards. It is a floor, not a ceiling, thank goodness. To date, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania have signed up to the agreement. Funding arrangements aside, in signing on to the agreement, all governments around Australia commit to targeted reforms focused on three priority areas: equity and excellence, wellbeing for learning and engagement and a strong and sustainable workforce.

It is the first of these priority areas that I want to focus on today, and that will be the subject of my second reading amendment. Nowhere should the goal of equity be more important than in our public school system. The ordinary meaning of 'equity' is important here, because it is quite different from equality. To be treated with equity is to be treated with fairness and justice, whereas equality means providing the same to all. Equity means recognising that we do not all start from the same place, and we need to acknowledge and adjust for imbalances.

This is also the fundamental proposition of the Gonski philosophy of needs based funding. This is where all students in schools are funded but those who need more support receive extra loadings. It's a very simple proposition, and it's disappointing that the Gonski reforms were not implemented in full. It is this difference between the definition of 'equity' in the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement and that in the Gonski review that forms the basis of the second reading amendment that I am introducing today. I now move the amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "reading" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

", the House notes that:

(1) the bill enables the Commonwealth to provide a pathway to full and fair funding for Australian schools, as an investment in a better and fairer education system;

(2) that investment is provided by way of funding under the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (BFS Agreement), to which the bill gives effect;

(3) a fair system is one which strives for equity;

(4) the definition of equity in the BFS Agreement is inadequate, stating only that an equitable outcome is one where 'all students are provided access to high-quality evidence-based teaching that is inclusive, where young Australians of all backgrounds and levels of need are supported to achieve their full educational potential';

(5) the concept of a 'dual equity target' proposed in the 2011 Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling is more robust than the BFS Agreement definition of equity, and requires that:

(a) all students should complete a level of education that enables them to participate in the workforce and lead successful lives, which means completing high school; and

(b) differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions, and low-income, Indigenous, regional, remote area and other disadvantaged student groups should achieve similar outcomes to more advantaged students; and

(6) the BFS Agreement should be amended to adopt the Gonski definition of 'equity', to ensure maximum improvement in quality and fairness in Australian education".

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement describes an equitable outcome as one where:

… all students are provided access to high-quality evidence-based teaching that is inclusive, where young Australians of all backgrounds and levels of need are supported to achieve their full educational potential.

That does not properly reflect the true essence of equity, which is the idea that some students will need more help than others—that they will need a higher level of support. Gonski's dual equity target does exactly that, requiring that all students should complete a level of education that enables them to participate in the workforce and lead successful lives—this means completing high school—and differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions. Low income, Indigenous, regional, remote area and other disadvantaged student groups should achieve similar outcomes to the more advantaged students. It is this idea that differences in student outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth or geography or intrinsic advantages that is critical. My second reading amendment simply seeks to swap one definition for another.

Education scholars Glenn Savage and Pasi Sahlberg have lamented the inadequate definition of equity preferred by the government. They are also disappointed that the agreement lacks specific targets to narrow achievement gaps between students from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds. The only specific target in the agreement for disadvantaged students is that there should be a 'trend upwards' in the proportion of higher NAPLAN proficiency trends. There is another target, the learning equity target, which requires the proportion of students achieving a NAPLAN level—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 16:18 to 16:34

As I was saying, there is another target, the learning equity target, which requires the proportion of students achieving a NAPLAN level A or B for reading and numeracy to increase by 10 per cent, and the proportion of those in level D to decrease by 10 per cent, by 2030. But such targets are not required to be met until schools are fully funded under the agreement, which is when they will receive 100 per cent funding for each student. Even worse, when they are fully funded, there will be no penalties for failing to comply with the agreement.

The experts are saying the targets are, in any event, too weak to make Australian school education fairer. What this may do instead, they say, is raise overall student outcomes but increase the achievement gap. In other words, the high-achieving students may improve and leave the lower-achieving students where they are now or, worse still, going backwards. We saw this happen in a similar program in Ontario, Canada, 20 years ago. The program there failed because, in order to achieve targets, schools focused on students whose standardised scores were just below the target levels and did not provide extra support to the students with the lowest scores, who are, of course, the ones who need the most help.

There is not necessarily a correlation between improving overall school results and equity. A rising tide does not necessarily lift all boats. Australia is the land of the fair go. For that to remain true, our education system must be firmly grounded in equity. Anything less is selling future generations short.

Zoe McKenzie (Flinders, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding Reform) Bill 2024, which deals with government funding of public schools. It is always a pleasure for me to talk about public education. I am very proudly the product of two public schools, South Cronulla primary school and St George Girls High School, and my children attended Gymea Bay Public School for their primary school education. I have some absolutely fantastic public schools in my electorate and I will refer to them shortly.

I think the starting point for this legislation is to go back and have a look at the background as to how we fund schools in Australia. They are jointly funded in this country through both state and territory governments and the Australian government. I think perhaps sometimes parents and others don't understand that. It is often thought of as simply a state issue, but the federal government has a very important role to play in public funding for government schools. Funding for schools is provided to the states and territories under the Constitution's sections 96 and 122. These allow the Commonwealth to set the relevant terms and conditions for the funding. Coming out of that enabling power within the Constitution is the Australian Education Act 2013 and the Australian Education Regulations, which impose additional requirements on states and territories as conditions for this financial assistance. They include, predominantly, a requirement to be party to intergovernmental arrangements on school education and to implement nationally agreed policy initiatives on school education.

What we have seen bring about this legislation is a system of national school reform agreements where each state and territory is required to have a bilateral agreement with the Australian government. Those agreements set out state-specific actions to improve student outcomes, including activities that may support particular student cohorts. Bilateral agreements also set out the minimum funding contribution that states and territories must meet as a condition of receiving Australian government school funding. So, basically, the Commonwealth says to a state, 'You must provide X per cent and then the federal government will kick in the remainder.' This is where the federal government and the education minister have reached a stalemate with the states. What we have seen happen following a few internal reviews—we're talking about a Labor government, and Labor governments love reviews, and so we've had a series of reviews since this government has been in power. Out of that we've had the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. That proposes a new funding model. Then, following that, we have had agreement between the federal government and three states—Western Australia, the Northern Territory and, later on, Tasmania. But as of today Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and my home state of New South Wales have not yet signed up to the new funding arrangements. So there are a number of issues that need to be addressed there, and it shows that the education minister has, unfortunately, failed, to date, to secure the agreement of those other four states.

