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

I will now move to the next batch of our amendments, which deal with the issues around the removal of sector-specific targets—the 80 per cent/20 per cent approach the government has shifted to. Indeed, there is a bit of repetition here as well, which I think is the issue we encountered earlier in relation to the objects of the bill. I seek leave to move amendments (1), (3), (5), (11), (17) and (19) together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Schedule 1 , item 1 , page 3 (lines 4 to 10) , omit the item.

(3) Schedule 1 , page 3 (after line 13) , after item 2, insert:

2A Section 6

Insert:

overall funding , for a school for a year, is the total of:

(a) the school' s total entitlement for the year; and

(b) any recurrent funding for the school for the year from a State or Territory, other than:

(i) financial assistance provided to the State or Territory for the school under this Act; or

(ii) capital funding.

(5) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 15) to page 8 (line 18) , omit the item.

(11) Schedule 1 , page 13 (after line 27) , after item 42 , insert:

42A After subsection 130(5)

Insert:

Regulations prescribing Commonwealth share

(6) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of the definition of Commonwealth share in section 6 in relation to:

(a) a school located in Victoria in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2022; or

(b) a school located in another State or Territory in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2019;

the Minister must be satisfied, having regard to the combined contributions of the Commonwealth and the State or Territory, that the regulation has the effect that the overall funding for the school for the year is at least 95% of the total of:

(c) the base amount for the school for the year; and

(d) the school' s total loading for the year.

(17) Schedule 1 , item 47 , page 17 (lines 19 to 21) , omit "Not all schools will attract the final Commonwealth share immediately. Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".

(19) Schedule 1 , item 71 , page 22 (lines 5 and 6) , omit "Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".

-------

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (3) and (11)

Amendments (3) and (11) are framed as requests because together these amendments would be likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 from 1 January 2019.

Amendment (3) inserts in section 6 of the Act a definition of “overall funding” for a school year as the total of both the school’s “total entitlement” under the Act and the recurrent funding from a State or Territory.

Amendment (11) would constrain an existing regulation-making power, to set the “Commonwealth share” of funding, to circumstances where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose of the regulation will be to ensure that “overall funding” for a school for the year is at least 95% of both the base funding amount and the school’s total loading for the year.

From 2019 onwards (or 2022 for Victorian schools), this requirement is likely to increase the amount of Commonwealth funding under the standing appropriation in order to attain this funding target. As a result, the amendments are likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013.

Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)

Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) are consequential on amendments (3) and (11). Amendments (1) and (5) omit provisions proposed by the Bill which would alter the method for calculating the “Commonwealth share” of funding to schools. Amendments (17) and (19) omit references to schools transitioning to the final Commonwealth share of funding over 10 years, as schools will likely transition to this share from 2019 ( or 2022 for Victorian schools) . Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) should therefore be moved as requests.

-------

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (3) and (11)

If the effect of amendments (3) and (11) is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.

Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)

These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as requests.

The government's bill entrenches a discriminatory distribution of funding by prescribing sector-specific targets of 80 per cent of the SRS for non-government schools and 20 per cent of the SRS for public schools, fundamentally opposite to the review of the funding of schooling objective of a sector-blind model. In fact, it is quite sector specific. There is no reason for the arbitrary decision to fund just 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard for public schools and 80 per cent for non-government schools. That is not what the Gonski review recommended.

The government's funding model provides a majority of extra funding for the non-government sector despite the public sector educating the majority of educationally disadvantaged children. This was clearly detailed in the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham's media release on the day of the announcement. The government's target of 80 per cent of private schools in 2027 and 20 per cent for public schools in 2027 has no requirement for states or territories to ever increase their funding. The crossbench, in Gonski 2.0-plus, has somewhat attempted to deal with that issue but we have already covered that territory.

The government's funding model will result in 85 per cent of public schools being funded below their SRS target in 2027, some 15 years after the original review of funding for schooling. So given the discussion about the original six-year transition, the subsequent 10-year proposed transition in Gonski 2.0 and now a six-year transition, we do indeed need to be reminded that the war in school funding has led to a scenario where, some 15 years after the original review of the funding of schooling, we still will have only 85 per cent of public schools there. It is a serious reflection on how inadequately this political process has dealt with these issues.

Even after 10 years, the Northern Territory, which is having its funding cut in real terms, would reach just 85.8 per cent of its fair funding level. Victoria would be funded at just 85 per cent of its fair funding level. New South Wales and Queensland would reach just 90 per cent of their fair funding level. And South Australia would remain underfunded at 93.6 per cent of its fair funding level.

Teachers, parents and school communities do not care whether their funding comes from the Commonwealth or the state government. Most of them do not understand the complexity—indeed 'the wicked complexity' as one witness claims—of this system. But what they do care about is that their school has enough funding to provide a fine quality education for all children. By moving to a Commonwealth-only model that does not take into consideration state funding, children will never receive the same funding no matter which state they live in.

We are calling on the Senate to enshrine the 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard as the target, but, as I have said, that was covered in the previous amendment. In this case, we are seeking to revert back to the combined funding approach that was going to deliver, especially for children in public schools. On that note, I would ask a further question relating to the earlier question I asked about what share of additional funding went to public schools. My question is: of the extra $4.9 billion for the six-year transition, rather than the 10-year transition, how much of that additional funding, which has been achieved in the negotiations with the crossbench, goes to public schools, and what proportion of that additional funding will, under these arrangements, under this shift to a Commonwealth-only share, go to non-government schools?