Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to say a couple of things in response to Senator Di Natale's question. Firstly, that question was asked last night in the Senate committee stage. At that time I made clear that such issues were not raised in negotiations with Senator Hanson during discussions about this legislation. In fact, Senator Hanson and I had discussions about a range of issues, as she has noted, in relation to teacher quality. We discussed, indeed, the application of the nationally consistent collection of data on students with disability, and in that we did discuss students with autism, but at no time in such discussions did Senator Hanson suggest that students with autism should not be in mainstream schools. At no time did she suggest to me that we should not be pursuing, wherever possible, inclusive policies.

Senator Hanson was interested to understand how the NCCD process works, and I am also very pleased to tell the Senate that, as a result of the amendments just passed in relation to disability funding, the investment in support for students with disability and their families will increase from an estimated $20.6 billion over the next decade to some $21.2 billion over the next decade. That is, of course, a $600 million increase on what was already a very significant increase in support for students with disability.

Of course, one of the important features of using the nationally consistent collection of data on students with disability, one of the very important features, is that students are identified in their school, by their school, based on the level of adjusted assistance that is required for those students. In relation to something like autism and its impact in a school environment, it is widely appreciated—I am sure particularly by you, Senator Di Natale—that there are students who have different levels of adjustment and need different levels of support. The NCCD process will allow schools to differentiate and then receive different levels of support reflective of the different needs of those students with autism, just as it is reflective of the different needs of students with disability overall.

I do hope that provides clarity and context to discussions, also to how the support for students with disability will operate in relation to this legislation. As I indicated in the Senate today, the government is very committed to ensuring the NCCD process works. We are very committed to ensuring that schools around Australia meet their obligations under the national disability standards. We are very committed to making sure those disability standards keep up with the expectations and rights of students with disability. We are very committed to all of that because we know that extra resources and support—and better targeted support, under the NCCD arrangements—will enable schools and teachers to respond and ensure the right classrooms and resources are available to support students of all needs and in all environments to have an inclusive and successful education.

With those remarks, Chair, I do want to move on. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GX158 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 23), after item 49, insert:

49A Section 6

Insert:

school education reform agreement has the meaning given by subsection 22A(6).

State -Territory contribution amount has the meaning given by subsection 22A(2).

(2) Schedule 1, item 60, page 20 (lines 17 to 22), omit section 22A, substitute:

22A Conditions of financial assistance—State -Territory contributions

(1) A payment of financial assistance under this Act to a State or Territory is subject to the following conditions:

(a) the total amount of funding provided by the State or Territory for a year for government schools located in the State or Territory must equal or exceed the State-Territory contribution amount for government schools in the State or Territory for the year;

(b) the total amount of funding provided by the State or Territory for a year for non-government schools located in the State or Territory must equal or exceed the State-Territory contribution amount for non-government schools in the State or Territory for the year.

(2) The State-Territory contribution amount for government schools or non-government schools in a State or Territory for a year is the amount worked out using the following formula:

State-Territory share for the State or Territory x Total SRS amount for the State or Territory

(3) Unless the State or Territory's school education reform agreement specifies otherwise, the State-Territory share for the State or Territory for a year from 2018 to 2023 (inclusive) is the percentage worked out using the following formula:

where:

final State -Territory share means the State-Territory share (within the meaning of subsection (4)) for government schools or non-government schools, as the case requires, for the State or Territory for a year after 2023.

starting State -Territory share means the percentage prescribed by the regulations for the year for government schools or non-government schools, as the case requires, in the State or Territory.

transition rate means:

(a) for 2018—0%; and

(b) for each later year—the transition rate for the previous year increased by 20 percentage points.

(4) Unless the State or Territory's school education reform agreement specifies otherwise, the State-Territory share for the State or Territory for a year after 2023:

(a) for government schools is:

  (i) if the starting State-Territory share (within the meaning of subsection (3)) for the State or Territory for government schools is 75% or less—75%; or

  (ii) if the starting State-Territory share for the State or Territory for government schools is more than 75% but less than 80%—the starting State-Territory share; or

  (iii) if the starting State-Territory share for the State or Territory for government schools is 80% or more—80%; and

(b) for non-government schools is:

  (i) if the starting State-Territory share for the State or Territory for non-government schools is 15% or less—15%; or

  (ii) if the starting State-Territory share for the State or Territory for non-government schools is more than 15% but less than 20%—the starting State-Territory share; or

  (iii) if the starting State-Territory share for the State or Territory for non-government schools is 20% or more—20%.

(5) The total SRS amount for the State or Territory is:

(a) for government schools—the sum of the amounts worked out under Division 2 of Part 3 for the year for each government school located in the State or Territory, as if the Commonwealth share for the year were 100%; and

(b) for non-government schools—the sum of the amounts worked out under Division 2 of Part 3 for the year for each non-government school located in the State or Territory, as if the Commonwealth share for the year were 100%.

(6) The school education reform agreement for a State or Territory is the agreement between the State or Territory and the Commonwealth relating to implementation by the State or Territory of school education reform mentioned in paragraph 22(2) (b).

These amendments relate to state and territory contributions. As I have indicated to the Senate numerous times recently and indeed in public debate, one of the key features that the Turnbull government sought to put in place with the bill that it has brought to the parliament was some means for the Commonwealth to hold state and territory governments accountable for at least maintaining their real share of funding and investment into the future to at least ensure that state and territory governments could not do as some of them have done in the past, which was to take increased Commonwealth dollars with one hand and pocket them with the other. When state and territory governments did that, it provided no net benefit to students or schools; it simply provided a benefit to the bottom line of those stat budgets, which was contrary to the intent of the governments, be they Labor or coalition, making that increased investment. So we put in place those provisions.

There was constructive engagement of those on the crossbench, including those who wanted to hold and make sure they held different players in state and territory governments to account and wanted to make sure that, with the Commonwealth government moving towards the consistent application of a share of schooling resource standard across all states and territories, there was some means to reflect the fact that some states do more to pay that full schooling resource standard than do other states.

I look around the country and know that, with 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard to be provided to government schools from the federal government, Western Australia on its current contributions and the ACT will exceed 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard for those government sectors. We know that Tasmania will virtually meet 100 per cent, that South Australia will come close to 95 per cent—the target set by the previous Labor government—but that then it drops away across some of the other states and territories. The amendment put before us today seeks to put in place a means of holding the states somewhat to account to reach that 95 per cent target for all of them, to put in place a capability for the minister of the day, if the states do not put in increases alongside the increasing Commonwealth contributions, to look at the level of Commonwealth contribution and ensure that it is more proportionate to that state or territory if they believe that the scale of contribution required is in fact not as great as the schooling resource standard would dictate.

These measures should be viewed as an incentive mechanism. They do set into the legislation very clearly a target, and that target is very clear for all to see: achieving 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard across the board. Equally, they do provide capacity for us to negotiate with the states and territories about the achievement of that target and to set terms around that via regulation following those negotiations. I commend the amendments to the Senate. I again note that they were developed in part out of the processes of the Senate inquiry, out of the advocacy of various stakeholders both in and out of this place and particularly out of the work of some elements of the crossbench.