The Australian Education Union has also called for the Commonwealth to increase its share of funding to the states, which is currently at 20 per cent. The states are asking for 25 per cent, and the Australian Education Union—I don't normally stand here and support union positions, but I think the funding of our public schools is extremely important. The organisation Save Our Schools Australia has similarly criticising the bill and has said that funding should be further increased.

Parents that I speak to in my community are not so much worried about how much funding their schools are getting; they are worried about the quality of teaching within the schools and they're worried about the curriculum within the schools. This is something that is being addressed, particularly at a state level, in my home state. I am pleased with that because what we have seen for too many years is inquiry based learning. Instead of which, the New South Wales government—and I don't usually give the Minns government too much of a plug—has picked up on the reforms started under the former Liberal government, particularly the education minister, Sarah Mitchell. They are looking at now implementing evidence based teaching methods, such as explicit instruction. They are saying it must be mandated in every classroom.

I'll say that is a welcome inclusion. Teachers say to me quietly—because they are usually gagged in many circumstances by the current state government—that the inquiry based learning was a complete failure. Children, and younger children in particular, need to be taught facts, and then those facts need to be reinforced. Inquiry based learning is all well and good, but it does not work for five-, six- and eight-year-olds. That is something that is obviously looked at more in high school and later in life, at university or at VET.

It is absolutely critical, overall, that our education standards are lifted. Throughout the country, the NAPLAN results are telling us that one in three children—one-third of our children—are not meeting baseline standards in reading, writing and maths. I can tell you, as at 5.20 tomorrow, my children will have finished their secondary education, but the way they were taught maths, particularly in primary school, was a consistent frustration for me. Over the years, I have seen a real decline in the way we are teaching maths, and I think it starts with teachers at university not being properly trained as to how to teach maths. This has long-term impacts for us as a country. Maths is not about becoming a maths professor. Maths is about life skills. It's about being able to read the time. It's about being able to ensure that you are being paid correctly. It's about being able to ensure you budget correctly. They are very fundamental skills, fundamental reasoning and rational thinking that we need to do far better at. 'Far better at'—I was just about to say don't start me on grammar and the way grammar is taught today, and I've just finished a sentence with 'at', which my grammar teacher from year 7 would be shaking and criticising me for.

The funding of education is very important and I am very pleased that the New South Wales government, for example, has started on the factual-based, instruction-based learning rather than the very vague inquiry-based learning that we have seen over many years. The education minister said that she is paring back a lot of the gobbledegook, to use a technical term—I like that, 'gobbledegook', from an education minister—and a lot of the nonsense that was in the school curriculum in New South Wales. She said new English and maths syllabuses are already being taught, and from kindergarten, for example, history is going to be taught. History includes being taught about the Holocaust in primary schools, and I think that, in view of recent events that we've seen in our country and overseas, the importance of that cannot be understated.

I have some fabulous public schools in my electorate, and I want to give a shoutout to those I have visited so far this year. Coming up to the end of the presentations, there will be far more. I congratulate Loftus Public School, which was one of the recipients of my fathering project. I also attended Loftus Public School for the Anzac Day commemorative service earlier this year. The Cook School that was featured on Four Corners is a school for behavioural difficulties, and I subsequently went out and met the fabulous team there. At Marton Public School I met with the leadership team and did a flag presentation. Jannali East Public School is another recipient of my fathering project award. At Illawong Public School I was invited to attend their Arts for Advocacy exhibition, where they advocated for various social projects through the arts. That was their stage 3, so years 5 and 6. I thank Sutherland Public School for the flags. I was at Jannali Public School for flags and at Illawong Public School again for education week. I was at the Bates Drive School, which is a school for—it used to be called handicapped—intellectually and physically disabled children, and we did a flag presentation there. The teachers and carers at Bates Drive School provide a very important service, so I thank them. We also went to Lucas Heights Community School, which is unusual in that it caters for students from kindergarten right through to year 12. They have started a wellness hub, and particularly an Indigenous wellness hub, so they are also to be congratulated. I met with their leadership team, and I think the future around Lucas Heights is in good hands based on the quality of the leaders that I met there. I thank Holsworthy High School as well—I was privileged to attend their year 12 graduation ceremony and spoke to a couple of the students about what they are planning to do post high school. That was a very special occasion as well.

We really do need to do a lot better with funding of our public schools and I call on the federal education minister to negotiate with the four states—including New South Wales—to reach that agreement as soon as possible. I call on the minister to also look at perhaps tying future grants to curriculum changes and look at a far more sensible curriculum that does not place such a heavy burden on a lot of our teachers and that will empower our students throughout the country and ensure that they lift their overall NAPLAN standards. When we fail to teach our children literacy and numeracy, it results in the inevitable disengagement with the education system, dysfunction and youth crime. I can't imagine the frustration of not being able to read and participate in society, and that is what occurs if our students do not have a sound education system.

On that note, I largely commend this bill, but the minister really does need to do a lot more negotiating with the states, and there are some other changes—as I have highlighted—that he could be considering.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 is about a funding disagreement between the states and the Commonwealth when it comes to education. They split the cost of funding public schools, but the agreement that they reached adds up to 95 per cent of what's needed, not 100 per cent, so public schools are not currently being funded to the level required.

I want to talk about some of the underlying assumptions that this bill is built on and how the Commonwealth government could use this bill as an opportunity for broader longer term improvements in education funding, while still delivering on the purpose of this bill, which is to make sure that public schools get the funding that they need. The fundamental principle we must start with here is that every child in Australia should have a good education, no matter their circumstances or what school they go to. This is a basic principle of fairness and equality of opportunity. We need a well-educated population. This is essential for our social and economic prosperity, so we need to work out how to spend money to deliver the best education we can.

We know there are real problems with the direction education is heading. We hear that we urgently need greater support for students with increasing complexities and support for teachers and their schools to be able to meet these challenging demands. In WA, student performance on national and international tests has not shown any consistent improvement over the last decade. WA student school attendance and retention rates have been declining. ATAR participation rates are declining. Educational achievement is stagnating. This is a problem worth solving, and our common interest in a good education system and arresting these worrying trends should be first and foremost in any legislation about education.

The second principle is that funding should match need. Responsibility for public funding for all schools is shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. States and territories have overarching responsibility for schools, including for the registration and regulation of all schools in their jurisdiction—government and non-government—and for the operation of public schools.

