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

Thank you, Senator O'Neill—$46.5 million was the figure. Senator Back, I understand your good faith in this, but, because I am not really sure there has been a fair characterisation of the nature of some of the lobbying or consultations that have occurred here, I want to bring to the attention of senators—and remind anyone listening to this debate about—reports that have consistently been in the media about what the full value of preserving the arrangements that were established under the act would be. I can take you back, for instance, to a report by Tim Dodd on 8 May this year, where he highlights:

… whatever the motive, the impact is that a large, non-government school system—and the Catholic system is the only large one—gets a significant advantage from using the system weighted average. It's currently worth about $80 million extra a year …

Remember, this is in 2017 terms, and the estimates about what that provision provides going forward across 10 years—as Senator O'Neill and I have communicated to you—grows to about $100 million to $150 million a year. This is why yesterday I said I was pleased that you have achieved some improvements, but it is not what the Catholic education system was fully seeking when they were talking about a review of the SES and the maintenance of existing circumstances until the occurs.

Because, earlier today when I asked the minister for figures that would demonstrate that difference to the Senate—he still has not provided them—he said they are interconnected. The system weighted average issue is connected to the formula used to calculate capacity to contribute, and that is connected to the SES. So, for the minister to respond to you, Senator Back, by only partly addressing that and maintaining the provisions in the bill that change the capacity-to-contribute formula, he puts the cart before the horse. He is making a unilateral change with no genuine policy basis because it produces savings. That is what he is doing. As I said, the estimate for 2017 is probably $78 million. It is about $2 million less than what was reported by Tim Dodd back in early May. This is not new information. It is not new issues that the Catholic education system has come forward with. It is an interconnection between those two factors that have been informed and understood in the canvassing of this issue for some time now.

Senator Back, I think all of us will be genuinely grateful that you have succeeded in closing that gap a bit over half. As you said in your comments a moment ago in your responses to archbishops and others, 'Sure, there will be damage in terms of the system'—I think I am quoting you accurately. That is true, and we should not pretend otherwise. There will be damage because this moratorium that was canvassed is not a full preservation of existing arrangements under the model, and I do not think we should pretend otherwise. I do not mean any disrespect to you in highlighting that point, but I think it indicates a lack of faith by this minister in his dealings with stakeholders. He has been operating the executive by leaking material to the press about what he is doing in a very inaccurate fashion. You have talked about the advice you would have given about the fantasy figures and the school funding estimator. Unfortunately, the minister has not been prepared to give any assurances about not maintaining that arrangement. He has not satisfied anyone following the detail of this debate about how he could rebase the figure for 2017 on a formula that will never apply to 2017. I am still quite embarrassed for the Department of Education and Training, because I think the approach he has taken has compromised their credibility, and I think it leaves the Public Service in a very poor position. Indeed, it may well be well something I take up with the Public Service Commissioner.

We may have argued today that we should have a schools resourcing body and that maybe that will help us remove the politics out of how some of these issues are managed. This is indeed reflected in the amendments we are dealing with here. How these matters have been conducted is no reflection on you, Senator Back. You have operated with the highest integrity every step of the way, but, unfortunately, this minister has not satisfied your demands. I know that you have got the best that you believe you will be able to get—and that is quite a legitimate position to reach—but I would encourage you, if you want to demonstrate to all that you understand how the capacity-to-contribute arrangements and the existing model apply, to support our amendments that would preserve the existing capacity-to-contribute arrangements in the act. Frankly, Senator Back, I am not hugely confident of those amendments because I know the Greens party has a different position on them. But, if you want to indicate to this government and to this minister that you do understand that there has been poor faith in their dealings, that is how I would demonstrate that point. We will be coming to those amendments later.

Before we come to those amendments, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the broader interest of the community at large that there has been in the consideration of this bill. Whilst the committee stage process has been contracted, and we are here now at this hour, the number of letters and emails coming in expressing messages, clarifying points and expressing support for the principle position that a number of people have taken in this debate is something I have not experienced in the past.

Yesterday we had representatives of independent schools in the gallery. Today we have a slightly different story here to the usual. We have the Barnardos Mother of the Year in the gallery, because she is concerned and interested in how this legislation is progressing. Selina, I welcome you to observing this debate and understanding how the Senate is highlighting the issues that have not been properly canvassed in the minister's selective representation of school funding to the community at large. I know that Selina Walker understands how the Catholic education system operates and the sort of co-responsibility that Senator Back was referring to before. She understands, as Senator Lambie did, how that co-responsibility works and assists many Australian families—so much so that in that her case she organised forums here in the ACT to bring parents together to highlight the point.

More importantly, I think, contributing to this debate is a mother who understands the education of children and the importance of the unique Australian education system, a system that currently accommodates low-fee non-government schools doing a great job and in many areas doing the only job. The point that I made before about the nature of our school education system—Senator Williams will be interested in this—is that in some regional and remote areas the Catholic parish school is the only school. In many places they and the public school work closely together with their local communities, and they essentially meet the accessible, affordable education needs of that whole community.

This is what you understand, Senator Back, and Selina Walker understands is being compromised by this minister pushing through new fee arrangements in the model. What this minister is saying to parents in low-fee non-government schools is, 'Under our model we now expect you to pay more.' If the SES model is reviewed and a more appropriate formula is put in place, in another 12 months that might help preserve the cliff that happens next year. The Catholic education systems may be able to absorb the shock of some of that change until such time as that review occurs.

But we do not know how effectively those school communities will be able to absorb that shock. The minister has not done the modelling; he has not provided us with the information; all we know is that he is persisting in changing the capacity-to-contribute formula in the model despite ongoing reports and requests from stakeholders across the board. In persisting to do that he is not meeting the commitment that he gave that he would continue existing arrangements for low-fee parish Catholic primary schools. They are going to get a whack in the next financial year unless this Senate agrees to withdraw those provisions from the bill and meet the good faith that senators such as Senator Back and Senator Lambie and others have injected into the discussions here and the minister actually does what he said he would do.