Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy for some of these questions to be taken on notice. A concern has been put to me in relation to how some schools receive funding. There has been some controversy in relation to some schools. I go to the Sunday Age report that some Brethren schools in New South Wales and South Australia receive category 12 funding despite not meeting the criteria. There is a concern about the transparency of that process and whether other schools that would arguably be needier on the basis of objective criteria are missing out on funding because of the way that some schools have been able to access funding. I want to make it clear that I am not exclusively referring to the Exclusive Brethren. There has been a proliferation of these sorts of schools and there is a concern about the transparency mechanisms.

The other issue, to the minister, is whether the Gonski review has received submissions in relation to these sorts of concerns. I understand that the minister, the honourable Mr Garrett, cannot direct the review, quite properly, as to what to look at. But is the minister aware whether the Gonski review will be looking at these concerns, which I think are quite legitimate public concerns, about the use of public funds in this way?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. I think there are actually two issues there rather than, as you have described them, the issues around schools such as the Brethren schools that were in the weekend’s media. The issues are those that were partly referred to by Senator Hanson-Young as a component of the review, which is how well the current mechanisms operate in allocating schools into different categories. But I think the issue that you are also raising is whether some schools have inappropriately been categorised. I will take advice from the department on that second point, but I want you to understand that it is an issue at both those levels that you are raising.

On the issues around the Gonski review I might also need to take advice on whether perhaps the second component of what I have described as the query you have made has actually been before the committee. Certainly the first has, because it is all of the issues around the SES model and funding maintained schools and funding guaranteed schools, but the second one as to whether the current mechanism is inappropriately categorising schools is one that I would need to take some advice on, which I will briefly do now.

Senator Xenophon, it seems as if the Brethren schools may actually be funding maintained schools, in which case, yes, it is an element of the existing system rather than a mis-categorisation of the schools. I suppose you could say it is an issue of the integrity of the system. So, it is the first of those—that our current system with all of its flaws, issues and problems is generating the problems that are occurring with the Brethren schools. They are getting too much funding in the sense that that is what the current system allows for because it is a very complex and complicated system. This is one of the issues.

It may help this debate a bit if I paint the broader context. The government’s transparency agenda is determined to deal with these issues and highlight these issues and difficulties so that the Gonski review is able to address them. With our transparency agenda via My School, we have been able to spark these debates at a very welcome time because it is as the Gonski review is occurring. This is one of the reasons why the government is determined to have the My School 2 information out and available during the Gonski review process so that we would be able to have an open, transparent and public debate about the anomalies that exist under the very complex existing funding arrangements.

At this point in time I feel assured that the issues raised around the Brethren schools are indeed the system rather than the integrity of the system, if you understand that distinction. But I will still take it on notice to confirm that issue. As I understand it, it is the current mechanism that is generating those anomalies, and the Gonski review is most certainly looking at those problems.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Collins for her answer on behalf of the government. A media report going back almost three years, Michael Bachelard article—and I understand there have been similar, more recent articles—states:

Federal school funding documents show that the Brethren’s multi-campus NSW school, Meadowbank, and the South Australian school, Melrose Park, were funded at the same rate as “special schools”, giving them the same per-student funding as Nyangatjatjara College, in the Northern Territory, the Giant Steps school for autistic students and schools for the hearing-impaired.

The allegation has been made that the Exclusive Brethren’s MET School at Meadowbank does not meet the criteria for category 12 funding. It is in suburban Sydney, it has small class sizes and is financially supported by a community that boasts it has no poverty. I think it is extraordinary that a school for autistic students is getting the same level of taxpayer funded assistance as a school with a community which seems to be in a much better financial position—in fact, they boast that they have no poverty and I pay tribute to the Exclusive Brethren for that.

If I could refer the minister to a very good report, dated November 2010, of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee and, in particular, to the recommendation of government senators:

Government senators recommend that in the interests of transparency, accountability and facilitating meaningful comparisons, the My School website capture full disclosure of financial assets. Those schools who do not agree to this requirement should not receive public funding.