A formula has been developed to determine what funding is needed for each child in Australia, which is made up of a base amount and six loadings, including the school size loading, school location loading and individual loadings. This means that schools that are educating more kids with disabilities or with lower socioeconomic status or that are in a remote area should get more funding. Funding is calculated according to this formula and then the Commonwealth government pays the states the entitlement for the states to distribute. But the way it works is that, once the states have the funding, there's no requirement for them to allocate the funding in accordance with the formula and no requirement for them to account clearly to the Commonwealth for how it's spent. This seems completely crazy to me.

Sure, we can tweak the formula and continue to improve it as we learn more about what works and what doesn't, but then it just gets ignored. What's the of point allocating funding according to need, if it then doesn't get spent that way?

Built into this principle of funding matching need is an assumption that more funding will deliver better educational outcomes. Believe it or not, this is hard to prove. Intuitively, it seems to make sense, but only if we're investing in the right things. And we can't tell which are the right things without looking at the data. It doesn't help that the states refuse to provide all the data needed to find out what types of funding actually improve educational outcomes. The states don't make available information about funding at a school level that can be used to measure what effect it has against educational or other outcomes. I can't believe this. All these data exist. We already have a huge and valuable dataset available, one that contains every kid in every school in Australia, with all their different circumstances. Think of what we could learn if we added to that dataset how much funding was actually allocated for each kid and how much they and their classmates received and looked at how they did in school. If we used those data well, we could understand which additional funding translates to better outcomes and which doesn't. But, because of silly state-Commonwealth turf wars, we don't know.

This is the education sector. It's meant to be all about learning. But we're not learning and applying that knowledge. We do know that schools with very similar needs are being funded very differently. For example, the NSRB report on regional school loadings showed that three schools with the same needs, of the same size, with the same socio-economic status, with the same number of Indigenous students and in the same type of location were being funded to the tune of $12,000 per student, $18,000 per student and $24,000 per student, depending on which state they were in. This makes no sense. If we knew which types of expenditure helped with educational outcomes, we could spend our money better and educate our kids better.

So now you're asking: what does this fundamental problem have to do with the current bill? In earlier negotiations, the Commonwealth committed to funding 20 per cent of what each student in public education needs, and the states committed to the other 75 per cent. Anyone who's had a good Australian education can see that this does not add up to 100 per cent. Most of the states haven't even managed to get to the agreed 75 per cent. Queensland, in 2022, provided 70.2 per cent of school funding needed, Victoria provided 69.2 per cent, and the Northern Territory 56.5 per cent. But even if the states were funding to the level agreed of 75 per cent, there's still five per cent unaccounted for, and it's the kids who suffer in the meantime. Even if we address this last five per cent, states are now including extra items in that calculation, like capital depreciation and school transport, so we won't actually get the 100 per cent as it was originally defined.

This needs to be addressed so we are actually funding the full amount, irrespective of where the money comes from. WA, NT and Tasmania have agreed to split the difference with the government on the five per cent, and this bill is needed so that the Commonwealth can make good on that commitment and contribute more than 20 per cent. Some would say that the Commonwealth government should hold out and insist that the states pay the difference. Personally, I think that the schools actually get the funding is more important than quibbling about which bucket it comes from. So I'm fine with the change, whether it's making 20 per cent a floor or, preferably, guaranteeing 25 per cent, which is what many experts are advocating for. But, no matter how big the increase is, this bill presents a rare opportunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of education funding. If the Commonwealth is going to put up hundreds of millions or billions more in education funding, it should at least demand some data and transparency in return, so we can learn and spend our money better.

It may be appropriate to delay this bill until after the next national school funding agreement between the Commonwealth and the states is finalised, but this requirement for better data should be used as a bargaining chip. In the last National School Resourcing Board report, the board said: 'As highlighted in previous reviews by the board, the lack of transparency of school funding at the system level presents a major challenge. The board was only provided with school level expenditure data by three states and one territory—a situation that limited the analysis that the board could undertake.' I think it would be reasonable to ask the states to do two things if they want more education funding. Firstly, they should ensure schools receive the money that they're entitled to. There's no point having an agreed allocation if kids don't get the funding they need. At the moment, the states allocate the money any way they like. Secondly, they should provide school-level income and an expenditure data so that we can learn whether and how more money actually delivers better wellbeing and education outcomes. We are all on the same team here. We all want better education outcomes and money to be used efficiently. This common goal should override silly politics between state and Commonwealth control.

I understand that state-Commonwealth relations are difficult and somewhat vexed when it comes to these sorts of issues. But we need to put the interests of kids and the country ahead of the petty politics and spend our money well. That's why I now move a second reading amendment as circulated in my name:

That all words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

":

(1) notes previous recommendations of the National School Resourcing Board regarding improving transparency of Schooling Resource Standard loadings; and

(2) urges the Government to strengthen transparency and accountability measures regarding Schooling Resource Standard loadings, so that the implementation and effectiveness of allocations and expenditure can be assessed at a sector and school level".

This amendment makes any additional Commonwealth funding conditional upon the provision of the information needed to understand whether the schools got the funding they were allocated under the formula and how they spent it so we can analyse what works in improving outcomes. If the federal government doesn't take this opportunity to at least get better data, the opportunity is unlikely to come up again anytime soon. This would be a great example of prioritising long-term interests using taxpayer money in the best possible way to educate our kids. But the Commonwealth and the states and all sides of politics should be eager to find out what works and what doesn't when it comes to education spending. I urge the government to consider my second reading amendment to that effect.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Ryan moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. At its core, this bill is about increasing Commonwealth government funding for Australian public primary and secondary schools. My electorate of Indi is home to 118 schools. The large majority, 87, are public schools. From Wodonga to Wangaratta, Corryong to Kinglake and everywhere in between, I regularly visit these schools. I've visited 57 since being elected and visited many students virtually, online, during COVID, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many students here in the parliament.

I care deeply about these schools, schools full of teachers, administrators, parents and carers who want nothing more than to see their students reach their full potential. This bill is about resourcing public schools to achieve just that. The bill aims to increase public funding for schools by amending the Australian Education Act to ensure that the Commonwealth's share of funding for government schools from 2025 onwards cannot fall below 20 per cent. I want to see more funding for public schools because it's a well-proven fact that regional Australia has worse educational outcomes than our city cousins. In my electorate of Indi, we are less likely to complete year 12 and less likely to attend university and obtain a degree than our city counterparts.

Accessing quality education in those early schooling years is vital towards improving the outcomes in later education. But, unfortunately, we know that regional and rural school students often fall behind. According to the government's review to inform a better and fairer education system, regional, rural and remote students were three times more likely to fall below NAPLAN's former national minimum standards. Regional and rural students aren't just starting behind; they fall even further behind over time. This simply isn't good enough, and it shouldn't be this way. Rural and regional students have the smarts; they need the resources. Properly funding schools is the most important reform to close this gap.

