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 Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to schools funding.

This motion relates to a lack of information and the poor capacity available to senators to make very serious decisions about what education arrangements may indeed apply for the next six to 10 years. It simply is not good enough.

The minister was unable to provide answers to questions from Labor senators today. He gave the same stark response he has given time and time again—ballpark growth figures, he claims. I would highlight that he has not yet made the clarification that he needs to in relation to his comments in question time yesterday. In question time yesterday he claimed that Catholic Education would get a growth in their share. This is simply untrue. At the time Senator Brandis was not listening properly and thought the point was a different one. The issue is that the minister should have come back to this chamber to clarify that what he put in answer to Senator Farrell was simply false. There is no growth in share for Catholic Education. That is why we have seen those figures about the loss of funding that those schools face over 10 years.

What the minister did refer to today is what has been coined, and indeed what I highlighted, the 'fantasy figures' that were used in the school funding estimator. I think it is useful to take senators through exactly why The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Fairfax Media reported those fantasy figures. What the minister did in that case, and what the department did—which is quite concerning, given that the department responded to requests to present information that way—was to re-base 2017 funding figures, on the basis of a formula that will never apply to 2017. They have re-based the figures for 2017 in order to promote and pretend that there would be an increase between 2017 and 2018. This is why the Senate agreed to the order for the production of documents. What I understand from the President now is that all we have is a letter—who knows what that letter says—yet we are now in the committee stage of consideration of the legislation.

All this minister has done is to engage in closed-door conversations with some senators, presenting information that is not publicly available and probably is not credible, because the minister's record is not credible. We have all heard the expression, 'Lies, damn lies and statistics.' Well, that is what has been going on here. I cannot imagine—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brandis on a point of order.

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

Senator Collins has accused Senator Birmingham of lying. She must withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that Senator Collins was quoting.

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

She was not, actually. She just said, 'Lies, damn lies … that is what has been going on here,' in direct reference to Senator Birmingham.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not believe she has impugned the minister. Senator Collins.

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

I understand why Senator Brandis is sensitive here, so maybe I should reiterate my point about the fantasy figures that are in the school funding estimator. To try to convince parents in schools that there is an increase involved in this funding, the government has rebased the figures for 2017 on the basis of a formula that will never apply to 2017. They then used those silly figures to compare with 2018 and claim that it is an increase in funding. Well, it is not. The department could not defend it. The department had to fess up about what was really going on here. That is why the government's figures in this area have never been regarded as credible.

But what is worse is this minister's and this government's failure to provide the information that should be available for all of us to assess what is really going on here. The minister uses national growth figures, national sector figures and hides the impact of his one-size-fits-all policy behind them. And that impact is very alarming. It is very alarming for Victorian schools. It is very alarming for Catholic education. It is very, very alarming for public schools. But as I said earlier, the arrangements in place for schools delivered an 80 per cent increase for public schools out of the additional Commonwealth-state funding arrangements. Now we only have state funding arrangements, and guess who gets the 50 per cent increase? Public schools get only 50 per cent now, whereas under the former arrangements it was 80 per cent. (Time expired)

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

Let me open by saying that Labor's position on these matters and the contributions by the senators are based on lies—great lies. The facts as presented by them are completely inaccurate. But it had me cast my mind back to a pop group in the 1960s and 1970s called The Great Pretenders. What we have now with the Labor Party in this place, and particularly with this legislation, is 'The Great Resisters'. In fact, everything the government has endeavoured to do over the last couple of years and certainly in the term of this current government has been resisted by Labor. There are no arguments, of course, on the merit of their argument, and never have they produced any alternative ideas. Many of these recommendations are in parallel to or adequately supplement ideas the Labor Party has presented in the past. However, when it comes from the government side, from the government benches, they will just resist it. They will say and do anything to resist the passage of government adjustments, particularly in the space of education.

