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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to education funding.

I note in particular that the Minister for Education and Training gave no information on government fee modelling, or the modelling of the fee impact on schools, because their education deal is a dog of a deal.

You cannot succeed in a conniving manner forever. Eventually, the truth catches up with you. Former Prime Minister Howard learnt this, although it took years, in the 'children overboard' affair. Mr Turnbull should have learnt this lesson when he lost his leadership last time over the Godwin Grech saga, but now we have him and his education minister conniving their way through the Gonski education reforms. Mr Turnbull says he is not joining the Orange Lodge, but his and his education minister's attack on Catholic parish schools is an abuse of process and understanding. Senator Brandis should be ashamed of himself for allowing this through cabinet. He just does not get the Catholic education mission and is prepared to spin untruths to hide his real agenda, contrary to the Gonski recommendations.

I thought I would spend some time this week with the 'book of Gonski'. Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham claim that they have had a conversion on Gonski. Let's remind everyone what the real Gonski is. They should be ashamed of what they have done—this contrivance that they have delivered—and I will spend time this week debunking all of those myths. Let's have a quick recap of history. Mr Abbott, just before he became Prime Minister, said the difference between him and Labor on Gonski was wafer-thin. Then he came into government and he stopped the whole reform process. This is all history we know, so it is no surprise that Mr Gonski is relieved that we have moved back to needs-based funding. I would be relieved too.

Sure, the visual images of David Gonski last week gave the government some credence. But Mr Gonski, let us be clear here, simply agreed to conduct a review into how the Commonwealth government's funds should be used. That is all he agreed to. To his credit, David has always been very careful not to enter the school funding wars. But the government sought to co-opt him into their conniving. Mr Gonski's good name and reputation have been tarnished by this process.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

There is no question, Senator Brandis, that there is an enormous calibre gap between Mr David Gonski and this minister for education. Fortunately we have the record. It is in this report—what Mr Gonski recommended—and, quite contrary to what this government is claiming, Mr Gonski never recommended that the Commonwealth should apply a one-size-fits-all formula—never, ever did he recommend that. That is because unlike the education minister, Mr Gonski has a clear grasp of the complexity of school education funding.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why he endorsed the policy.

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

No, Senator Brandis, he did not endorse your policy. He said, 'I'm relieved essentially that you've adopted an SRS needs based approach.' But let's have a look.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have probably never met him.

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

I have met him many times, Senator Brandis. In fact, he has commended the work I did in philanthropy, if you must know, and in fact I had responsibility for delivering one of his recommendations, which he was very pleased about. But let us go back to what he did say. The complaint that Catholic Education has is that in his recommendation 20 and his recommendation 21, he said, 'Needs based funding should be rolled out in a particular way' and it has been shifted by this government— (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing that Minister Birmingham could not do is undo the rotten $17 billion of waste of the Gillard memorial halls. But I tell you what he did do. He got rid of the 27 dirty little deals that Ms Gillard did with various education authorities around Australia. Madam Deputy President, our home state of Western Australia, as usual, was done over the worst by the then Labor government. I will tell you why it was. Where Senator Birmingham will be moving to 80 per cent funding for the Catholic system in WA at the moment, under what were the changes from Ms Gillard it is 67 per cent. It moves up to 80. Which state group did worst under the dirty little Gillard deals? It was Western Australia. Isn't it absolutely amazing. The other instrumentality that did the worst under the 27 dirty deals was the Northern Territory. Do you know one of the common links between WA and the Northern Territory at that time? Senator Smith can remember. They were Liberal governments.

What is Minister Birmingham doing? He is moving to a fair figure across Australia. Senator Collins and others have jumped up and down and talked about the Catholic schools' catholicity. I remind you, Madam Deputy President, I was a member of Catholic Education Western Australia for nine years from the 1980s to the nineties, which allows me to answer the allegations of Senator Farrell. Only late last week, as Senator Smith would expect, I engaged with the head of Catholic Education Western Australia in a very, very robust and useful discussion. Where do you think that sent me? It sent me straight on to Minister Birmingham. Through that dialogue on Friday night, when the rest of you were probably having a beer and a chardonnay, Senator Birmingham, Mr Tim McDonald and I were conversing on the best way forward in terms of consultation and negotiation. That led on Saturday of this very last week to further communication between Senator Birmingham, the CEO for Catholic Education in WA and my good self. As we know—those who are interested and those who want to stop throwing nonsense at Minister Birmingham would know—in fact the negotiating team from national Catholic Education were meeting with Minister Birmingham only yesterday afternoon. So that is the level of consultation we have.

Is everybody happy? No, they are not. Why might they not be happy? Let me go back to the 27 dirty little deals. Some of the states, some of the independent and possibly even some of the Catholic systems appeared to be adversely advantaged or disadvantaged. Minister Birmingham is proposing to achieve within 10 years a situation in which all Catholic and independent school funding will be at 80 per cent and all states' funding through the Commonwealth will be at 20 per cent. You may well ask: who then funds the balance of the states' education? Under the Constitution of Australia, it is the states themselves that do that funding. But let me go back to the 80 per cent for a moment. The Catholics and the independents move up not to 100 per cent but to 90 per cent, principally through fees. It is the case that children in Australia are taught at 90 per cent efficiency by the Catholic and independent schools. In other words, it is 10 per cent cheaper, because they run their schools so much more efficiently.