It's worth pausing briefly to explain how government schools are funded. In 2011, David Gonski AC delivered a review into funding for schooling. The review identified several highly concerning trends in the educational outcomes of Australian students. In particular, the review made a clear link between low levels of educational achievement and disadvantage. Put simply, if you start out in life doing it a bit tougher than your peers, it's almost certain that you will also be disadvantaged throughout your entire education. To help address this persistent disadvantage in our schooling system, Mr Gonski stressed the need for equitable school funding model, one that ensures the differences in educational outcomes are not linked to how wealthy you are. To determine what equitable funding is, the schooling resource standard, or SRS, was created. The SRS estimates how much total funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs, regardless of whether that school is public or independent.

How much the Commonwealth and the states contribute to the SRS was determined by the National School Reform Agreement, which will expire at the end of the year. Under that agreement, the Commonwealth funds schools 20 per cent and the states 75 per cent. This leaves a five per cent gap in meeting the SRS. It means that government schools have been, and will be, underfunded by between $6.2 billion and $6.5 billion every year from 2023 to 2028 under the current situation. It's no wonder that the Productivity Commission found in 2023 that the National School Reform Agreement had done little to improve student outcomes. With the National School Reform Agreement expiring, we have an opportunity now to fix this funding gap, to finally deliver on the full SRS and get on with the job of equitably and adequately funding our public schools. It's what our young people deserve.

The government has put on the table the new, 10-year Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Under the new agreement the Commonwealth have agreed to increase their contribution from 20 per cent to 22.5 per cent. They are asking the states to increase their contribution by 2.5 per cent to 77.5 per cent so that we can deliver 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard. But the agreement isn't just about funding. It also includes reforms like year 1 phonics checks and early years of schooling numeracy checks to identify students who need extra help; greater wellbeing support by providing more counsellors and mental health workers; initiatives to help attract and retain teachers; and evidence based teaching and targeted and intensive supports, like small-group or catch-up tutoring to help students who fall behind. Without a doubt, these are important reforms that will help improve the quality of our education. But I want to remind the parliament that the Gonski review emphasised that public school funding is at the heart of the problems in our education system. He wrote that while reforms like improving teacher quality and strategies for low socioeconomic school communities are 'a good foundation', he also said they 'need to be supported by an effective funding framework'.

As part of the new agreement, the Albanese government are quick to say they've put $16 billion of additional investment for public schools on the table. But will $16 billion meet the needs of the students, the young people across our country, who this is ultimately about? In answering this question, I want to address two issues related to the bill before us. First, there is a strong case that the Commonwealth government must increase their share of the school resourcing standard beyond the 22.5 per cent currently on the table. A key concern for Victoria in not signing on to the new agreement is that the Commonwealth's offer won't achieve the full SRS and Australian kids will continue to fall behind. Victoria, along with the Australian Education Union, are asking the Commonwealth to increase their funding to a full 25 per cent, largely because the states already provide the large majority, 75 per cent, of public school funding. In response, the Commonwealth government says that the states could also lift funding by matching the Commonwealth's increase of 2.5 per cent to contribute 77.5 per cent of the SRS. But this doesn't reflect the reality of financial relations between the Commonwealth and the states. With less capacity than ever to raise additional revenue, the states have little room to manoeuvre. Frankly, only the Commonwealth has the resources and the capacity to make this additional nation-building and nation-shaping investment.

When we talk about funding public education we must also address government funding for private, or independent, schools. Independent Schools Australia, the peak body for non-government schools, says that government funding for private schools is about enabling 'educational choice': parents should be able to choose whether private or public education is best for their kids, and governments should fund both of these options. I agree with this, especially when it comes to choosing a school because of a family's religious beliefs or values. But we must interrogate the reality of how these schools are funded by governments. This is not about criticising private schools or the families who choose them; this is about fairness for each student no matter which classroom they're sitting in.

The Commonwealth actually funds Catholic and independent schools beyond what it is required to according to the current Commonwealth funding arrangements. During the period from 2022 to 2028, the Commonwealth government will overfund private schools by up to $2.8 billion. This is compared to chronic Commonwealth underfunding of public schools, as I've just outlined. To bring this gap between private and public school funding into sharp relief, research conducted by the Australian Education Union shows that five elite private schools spent more money on new facilities than governments spent on half of Australia's public schools collectively in 2021.

When choice starts to become about vast differences in infrastructure and quality of education between our public and private schools, I start to question whether right now parents truly are being offered a choice. We hear too often about public schools with unsupported teachers, run-down classrooms and sporting facilities, and minimal resources to help the students who are struggling. According to a survey conducted late last year, almost half of parents with children in private schools would consider moving them to the public system if the public system were better resourced. I firmly believe that more government funding for public schools would increase a family's educational choices.

Back in 2010, when the Gonski reforms were initiated, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said that your postcode shouldn't determine how well you do in life. But unfortunately it does. Now, almost a decade and a half later, the Albanese government could finally deliver equitable public school funding. They could do this by funding 25 per cent of public schools. This would be a significant investment in Australia's young people and a significant legacy to claim.

The second issue with the bill is that the states' contribution of 75 per cent for government schools is not a true 75 per cent. The previous National School Reform Agreement allowed the states to claim, as part of their share of funding the SRS of public schools, funding for items that are specifically excluded from how the SRS is measured. This meant the states could claim things like funding for capital depreciation and school transport for up to four per cent of the SRS of public schools. Many states could also claim things like teacher registrations. According to Save Our Schools, this means the current Victorian funding for public schools in 2024 is actually 65.82 per cent, well below the 70.43 per cent they claim and even further below the 75 per cent they originally agreed to. This could be addressed by an amendment to the Australian Education Act relating to the conditions of financial assistance to the states. That amendment would require the states' funding contributions to be measured according to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority's financial data reporting methodology.

In asking the Commonwealth government to increase its share of funding from 20 to 25 per cent, I'm not saying we should let the states off the hook here. They have to improve their funding too. I support this bill because ultimately I want to see more funding for public schools, but I urge the government to consider amendments to improve the bill so that schools and students get the funding they deserve.

At the beginning of this speech, I mentioned that I regularly visit schools across my electorate. I speak on this bill with these schools at the front of my mind. I think about the students, the teachers, the parents, the carers and the broader communities that they are intrinsically part of.

