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

I will deal with the amendments first while we seek to see whether we can answer the specifics of Senator Collins's question. There is obviously a fundamental difference in that the Labor Party's outlook in relation to school funding by the national government is that it is perfectly reasonable for a national government to decide to favour one state or territory over another state or territory in the way in which the funding applies to that state or territory.

The view the Turnbull government has taken is that, as the national government, we ought to treat each of the states and territories in an equitable manner according to their individual needs. We think that is a perfectly fair and reasonable approach. It is what happens in relation to areas such as funding for hospital operations and the like, where, under an efficient pricing methodology, the Commonwealth funds about 45 per cent of the cost of hospital services and the state and territory governments fund the remainder. In this case, it is reflective of the fact that Commonwealth involvement in the funding of state and territory government schools has been increasing over the years. Not that far back it was close to single digits. At the start of the coalition government around 13 per cent of the cost of government schools was contributed by the federal government. That has moved up to about 17 per cent, and the legislation we are passing tonight will take that to 20 per cent, within six years, consistently across the country. What we expect is that we will see consistency of treatment by the federal government across the different states and territories, ensuring, therefore, that Western Australians will no longer receive a raw deal.

The logic that was applied by the previous government was: if a state government has decided to invest more in its schools, we will give it less; if a state government has decided to invest less in its schools, we will give it more. That was a profoundly flawed logic in terms of the types of incentives that it created. These amendments are—amazingly, astoundingly—even more flawed than what the previous government had sought to do. Yes, these amendments seek to put in place a 95 per cent overall funding requirement, but the consequence of these amendments is that, if a state or territory is not providing a share—pick a number—the Commonwealth will provide the remainder, the entire remainder. I am advised that this would mean that, from 2019 onwards—for all schools except those in Victoria, because the Labor Party continues to treat states differently, so Victoria comes in in 2022—if a state government withdrew its funding, the federal government would simply have to top it up to get to 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard. So it removes all responsibility from the states and territories. Previously the Labor Party had sought a situation where there was minimal responsibility on states and territories and reward for those who underfunded. Now they are proposing a situation where there is virtually zero responsibility.

Of course, that is not completely inconsistent with what applied under the old act. Indeed, there was nothing under the act as it stands, until this Senate and this parliament, hopefully, amends it, for the Commonwealth to take action should a state or territory government reduce their level of funding. In fact, circumstances that the previous government put in place were that, as a state or territory approached 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard, if that occurred somewhere, there was a built-in incentive for that state or territory government to keep funding below 100 per cent because, that way, their rate of federal funding would grow faster each and every year into the future than if they triggered that 100 per cent assessment.

They are some of the fundamental flaws of the old approach of the previous government and of the approach in these amendments that really do remove the legislative requirements and the legislative expectation that states and territories will pull their weight for what is, of course, their constitutional responsibility. In terms of the question that you asked, Senator Collins, I am advised that the answer to that is around 67.6 per cent.