In the few moments available to me I will go to another excellent component of Minister Birmingham's work on consultation with the sectors. The independent and Catholic schools, through capital funding over the next 10 years, will receive $300 million of extra capital funding for new school-related buildings. There will be $50 million as a catch-up, because the last government did nothing about relativities between 2009 and when they lost government in 2013. Then there will be an added $250 million for new capital for new schools, for extension and expansion of schools.

Yes, it is a fact that, under our Catholic system, co-responsibility—in the case of WA across the state—is one of the finest principles. Whilst the minister is looking at a per student weighting, he has assured me that the overall funding will return to the sector so that co-responsibility funding can continue under his regime. I congratulate him.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In question time today there was a simple question asked of the Minister for Education and Training, and that was: what fee modelling has been done? He failed to answer that. He waffled on about roadshows, sideshows and whatever show he was putting on. The minister also alleged that he had 'all this consultation'. He had all this consultation in the last few days, by the sounds of it. Even the good senator leaving the chamber now, Senator Back, was just talking about consultation in the last few days. Apparently this is a policy that was put together over many, many months. But, now, when educators and parents are coming out and saying, 'This is not good enough,' suddenly there is consultation.

So what do we have here? We have Mr Turnbull's education policy, which amounts to $22 billion in cuts to the original Gonski education funding proposed by Labor—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it does not.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it does; $22 billion in cuts to the original Gonski education funding proposed by Labor and previously agreed to, as alluded to by my colleague Senator Collins, by the Liberal Party. What we see here under this new policy is more recycling and a poor imitation of Labor's policy initiatives. It is immediately apparent that this government has no long-term vision or credible policies of its own. We know that, after this $22 billion of cuts, it is likely that no public school will reach its fair funding level. It has taken only a few days for the Liberals' new school funding policy to fall to pieces.

Today, Senator Back talked about people throwing nonsense about. Let us look at who he says is throwing nonsense about. It is clear that, prior to announcing what is effectively a watered-down version of Labor's original Gonski initiative, Mr Turnbull did not consult with his own party. The Liberal Party are in revolt over this issue. They do not want you to know, but that is exactly what is happening. It is a complete shambles, and a shambles brought on by the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. He has brought this on. He has done no real consultation at all, and that was shown even in Senator Back's contribution, talking about consultation over the last few days. While Mr Turnbull was out of the country, the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Joyce—he is apparently one of the people that Senator Back was talking about as people throwing nonsense about—was already flagging changes when he stated on 4 May that there could be 'tweaking'. He said, 'We never completely close our minds.' The Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, was quoted in TheDailyTelegraph on 5 May:

Victorian Liberal frontbencher and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar suggested the government would have to modify its plans to ensure schools were satisfied.

Mr Abbott and Liberal MPs are threatening a party room revolt and suggest Mr Turnbull might dump the new policy. Again on 5 May, TheSydney Morning Herald stated:

Tony Abbott has predicted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could dump—

his newly announced—

… education funding reform.

It then quoted Mr Abbott as saying:

This will, I'm sure, be heavily discussed in our party room on Tuesday …

Marginal seat Liberals were also quoted in The Australian on 4 May as saying:

… the education funding package was "absolutely outrageous" and declared more voters would "abandon" the party, as they urged Mr Turnbull and the Education Minister to reconsider the changes.

These are some of the quotes that Senator Back in his contribution talked about as nonsense. Members of the Liberal Party, members of their own caucus, are not happy. They have also said:

… if "this is not fixed and soon", there would be a partyroom showdown … "I have no idea what they are thinking … I can't believe it," …

Even the Liberal education minister— (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth reminding people that today is the eve of the federal budget. Indeed, it is the first parliamentary sitting day since an extended recess—when senators were not on holiday; they were working in their constituencies. So the Labor opposition in the Senate had various options today when it came to question time. It could have attempted to present an alternative economic plan for the country, but it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's very, very successful response to the energy crisis, but it could not and it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's historic media reforms that were announced just days ago, but it did not; it could not. Instead, we have had a very lacklustre campaign to try and undermine the government's historic, much-needed reforms to Australia's education system.

If you want to listen to people who are informed on this debate, then you cannot go past my Western Australian colleague Senator Chris Back, who, in his very wise and tempered contribution, talked about his firsthand experience having been on the Western Australian Catholic Education commission for a long period of time. It is unfortunate that Hansard does not capture screeching and loud voices, because what we have heard thus far in this take-note debate is screeching, is loud voices—but I am sorry to inform senators on the other side that loud voices, screeching voices, do not make weak arguments stronger.