I was fortunate recently to visit Mount Beauty Primary School, a perfect example of how public schools can operate as a hub for the broader community. This school offers a breakfast program, so that every student can start the day with a full stomach no matter what's going on at home. They also have a wellbeing officer, who helps students access paediatrician appointments, speech therapists, occupational therapists and counselling—all vital services, for a young person to thrive—and this is in a very remote part of my electorate. The outside-school-hours program at Mount Beauty primary provides care for students after the school day ends, and the school's multipurpose building acts as a shelter for the local community during times of emergencies—especially important in bushfire prone areas like Mount Beauty. And there are stories similar to Mount Beauty's right across the electorate of Indi.

Schools in Indi are also especially important because they offer vocational education and training, or VET. VET courses are where our plumbers, hairdressers, electricians, childcare workers, disability and aged-care workers, builders, mechanics, hospitality workers, agricultural workers and more get their start.

I recently visited Yea High School, which includes students from neighbouring Seymour and Alexandra. Agriculture is one of the biggest employers in this town, and the school offers the agricultural certificate II program on site at the school and at a nearby working farm. They recently built an ag learning space, and I was privileged to plant the very first orange tree in their orchard. I want to thank Principal Brian D'Arcy for showing me around and for the invaluable work he and his staff do.

I could go on. I haven't had time to mention Wangaratta High School's expansive STEM program, Benalla college's involvement in the Victorian School for Student Leadership program at the Snowy River campus, and many, many more success stories. Just on the weekend, I was at the Wangaratta festival of jazz, and there was the Wangaratta High School show band, playing together with their teachers, or alongside them—those teachers giving up their weekends to make sure that those students could fulfil their musical capacity and ability and have the opportunity, the confidence, to perform in public.

I love our public schools. I want them to thrive. I want to see students right across Australia, no matter their socioeconomic status, do the very best they can. I want the government to support these schools to be the best they can, and this starts and ends with funding them properly.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a serious question before the House. Our public schools are in a state of crisis. Quality education is the foundation of opportunity and a fairer future, and it must be accessible for all. For too long, our public schools have suffered from chronic underfunding, with parents and carers stepping in to raise much-needed funds through sausage sizzles and school fetes.

In Warringah, our 21 public schools are significantly affected, and underfunding remains a pressing concern for families. In fact, I recently wrote to the education minister to express support for the findings of the expert panel's Improving outcomes for all report, which highlights the stark funding inequalities in our education system. The findings are deeply concerning. High school completion rates in public schools have fallen from 83 per cent to 76 per cent in just six years and over one-third of students are failing to meet literacy and numeracy standards on NAPLAN. While the government's bill here today, the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, goes some way to storing funding of our public schools, there is still a long way to go.

Like many parents in Warringah, I have actually had the opportunity, through my children, to participate and to engage in all levels and types of school. Ironically, my children have attended public primary schools. I've had a child attend a selective public high school. I have had children attend a faith based school and private schools. So I've had touch points with all systems, and I have to say that some of those decisions and choices were driven by a desire to give my children the best opportunity possible. But I did notice—I couldn't be blind to—the difference in resources and the quality of the facilities available to the students. They are vastly different, and that is intrinsically unfair. The government plays a part, with its funding model, to ensure that it's equitable—that there is access to those opportunities for all and the schooling and educational outcomes are a lot fairer.

The bill's intention, and that of the government here, is to do ongoing work to strengthen funding arrangements for public schools and to have more transparency. The bill introduces strong accountability and transparency measures, requiring an annual update to parliament on the progress of the national school reforms. From my point of view, it is so important that we have integrity and more accountability and transparency from the government on how the funding is working, so it's great to see that in this bill. But this bill is just a start. It can go a lot further.

We know that, back in 2011, David Gonski led the review of funding for schools and determined the schooling resource standard, the SRS. It's an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs. But unfortunately it's fallen behind, and there is a gap that has, I think, had a real impact on the outcomes for students, and it's something the government must address. Unfortunately, despite the good intention of this bill, there remains a gap, and those who pay the price for that gap will be the students. And, if the students pay the price for that gap, Australia as a country will pay the price because they're our future.

The responsibility, as I said, is shared. The Commonwealth is responsible for the majority of public funding for non-government schools, providing 80 per cent of the SRS, and the states contribute 20 per cent of that funding for non-government schools. As other members in this place have noted, non-government schools often see a much higher level of spending on facilities, and I've been able to observe that firsthand as a parent who has participated in that process. We have to make sure that public schools are receiving their fair share of funding.

The states, as the owners and administrators of public schools, are the majority funders of public schools. They're responsible for 75 per cent of the SRS, and the Commonwealth is currently responsible for 20 per cent of the SRS. So we've had this remaining five per cent gap which has meant that public schools have fallen behind in terms of the quality of their resources. They have not had sufficient funding to really meet the needs of students. That five per cent gap is the ultimate problem, and unfortunately it remains, despite the intentions of the minister. Certainly, there remains a 2½ per cent gap in relation to New South Wales schools. Clearly, more needs to be done.

The Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, this joint agreement that, it's intended, will commence on 1 January 2025, replaces the current NSRA that is due to expire. Unfortunately, there's a gap for New South Wales schools, and that is unacceptable. The reality is that it will fall to the Commonwealth government to meet that gap. The system needs greater funding certainty to ensure that children are getting the best education.

So, whilst there's an intention in this bill to strengthen funding to public schools, it doesn't guarantee it, and that is problematic. Chronic underfunding negatively affects students' educational outcomes and their mental wellbeing, and teachers' ability to perform and stay in the profession. So I urge the government to increase the minimum funding floor to 25 per cent to offer a genuine pathway for schools to reach that 100 per cent of schooling resource standard funding.

I look at examples within my community. Balgowlah Boys Campus, or Bally Boys, as we know it, is consistently ranked among the top non-selective schools in New South Wales—incredible results academically. Despite this, the school grounds are a huge community concern. I have visited the school grounds on a number of occasions. They're outdated facilities, with asbestos in the buildings and limited access to toilets, sports halls and music rooms. Many really felt like relics of another era. And I say this with respect because the boys and the teachers at that school are amazing. They are achieving so much.

I've raised these issues with Premier Minns and the New South Wales education minister. I've invited them to come and visit the school: 'Come and see for yourself the conditions in which these boys are performing fantastically, and tell me that that standard of facility is respectful of them and their futures and the efforts they are putting in.' But the invitation to visit remains unanswered. They have not taken up the call to come and see that firsthand. These exceptional students are overachieving despite substandard conditions, and they deserve better. Increasing funding and providing a clear path to full funding would ensure students from schools like Bally Boys have access to every opportunity during their school years.

