Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased that we have been able to commence with the minister with us now, so that I can get directly to some very important points. I do not have the precise time, but very, very recently the government tabled some amendments. My first question to the minister will be: is this it? Are these all the amendments that are due to appear, or is there a further sheet of amendments that is yet to arrive? The reason that I ask that question is that there has been so much speculation about what this debate may involve, and so little real information. There was even the question I asked earlier to the minister after question time about the order of production of documents. That was due, eventually, to be tabled, but that regular process was interrupted by the lengthy debate around the hours motion as we dealt with our concerns about the fact that we were being asked to establish hours to deal with this debate, without even an understanding of what the matter was before us. I have raised this same point with senators who have been involved in some discussions with the government . I will be very specific, because I know the minister needs us to be very specific on these issues. So far we have circulated for the government GX158, GX160 and GX167.

Obviously, we have had very little time to analyse those, but, on a very cursory analysis, they certainly do not seem to be the full monty. There are many other issues, including faster transition arrangements for government schools to reach better funding levels—although still, quite probably, not anywhere near the student resource standard, because there is no capacity to commit states in this process—but the full monty I am referring to here is this supposed moratorium that has been canvassed. What is unclear is what that moratorium actually relates to. Figures were circulated in the press overnight, and this seems to be the government's preferred mode of operating: 'Let's leak stories into the press rather than provide the public or the parliament with adequate information to assess a matter.' Overnight we saw stories, and the first one suggested, if I recall correctly, a one-year accommodation that was worth $62 million. Then today there was another story circulating, talking about an accommodation that was worth $50 million. So the crux of the matter, minister, is: what is the real deal? I am hoping that, rather than at midnight tonight or midnight tomorrow night, we might actually get to a stage of understanding what is in this bill.

So, what is the real deal and, of course, what is a special deal? That is a particular question that I would like the minister to answer, because, for even longer than the last seven weeks—if you go back to the lead-up of his campaign, going to his two case studies before the ministerial council—he has been telling us that he was going to have a consistent standard across Australia: his pure, one-size-fits-all model. That is what was going to be going forward, and then any other arrangements that might have been put in place under Gonski 1 involved special or, as I have quoted before—the former minister, Christopher Pyne—special dirty deals.

Well, now the government is back-pedalling, it seems. Maybe some of my colleagues on the other side, such as Senator Back, have been able to convince the government that they were never special deals. But special deals is what the minister has told us consistently. It is what he told us through estimates. It is what he has told us in answers to questions in this place time and time again. And it seems, according to the media that has been circulating—because that is all we really have to operate by—that what he previously couched as special deals are no longer special deals.

Now, I do not take credit myself. I know we have been pointing out to the government for some time now why certain matters were structured in certain ways, why there was a need for a review of the SES model and how indeed it was Mr Gonski's review that recommended that it should occur somewhat urgently. And time and time again the minister has argued otherwise. Indeed, we even had to have a correction from the department, because they tied themselves in knots trying to defend this minister on the fraudulent claims that were being made about the SES measure. So, the department tried to argue in the committee inquiry into this bill that indeed the SES measure had been adjusted and revised. That reflected earlier public comments that the minister had made in the media—or at least that he was reported as having made; maybe it was a spokesman. But at that point in time the government was arguing that it had been revised. And we know that was false. We know that the department needed to make a correction and that whilst they did not ultimately admit the consequence of that correction, the consequence was that the minister's claims were wrong; the SES measure had not been adjusted in the way that was claimed. It had never been taken down to the mesh blocks that had been suggested in the Gonski review, and that work still was urgently required.

Of course we have also heard the minister claiming that the Gonski review did not recommend that, until such time as that urgent review of the SES model occurred, systems should still be assessed as systems and a system weighted average calculation should continue to apply. No: instead, what this minister did in this bill was remove that arrangement, call it a special deal—even though it was an arrangement recommended very clearly in the Gonski review—and then, secondly, make further changes to the capacity to contribute arrangements for non-government primary schools. And remember, this is not a special deal for Catholics here; this was an arrangements for all school systems.

