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

I said yesterday in taking note of answers in question time that I planned to spend this week focusing on education and, in particular, the way the government is conning the public with its school funding changes. I said then that the Prime Minister, along with his education minister, cannot succeed in this conniving way forever. Eventually they will come unstuck. Their dog of a deal will be revealed for what it is, which is, amongst other things, an attack on low-fee Catholic parish schools and a brutal attack on parental choice. Once you apply the blowtorch to the government's changes, it is obvious that the government does not understand or respect the Catholic education mission. It is clear that the government is prepared to spin untruths to hide its real agenda, which is to take the axe to low-fee Catholic parish schools and to severely disadvantage the hundreds and thousands of Australian families who choose this schooling for their children. This will ultimately cost all taxpayers more.

Indeed, is cost shifting to the states on the agenda too? It certainly would not be the first time. Given that state and territory governments fund 80 per cent of public schools and the government is planning to embed that formula with this funding announcement, one has to question the government's motives in passing all of the cost of education to states and public schools. How well this government learned the lessons of the Goulburn schools' strikes back in July 1962 when six Catholic schools closed and instructed their pupils to enrol the following Monday in the government system, such was the anger and frustration of parents who received no government support at that stage for their children's Catholic education. How might an angry Catholic community respond this time to the government's dismissal of their education choices?

I said in the chamber yesterday that I would be taking us all through the book of Gonski, because it is very clear that Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham whilst claiming to have had a conversion on Gonski have in fact done the reverse. While Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham puffed their chests and sought to co-opt David Gonski into their conniving, all they succeeded in doing was, firstly, revealing their ignorance of the Gonski recommendations and, secondly, tarnishing Mr Gonski's good name and reputation. The key point to make is this: contrary to what this government is claiming, the Gonski review never recommended that the Commonwealth apply a one-size-fits-all model on school funding; never was that recommended. This is all Mr Birmingham's spin. The simple reason it was never recommended is that it does not achieve a fair system, which again is completely at odds with all the overblown rhetoric that this government has been spurting.

Let's further examine the book of Gonski and see how this government has changed the goalposts of education funding by redefining the Gonski needs based funding model, because that is what this budget is about. This budget's measures in education are about shifting those goalposts—don't anyone be disillusioned about that. Make no mistake, this government's package is not Gonski and it is nothing but a con job to suggest that it is.

There are three major areas where this funding deal is not Gonski. It is in fact directly contrary and directly at odds with what David Gonski called for. One wonders how well briefed he was by what this conniving minister was really up to. We know it took cabinet month upon month upon month of deliberations, but were they really well informed? Listening to Senator Brandis yesterday, you would suspect not. So I will take the time to carefully explain where these announcements are directly at odds with Gonski.

The first one I mentioned just before was this 80-20 role for Commonwealth/state funding. Gonski recommended the direct opposite. The second one is the system-weighted average funding model for school systems with a particularly significant impact on Catholic school systems. Gonski directly recommended the opposite. Thirdly—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gonski endorsed this.

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

No, Gonski did not endorse any of these changes. What he said with relief is that finally the Commonwealth government has accepted that there should be a needs based funding formula. He would not have been aware at that point in time of the diddling that has occurred here.

He certainly would not be aware of the third measure that is in direct contrast with Gonski, and that is with respect to a parent's capacity to pay. Gonski was very careful about those measures and the shape of that formula, and the minister has ridden roughshod right over it. The direct target of those changes—and I bet in the party room no-one asked the minister about the shape of the curve here—are parish Catholic schools. Why, I wonder, do government members and senators not understand enough of these issues to even directly confront their minister? They should.

Let us go to the first of these, the Gonski recommendation for a more balanced funding arrangement. The government will be embedding the 80-20 funding split between the states and the Commonwealth, with the states and territories bearing the largest share of funding for government schools. As I said, this is in direct contrast to Gonski. Let me read recommendation 22 from his report:

The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the non-government sector, should negotiate more balanced funding roles as part of the transition to a new funding model for all schools, with the Australian Government assuming a greater role in the funding of government schools and the states in relation to non-government schools.

This was how he proposed we end the funding wars, and these measures will not get anywhere near to achieving that result. In fact, these measures reignite that war. These measures not only damage the delivery of Catholic education in Australia but damage any consensus, any capacity for all of our school sectors to work together in the future.

I will start on the next measure now, but I am indebted to Senator Roberts for his MPI today, because it will give me the opportunity to fully cover all these differences with the real Gonski. Let me start on the next one. Gonski actually endorsed the system weighted average arrangements that are in the funding model. These are the changes that this government is making that again attack Catholic education systems. It is important to understand that the 2011 Gonski review—this book of Gonski—strongly supported the student weighted average system. Let me quote from page 181 of the report:

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the Old Testament. Go to the New Testament!

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

'That's the Old Testament,' says Senator O'Sullivan! Oh dear. I did not hear that in the Prime Minister's announcement. All he said was that he was not going to the Orange Lodge. One wonders.

Senator Smith interjecting—

That was Mr Turnbull's language, not mine, Senator Smith. He brought that into the debate, not me. But let me quote from the report, from page 181, rather than be further distracted:

… Australian Government funding for all systems should be assessed and calculated at the system rather than the school level.

It added that education systems must be transparent about how they allocate public and private funds and where the money is spent. Indeed, that is the My Schools measure. (Time expired)