I should say, in New South Wales there are other concerns around schooling. Currently, the New South Wales Department of Education is consulting with the community on proposed changes to the Northern Beaches high schools. Those proposals include significant changes, including changing class years groups accepted at NBSC Freshwater Senior Campus and potentially merging NBSC Mackellar Girls Campus and NBSC Balgowlah Boys Campus into co-educational schools, against the wishes of all the schools communities. While feedback is under review, it is essential that high-performing schools that are underresourced have the support necessary to meet the evolving needs of the community and the young people learning there.

We've also seen the New South Wales Department of Education announce changes to the opportunity classes at the Balgowlah Heights Public School, and that serves academically gifted students in year 5 and 6. That has been done, again, with very little consultation. It will have a great impact on the local student cohort, staffing and the quality of outcomes. I've written to the minister, but there doesn't seem to be a willingness to engage with the consequences of the proposed changes.

While I am here talking about local schools and public education, I have to say a huge thank you to my cohort of youth ambassadors. Every year for the last four years, I have been able to bring together the school leaders of all the high schools in the electorate of Warringah. We meet about every six weeks, and it is a fantastic opportunity to hear from these young leaders. It's about hearing their voices on the issues that they are concerned about. It's about giving them the opportunity to talk to their representative and to make sure they know what's happening in Canberra, here in parliament, on their behalf.

I should also shoutout all the beautiful year 5 and year 6 students who visit Parliament House. They are always so engaged and so interested in this process. It is always so motivating to know that I am in this place on behalf of them and their future.

I look forward to the minister engaging with the amendments before the chamber in relation to this bill. Fully funding our public schools in an investment in our children's future and our country. A strong education system is critical for spurring the innovation needed to tackle the climate crisis and ensuring our youth thrive in a complex and rapidly evolving economy. Quality education is essential to equip children with the skills to navigate the complexities of a digital world and to empower them with the knowledge to discern fact from misinformation. I urge the government to adopt the vital amendments and to make sure they are fully funding and futureproofing the funding of our schools today.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was privileged to receive a very good education, courtesy of my parents, my late mother, Eileen, and late father, Lance. They sent me to St Joseph's, which closed not long after I departed there in year 2. It reopened later on. It burnt down and reopened again. I went to Henschke boys primary. It's now a co-educational primary school, in Wagga Wagga, in Turvey Park. I then went to St. Michael's Regional High School, a fabulous institution. I graduated there in 1980.

I give thanks to John Egan, John Zoglmann, Jan Batt, Brother Felix O'Connor in particular, Lyn Kensey and Bob Stampton. They were just amazing teachers. The discipline was strict. We had deputy principal Graham Kennedy, a former dual rugby league and rugby union New Zealand international, and he did not suffer fools gladly. I'm not saying I was a fool, but I'll tell you what—you didn't get out of line at St. Michael's Regional High School! Otherwise you faced the harsh sting of the leather across your hand. I received more than my share of cuts in year 7—25 times, in fact—and I was one of the better pupils. But I hold no grudges. Certainly, John Egan, who was my year 7 form master, and I are firm friends to this day. He still provides me with great advice. I then went to Trinity Senior High School, which has now been subsumed into Kildare Catholic College. Wagga Wagga has good Catholic schools.

I also, now, as the federal member for Riverina, represent many, many public schools. In fact, there are 130 schools across my sprawling electorate. I represent church schools, independent schools and, indeed, fantastic public schools. As the education minister joins us, I thank him for coming into the Federation Chamber in relation to this bill, because it is an important bill—it truly is.

When I was growing up, public schools were primarily called 'state schools', and there was a reason for that, because they received most of their funding from the states—as they should, because they are governed by the states. In 1893 all of the colonies in Australia had legislated to remove government funding from Catholic education, and it took the Goulburn school strike of July 1962, when the townsfolk and the local Catholic bishop said, 'Enough.' They required funding to build, of all things, a new toilet block at St Brigid's to meet government health requirements, and the protests came about because of heated political debate about state aid to Catholic schools, and accusations of sectarianism. I'm midway through reading an amazing and remarkable book by Jeff Kildea about Bridget Partridge, otherwise known as Sister Mary Liguori. This case divided the nation. She was a Wagga Wagga sister who fled the Catholic system, was looked after by the Protestants and went to Sydney. Her case ended up in the highest court in the land. Sectarianism then was rife in Australia—it was sheer hatred. Thankfully, it's not like that these days—at least I don't think it is!

But Catholic school funding still raises a lot of ire. It will be denied, but it is a true fact that if you take a Catholic schoolchild and place them alongside a public schoolchild, the public schoolchild will receive, on average, more funding than the Catholic school child. I appreciate that the Catholics look after their schools; I get the fact that they get Commonwealth funding—as they should—but there are a lot of people who think that all Catholic school funding by the Commonwealth should be abolished, and this is wrong. It is wrongheaded, it is not right, and if you take a little school in a country community, you see those kids do it every bit as tough as some of the public schools. You can never place enough funding into the education system.

It does annoy me when people decry our education system and say that the children of today are not as good as they once were. They talk about the three Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic—if you look closely at those words, they don't all start with R, but you get my drift. Those people who say that have probably not been to a school any time lately, certainly not a public school. I run an annual Anzac Day writing competition—I've done it for 14 years—and the education minister would be very interested to know that the quality of those entries is quite remarkable. The children are being well taught. Yes, they do need more resources. Yes, they do need more funding.

This bill goes to the heart of better and fairer schools funding, and no-one can deny that. No-one should deny that there should be more funding and better funding, and I get that. We hear so often, and it also really sticks in my craw, from the Labor ministers particularly who go to the despatch box and talk about the decade that we lost—the dysfunction, the lack of funding and all the like. It's just so untrue. The facts are that over nine years the former coalition government nearly doubled annual school funding from $13 billion in 2013 to $25.3 billion dollars in 2022. Our Quality Schools package had record funding of $318.9 billion to all schools between 2018 and 2019. We strengthened the curriculum with stronger, evidence-based content, including teaching phonics and the science of reading. We improved teacher training. We backed those teachers who were high achievers and delivered best-practice literacy and numeracy programs to close the gap.