Can Senator Collins indicate what the government’s position is in relation to that? Will it be on the agenda down the track as a result of the Gonski review?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we need to, in part, separate the government’s transparency agenda from the Gonski review issue per se. The minister has been quite clear in saying that the My School website is an evolving process. We have made some very significant steps in getting the level and amount of information on My School 2 which is currently available. My impression is that the community is still digesting what is presently available. Some of the indications seem to be that even for parents some of what is presently available is complex and difficult to interpret. In response, I would say that the My School website is an evolving process. We have not ruled out dealing with assets in the future, but I cannot say at this time that we have a clear position or commitment to actually proceed. As I said, we are currently digesting the level of financial information that is currently available on My School 2 and the government will continue to review how we provide further information not only for parents but for schools, the school communities and educators so that we can move this system closer towards excellence.

On the asset side, Senator Xenophon, you gave some information about a Sydney Exclusive Brethren school. That information, in part, is no surprise to me or to the government. We are aware of these anomalies in the existing system. That is what both this transparency process and the Gonski review are designed to deal with. My advice a moment ago was that those issues arise out of the former government’s ‘funding maintained’ status, which is indeed being addressed within the Gonski review.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to the minister for that answer. Does that mean that what has happened in the past in terms of funding will not necessarily happen in the future? I think that is an acknowledgement by Senator Collins. Given the very moderate and modest recommendation of government senators, which simply said, ‘With respect to transparency, you need to publish what your assets are,’ is the government concerned that there could be schools that have an enormous asset base receiving the same sort of funding as funding received by schools in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory or the Giant Steps school for autistic students? Is that on the government’s agenda for it to consider?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I have a few extra comments I can make in relation to what you have asked just now and previously. We have indeed made one announcement in relation to assets that I should bring to your attention where the minister has indicated that we will publish assets for MCEETYA to consider. In terms of how we proceed with respect to information around assets, that will be considered by state and federal ministers. There is obviously a concern about how we deal with assets within the overall funding picture. That is certainly a consideration within the Gonski review process. But the government has yet to respond to this committee report that you are referring to, so I cannot pre-empt in any further detail what the government may say in response to those recommendations.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate that I am grateful to the government for their response to this, but I think it is a real issue. There is real concern that there are non-government schools and government schools that are struggling and are incredibly needy, that do not have the asset base of some of these schools that are getting these enormous levels of funding, millions of dollars of taxpayers’ funds—the Exclusive Brethren school is a particular example of that—and they are missing out.

Finally, can I indicate this so that everyone is given fair notice. I am sure that, as a result of the Gonski review, there will be some legislative changes. I would be surprised if there were not. But sometime next year, once the review is over and dealt with, if the government does not do it, I will put up an amendment that is consistent with the government senators’ recommendation in terms of transparency. I hope I will not have to do that. I hope the government will embrace the recommendations of its own senators in relation to transparency in funding.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator Xenophon, the evolution, which I have separated from the Gonski review, may well have occurred by the time we are dealing with the government’s response to the Gonski review next year. So the government’s evolving process of transparency may well indeed have dealt with that matter. I would also like to offer Senator Xenophon a more detailed briefing about how both the transparency agenda and the Gonski review process are moving at this stage. It is probably appropriate that I not go into too much detail around that here and now. But the government is more than happy to sit down with you or your staff and go through the detail of that.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to ask the minister whether a delay in the implementation of a national curriculum that I flagged in my contribution to the second reading debate would have any effect on the commencement of this bill, due on 31 January 2012 for government schools.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you bear with me for a moment, Senator Mason, I will go to my speaking points that were designed to deal with your amendment and might assist you in that question. We oppose the amendment because we do not believe that that issue is significant. I am aware that the dates need to be aligned, but it requires consultation with those affected.

On 8 December 2010 all Australian education ministers made a historic agreement to endorse Australia’s first national curriculum. They also endorsed the curriculum implementation timeline so that the Australian curriculum in English, maths, history and science will be substantially implemented by the end of 2013. All schools, both government and non-government, will therefore have in place our first Australian curriculum from foundation to year 10 in these subjects by 2013.

There was never an intention or an expectation that this matter would be dealt with as part of this bill, and to raise it through this amendment will not resolve the problem. I can assure the committee that the government has a process in place to resolve this issue and it will do so in consultation with stakeholders as appropriate.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.