That is why in the committee inquiry—glossed over in the government's report—there were Lutherans, Anglicans and a range of other school systems saying that the impact of these changes was going to damage them as well. So while the minister is standing up there saying that there is growth for—as an example—independent schools, the 4.7 per cent over 10 years, what that glosses over is that there are school systems within even independent schools that were losing out over these changes. What is even worse is that this minister had in place a 10-year transition, he would have you believe. The capacity to contribute changes and the system weighted average changes were going to impact in full in 2018—in full, no transition, no accommodation. We have been told by the systems that have been asking this question—contrary to the non-answer that I got in the legislation inquiry—that systems have been told they would have no access to the adjustment funds. Perhaps that is the second question that the minister could clarify. Will systems have access to the transition adjustment funds, or is it designed specifically for another special group? But, of course, we do not have special groups, or so the minister would have us believe, now that he has done yet another backflip on how he is proceeding here.

So the next question that I would have related to that one is: what will happen, if, indeed, we do eventually see amendments—or maybe they are in front of me and I have not been able to digest them properly yet—that do adjust the system weighted average arrangements and that do deal with the capacity to contribute measure? If we do revert back to the full existing model arrangements, as some media commentary has suggested—and maybe for the purposes of these discussions I will call that the 'full Monty moratorium'—if we do get a full Monty moratorium, what will happen to systems such as the Anglican system? I cannot recall which state, but there is one system that has been seeking the minister to acknowledge them as a system. I have been told they have been waiting for 12 months. So, Senator Back, here is an interesting example of a case at point. We have a system that had an application before the minister to be recognised as a system, like their brothers and sisters in other states, and the minister refused to act upon it. He can correct me if my information is not accurate, but where does that system sit now? Are they inside or outside? Is it the full Monty moratorium, or is it something less? If it is something less, then what is the impact of not fully preserving the arrangements that Gonski recommended should be put in place? That is one question.

The next question is, as I have said: what about schools that are wanting to operate as systems? There are actually some educational benefits for encouraging and facilitating schools to operate as systems, not only issues like economy of scale but also issues like improving pedagogy and a range of other factors that we know work better. Indeed, that is why the Grattan Institute has been telling us for decades that there are very good things about how low-fee Catholic systemic schools operate. They produce very good outcomes, and that is why I am pleased that Senator Back has been fighting to preserve their capacity to continue to operate in that fashion. Why on earth, under a claim of 'We're going to improve Australian education for Australian school children', would we attack or compromise what we know works?

I will be listening intently to the minister when he is able to answer: do we have the full Monty moratorium? Does it include both the system weighted average arrangements that currently exist? And does it remove from this bill the capacity to contribute changes that we know are going to be so damaging to parish Catholic primary schools, amongst others? There are Lutheran schools and Anglican schools. They have all told us the same thing. So when the minister has a chance to answer that and direct me to the precise provisions in the amendments that have only just been circulated, I will be very pleased to see those.

Before I go into a range of other matters, I will return to how proposed changes might impact on government schools, because that is probably the most fundamental principle here—the funds that will not flow to Australian public schools and that will not ensure that Australian public schools get anywhere near the government's student resource standard.

The point that I have been making consistently over the last day or so is the point that the shadow minister has been making in the House as well. This is what is missed by most of the commentators that say, 'Oh, but there is more money here.' It is the proportion of that money that goes to public schools that is the issue here. That is the fundamental issue about why Gonski 2 is not a real Gonski. We have ended up with a situation under Gonski 2—it may be adjusted, and that is a further question for the minister—where only 50 per cent of the additional money goes to public schools, whereas under Gonski 1 80 per cent of it did. Indeed, we have a settlement across all sectors about that. (Time expired)