Now, I appreciate what Minister Clare is trying to do in the education space. He's one of the better ministers and I value his input, because he has a very trusted role. He is the minister responsible for education, and some might argue that that's one of the most important ministries in government. It is, and it should be, because our children are our future.

The current National School Reform Agreement, extended by a year, is due to expire on 31 December. That is not far away. Currently, the Commonwealth contributes 20 per cent of the funding for government schools—state schools—with the states and territories responsible for the remaining 80 per cent. For independent Catholic schools, the model is flipped. It's reversed, with the Commonwealth contributing 80 per cent of funding and the states and territories contributing 20 per cent.

But why is it fair that there are people out there, many of whom are very high up in academia, who think that the Commonwealth should not be funding our private schools? You'll see them trot out the wonderful sports facilities, pools et cetera at Riverview, the GPS schools and the big sandstone schools in Sydney and other metropolitan cities. I heard the member for Indi talk about the remote areas of her electorate. If you go out to some of those regional towns, the Catholic schools do it tough too. They also have to raise funds through their wonderful parents and friends organisations and associations.

I remember I was the chair at the Sacred Heart Catholic School in Wagga Wagga when my daughter was in kindergarten. My daughter, Georgina, who, I might add, has taught in both the public and the private systems, is now teaching in Melbourne, and I'm very proud of the fact that she is the head of English at the middle school where she teaches down in Melbourne. It's a great achievement. She is transforming and shaping children's lives, and that's what good teachers do. I mentioned earlier the list of teachers who taught me. Some of them might deny that they taught me, but indeed they did, and I was very, very blessed and privileged to have the help of those teachers in shaping me so I could attempt to be my best self.

The specific contribution percentage for government schools will be prescribed by regulation. This allows the Commonwealth to have different funding arrangements for the states and the territories. This regulation will not be disallowable. Interestingly, for the Northern Territory, the bill provides that the Commonwealth contribution to government schools will be changed from a fixed 20 per cent to 40 per cent from 2029. Some might say the disparity between states and territories is not right et cetera.

The Northern Territory has its own set of challenges. I visited there on any number of occasions when I was the Deputy Prime Minister, and it has its own challenges and its own opportunities. I'm very pleased that Lia Finocchiaro has become the Country Liberal Party Chief Minister, because I think the work that she and the CLP team will do in the education space, working with Mr Clare and the Commonwealth, will be good. I encourage the minister to have a relationship with the new Northern Territory administration, because it's important. It's a growing place. We need the Northern Territory to realise its potential, and we can only do that if the children there are properly funded and properly resourced with the best teachers.

My daughter, Georgina, was part of a program run by the New South Wales department which helped out with HECS. Georgina went to Charles Sturt University. At the end, when the teachers were getting their diplomas and receiving their imprimaturs from the university, they were able to send them wherever they liked, and they sent Georgina to Griffith, then a remote school, which needed a drama and English teacher. I was pleased that she was able to do that. It gave her a great start. I think that a teacher in a remote public school will have the very best start because it will teach them the concepts and the necessity and how tough these children do it, as opposed to maybe, perhaps, a private school in a big city.

For the Northern Territory, the bill changes the model by which the funding is allowable from 2029, while the 80 per cent contribution for non-government schools will remain in the bill. This can be varied by regulation, which is subject to disallowance. Overall, this legislation—I appreciate there are amendments to it—is important because our kids are our future.

In the time remaining, I want to talk about the Gonski funding model. It's important to reiterate that, while the Commonwealth is currently meeting its agree 20 per cent SRS share, it's the states and the Northern Territory which have fallen short to varying degrees. That is a fact. Queensland's SRS contribution to government schools is just 69 per cent, well below the 80 per cent requirement. Victoria's is not much better, at 70 per cent. The Northern Territory, as I say, is a special case; it's only 59 per cent. So it was misleading, prior to the last election and since then, for the Albanese government to claim it would fully fund government schools, when the Commonwealth was fully meeting its agreed obligations. That said, most of the remit, most of the responsibility and most of the obligation should, as it always must, fall upon the states. They should be referred to as state schools, not public schools.

I decry anybody who ever says that our Catholic schools should not be funded by the Commonwealth, because they should. It started back in the early sixties, with that Goulburn bishop who withdrew the children from the school and marched them down to the front gates of the public school and said, 'Well, if you're not going to fund us, then you teach them.' We don't want to see again. I'm sure the minister doesn't want to see a whole heap of Catholic schoolchildren out on the front lawns here, demonstrating about lack of funding, particularly the funding for toilet blocks and the like.

Let's not criticise our teachers; they are doing an outstanding job. They have the responsibility of looking after what is our most important national asset, and that is our students. To our teachers, as it was just the other day international appreciate a teacher day, I say thank you. I thank the minister for everything he's going to do in this space. He's got a big job and I commend him for it.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contributions to this debate, including the former Deputy Prime Minister for your mostly kind and very generous remarks, and also spend a moment to recognise the work that your daughter does amongst many hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country. I truly believe that our teachers do the most important job in this country, and I want to thank her and every teacher across the country for the work that they do.

This is a really important piece of legislation that we're debating here in the House today. This is a bill that will increase funding for public schools. As I said, when I introduced the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 a few weeks ago, education is the most powerful cause for good in this country, and public education, public schools, does most of that heavy lifting. At the moment, non-government schools are funded at the level that David Gonski set all those years ago or they're on track to get there or they're above it and coming back down to that level, but most public schools are not. This bill is about taking action to fix that, to close that existing funding gap, but it will also do something else. It will close the education gap that exists in this country, by tying that additional funding to important reforms.

As members will know, earlier this year, I signed an agreement with the Western Australian government's education minister, Tony Buti, that will see all public schools in Western Australia fully funded at that Gonski level by the start of 2026. That's now just over 12 months away. Since I introduced this bill a couple of weeks ago, I've now signed a bilateral agreement with Jo Palmer, the Minister for Education in Tasmania, that will do the same. That will see all public schools in Tasmania fully funded at that Gonski level by the start of 2026. Again, that's just over 12 months away. I was at Warrane Primary School in Hobart with Jo just a couple of weeks ago, where we signed that agreement. That's a classic example of Labor and coalition governments working together—forgetting about the politics and forgetting about the parties and focusing on what really matters here. This bill is necessary for us to be able to implement that agreement to be able to provide that additional funding.