Let us get to the substance of the issue. There are two particular points that, in the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight. The first is whether or not the previous Labor government did in good faith reflect David Gonski's education reform aspirations, and the answer to that is no. Secondly, I would like to reflect on a part of the world that I know quite well, the federal electorate of Cowan—indeed, Madam Deputy President might know it well—in Perth's northern suburbs, and just detail for people what are the real dollar advantages to be achieved on the ground in local schools in a pretty tough part of Western Australia, I might add. When I go through those schools, some of them are Catholic schools, and they absolutely benefit.

I will speak briefly, if I may, to the accusation that this government is not living up to the David Gonski ambitions when it comes to education reform. I want to turn briefly to an article that Glenn Savage has written in The Conversation. Those of you who know Glenn Savage will know that he is from the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, based at the University of Melbourne. What does Glenn Savage have to say? He says:

The new reform is good policy for two main reasons.

First, it seeks, in principle at least, to correct some of the compromises and corruptions—

his words—

that marred the original Gonski reforms, leading to many different deals being done across the nation and to a highly inconsistent application of the SRS.

He goes on to say:

Second, states will only get funding if they agree to use the money for reforms proven "to support better outcomes for students".

This will broaden the focus from simply debating how much schools get, to the equally important question of what schools do with the cash.

Glenn Savage goes on to respond, specifically, to the issues around what the true aspirations and ambitions of David Gonski's education reforms are for our country. Glenn says:

The original Gonski review was designed to introduce a fairer, more transparent and needs-based federal funding model. If such a model had actually been produced, over-funded non-government schools would have lost some money.

But this never happened. Instead, early in the review process, the Labor government promised that "no school would lose a dollar" as a result of the reforms.

Instead of a "needs-based" model, Labor delivered a model that injected significantly more money into schooling, but also protected the vested interests of Catholic and independent schools.

There is simply no denying this fact. As original Gonski review panellist member Ken Boston recently put it, "the Gonski Report was filleted and the flesh thrown away", leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements.

The Gonski report was filleted and the flesh thrown away, leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements. That is why this government has taken upon itself to embark upon not just a historic reform but a historic reform that delivers fairness, transparency, equity and a needs based approach to public education. (Time expired)

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I asked a question of the Attorney about the new Gonski 2.0. Like most of the government's policies, there is nothing original and everything is tired. What a tired and weary government it is. When the Prime Minister and education minister announce one thing and the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Treasurer say another, Australian parents, teachers and principals are rightly concerned.

There is a little bit of circus in this. Who would not want to sit back with popcorn and watch the coalition party room, with all of its multiple divisions once again renting the air? What we are seeing is something that may become known as 'government by Turnbull'—that is, secrecy and no consultation. Then comes a shock announcement driven by bureaucracy; waved through by dud, visionless ministers; signed off by a callous, clueless, incompetently led cabinet; and then a backlash from those in the real world. In this case, it is from Catholic school teachers, principals, parents and students. What follows the backlash? The backflip.

Given the cruelty and callousness of these cuts, given the grave concern that this attack on Catholic education is causing in the real world—a world that one cannot see from a $50 million Sydney harbourside mansion—and given the inevitability of backlash-backflip cycles in this bungling mess of a government, why not just get the agony and misery over and done with?

The Scripture tells us that, where there is no vision, the people perish. If you do not stand for anything you will fall for everything. Imagine the once great Liberal Party of Menzies sticking the knife into Catholic schools. Lest I tell those opposite their own history—a history for which they seem to have scant regard—in the early 1960s Menzies extended funding to Catholic schools. At the same time, a young John Howard used his leadership of the Young Liberals to support the pro-state aid, as it was termed, for Catholic schools policy of the federal Liberals. When he became Prime Minister he still believed in this policy. Imagine having a Prime Minister who believes in a policy for more than a media news cycle! Indeed, Mr Howard said at that time that it was a matter of justice that Catholic schools be supported.

There has been some discussion around the funding models. I want to point out the government's own Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document. It is readily available on the department of education's website, but it obviously is not a very easy document for those opposite to find. That report from May last year—a whole year ago, a very long time for this government—says:

All schools need to have certainty in their funding arrangements to ensure effective planning and support for students.

In fact, the government seem to have done a complete 180 from their position on school funding last year. The report says:

For the 2018 to 2020 school years, recurrent school funding will be indexed by an education specific indexation rate of 3.56 per cent, with an allowance for changes in enrolments. This measure reflects more accurately the growth in education costs by focusing on factors specifically related to the education sector. Consequently, as a result of using this index, the Australian Government will provide an additional $1.2 billion over four years from 2017-18.

What a long time ago May 2016 was for this government.

The government are trying to sell this policy by saying that the $2 billion they have quoted is an increase from the previous figure of $1.2 billion, but the reality is that the Gonski 2.0 policy will reduce funding by $22 billion over 10 years compared to Labor's policy. After those 10 years, 85 per cent of schools will still be short of the resource standard. As the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes report makes clear, this time last year the government had committed to fixed indexation. They made out that it was the best thing since sliced bread, but the substance of this policy only commits to fixed indexation at a rate of 3.56 per cent until 2021. After that there will be a shift to floating indexation. I will not go too far into the details of the policy, as it is available in the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.