This bill also enables us to honour the agreement that I've struck with the Northern Territory government that was signed with the former Labor Territory government and the former Northern Territory Minister for Education Mark Monaghan. I'm so glad to be able to inform this House that recently in the Territory parliament Jo Hersey, the new Minister for Education, has confirmed that the Country Liberal government in the Territory will honour that agreement. The former Deputy Prime Minister talked about the differential here and how this is designed to double Commonwealth funding to public schools in the Northern Territory. As he suggested, that's important and that's necessary if we're going to make sure that all public schools are fully funded across the country. At the moment, effectively one in five children in the Territory is not receiving any funding at all. The former Deputy Prime Minister talked about funding levels in Queensland. For the Territory it's below 80 per cent. So effectively one in five children is not being funded at all. This agreement, by doubling the amount of Commonwealth funding from 20 per cent to 40 per cent, helps to fix that. What it effectively does is bring forward the day that Territory public schools will be fully funded from 2050 to 2029. That's by more than 20 years. But we have to pass this legislation in order to do that—in order to make those additional payments and make that happen.

At the moment, the way the Australian Education Act works is that the Commonwealth government can provide a maximum of 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard, that standard that David Gonski set for public schools. What this bill does is turn that current maximum into a minimum. In other words, it turns the ceiling into a floor. It enables us to provide that additional funding and ratchet up funding for public schools. It means that when we, as a Commonwealth government, sign an agreement with a state or a territory government to increase funding to public schools that bigger Commonwealth share becomes the new floor for states and territories. In other words, it's locked in for good. It can't go backwards at the whim of a future government.

But it's not just about the money. It's not just about the additional funding that this bill enables. It's also about what that money is invested in. I've made it clear that the additional $16 billion that's available to provide additional funding to public schools, to all states and territories, is not a blank cheque. That money needs to be tied to real reform, like reforms intended to help turn around what I was talking about earlier in parliament today, which is the decline in the number of young people finishing high school. It's worth remembering this for a moment: the percentage of young people finishing high school in the last eight years has gone backwards from 85 per cent to 79 per cent, and in public schools it has fallen from 83 per cent to 73 per cent. When I found that out, it shocked me. Eighty-three per cent of young people in public schools finished high school back in 2017, and it's now 73 per cent. We've got to turn that around. It's more important than ever that more young people finish high school, because of the world we live in today and the world that will exist tomorrow, where more people will need more skills, whether that's from TAFE or university.

This funding in the agreements that I'm striking with the states and territories needs to be tied to the sorts of reforms that are going to help turn that around. That includes practical things like phonics checks and numeracy checks to identify children when they're really little, in kindy or year 1 or year 2, who are already falling behind. And then there are things like evidence based teaching and catch-up tutoring, identifying children that are behind really early, before they sit the first NAPLAN test in year 3. In early intervention, with things like catch-up tutoring, we know that, when it's done properly, if a child's behind in reading or in maths, if you take them out of a class of 30 into a class of three and you give them intensive support—it might be four days a week, 40 minutes at a time—they can learn as much in six months as they'd normally learn in 12 months. In other words, they catch up. You might think, 'Well, that's easy; that happens all the time.' But what we know is that most young people who are behind when they're little never catch up. If we can fix that, then we can turn around the decline in the number of young people finishing high school.

I also want to make sure that this money glows in the dark, and that's why this bill and the agreements that are linked to it strengthen reporting and public transparency requirements around how this extra funding is to be invested without placing additional burdens on schools or on teachers. The agreement includes a requirement for states and territories to outline how this additional money is going to be invested in those key reform areas that I just talked about. It also requires a new public reporting dashboard. The bill includes a new annual ministerial statement to this parliament where the education minister would be required to report on progress of the implementation of the school education reform agreements.

This goes to the second reading amendment by the Greens: it's important that this be a joint effort. The Greens' second reading amendment wants the Commonwealth to bear the entire burden of closing this funding gap. That ignores the way that funding of our public schools works and how it is a shared responsibility. I have consistently said since I got this job we need to fill and fix this gap and the way to do it is where the Commonwealth chips in more money and the states and territories have got to chip in more money as well. That's what WA has done, the Labor government there. That's what Tasmania has done, the Liberal government there. That's what the Northern Territory government has done as well. It's worth us just remembering here, when we contemplate how we close this gap and how we fix this funding gap, that, yes, we've doubled the money for the Northern Territory but the Northern Territory is going to chip in an extra six per cent as well. That's the way that we do this.

The member for Mackellar had a second reading amendment, and I want to thank her for her contribution to the debate. I agreed with a lot of what she had to say. I've said earlier in this debate that there is no more powerful cause for good in this country than what our education system does. I think that we have a good education system in this country, but the truth is it can be a lot better and it can be a lot fairer.

Making that a reality is what drives me in this job, and that's why there are equity targets built into the national agreement. It's why, in the agreements that I've struck with WA, Tasmania and the NT, we want to see funding go to the most disadvantaged schools first. It's why this funding is linked to practical reforms that are designed to help children who fall behind to catch up and to keep up. Guess what? They are overwhelmingly, disproportionately children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I don't want us to be a country where your chances in life depend on who your mum and dad are or where you live or the colour of your skin. But the sad reality is that we are today. If you look at our higher education system, our school education system or our early education system, you can see evidence of that. Almost one in two young people today have a university degree, but not everywhere. There is an underrepresentation at university of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. If you look at the evidence of who completes school, fewer young people from disadvantaged backgrounds finish school than children from more advantaged backgrounds. I go back to the point I made about children falling behind when they're little. Overwhelmingly, it's young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The evidence is clear even before school begins. The Productivity Commission report that I released a few weeks ago told us that it's the most disadvantaged kids in our country, the children that don't see a book until they start school, that are the least likely to go to early education and care and the most likely to benefit from it. Everything that I'm trying to do as education minister is about this, about fixing this.

That's what this agreement is all about. The reforms that funding is tied to and the targets that are in that agreement are about helping those young people who need additional support and making sure that they get it.

I also want to thank the member for Curtin for her contribution to this debate. She has a second reading amendment, and it relates to transparency and accountability. Transparency, as I said in my remarks a moment ago, is important as well, and I want to note that her second reading amendment emphasises the importance of transparency and accountability. As I said earlier, the provisions of this bill will give greater oversight in relation to Commonwealth investment in schools and the implementation of reforms. It's about making our education system better and fairer and about building a country where, as the Prime Minister often says, no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. At its core, that's what public education is all about. It's what it has always been about, and it's what this bill is about.

I thank all members for their contribution to this important debate and for their support for this important legislation.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill now be read a second time, to which the honourable member for Ryan has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. Subsequent amendments have been moved by honourable members. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Curtin be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Ryan be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.