We saw in the earlier parliament an enormous amount of effort over a very long period of time come up with some structural reforms around higher education and education generally, reforms that were supported by the greater majority of the universities around the country, reforms that would bring more equalisation into the space, more fairness in relation to funding and the abilities of those educational facilities to operate. And what happened? The Labor Party resisted the reforms. In fact, their resistance put paid to them. This is another effort here. Every one of their quotes in relation to these matters, as I have heard over recent days and since this debate commenced, has been very selective. For every negative quote they have produced, my office and the offices of colleagues on the government side have received strong, resounding endorsements, often from people in authority in education who are superior to the individuals selectively quoted by the Labor Party.

This is an area that has been crying out for some serious reform for a long period of time. This is an area that has required some sort of stabilisation around fairness and equity with the distribution particularly from the Commonwealth in relation to funding in this space. As is the case with large transformative policies at their introduction, not everybody will be happy. It is impossible.

We go to an election and a large part of the Australian population wants to support one line of ideology and the other wants to support another, so it is going to be impossible of course to bring about reforms that please everybody in the community. These reforms have been endorsed by very substantive, important and influential figures in the education marketplace and by schools—right across the board, whether it is public schools or private schools or indeed the very important Catholic education system, it has been largely supported. They do not agree with the issues that have been raised by Labor. There is no body to their resistance.

In fact it is, as we have seen, their practice over recent years to go from being the great pretenders to the great resistors. They pretend first; there are the crocodile tears about how we are somehow all going to be affected—partially sympathetic to reforms. This is how they go on, until of course we get to where the rubber meets the road. Then they slip out the side theatre and they change and come back as the great resistors, and their tune is completely different.

I just urge the Labor Party, and I urge our colleagues in the Senate, to sit and think carefully about this. If this reform opportunity is lost at this time, then what is going to happen is we are going to have the status quo for a long, long period of time and the inequities that this legislation deals with will remain and the students and schools that they pretend to represent will continue to be affected. (Time expired)

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been an interesting debate, in which a lot of claims have been made. There is the suggestion that if only we would 'stop playing politics' with this everything would be all right. But of course those who make that claim expect you to agree with them, and the only position they claim is valid is in fact their position. I think Senator Lambie made a good point earlier today, when she said that, if the government was serious about getting genuine reform through, it would actually consult with the opposition and it would genuinely consult with the crossbenchers. Instead, what we have seen is simply a decision of government to make savings.

I also heard Senator Hinch earlier today suggest that there are no cuts being made, because the commitments that the Labor Party made were fictitious and were not actually there and, therefore, there could be no cuts. That does not then explain how the government's own documents talk about savings being made by these reforms. According to the government's own figures, these proposed changes represent a $22.3 billion cut to school funding, compared to the existing legislation and agreements put in place by the former Labor government in 2013. This difference is clearly detailed in the government's briefing document circulated to journalists on 2 May 2017. The document states that 'the legislation will see savings of $6.3 billion over four years'—that is the 2018-21—'and $22.3 billion over the 10-year period. That will be achieved by the government's plan.' So their own figures—Senator Hinch, and anyone else that is interested—demonstrate very clearly that these are savings and, therefore, they must be cuts.

But these things just cannot be done in isolation. As if people think that the federal government is simply picking arbitrary figures out of the air and apply that to school funding. These school funding agreements are agreements made with the states. They rely on commitments of states to match certain funding levels to that of what the Commonwealth is matching. So states have budgeted for this money. They have agreements in writing with the Commonwealth about the funding share that should proceed. These are in place. They are there. What this government simply seeks to do is reduce their share of the funding and expect the states to live up to their commitments, which they want to do. The Victorian government, incidentally, was not invited to appear before the Senate inquiry into this, and none of the state governments were. You would think that the states, being the biggest providers of education in this country, would have been invited to give some evidence before the Senate committee. Nonetheless, they made a submission.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

You would think you would hear from them, Senator Brandis. They are the major player in education in this country, and they do not even get an invitation to appear before the committee.

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

Did they ask them?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that they did. This is what the Victorian government said in their submission:

… the Victorian Government became a signatory to the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA). The NERA was intended to deliver an additional $12.2 billion to Victorian schools between 2014 and 2019, with sixty per cent of this funding to be delivered in 2018 and 2019. The NERA was a landmark reform that enabled all schools across Victoria to access needs-based, equitable funding. It provided a solid foundation for both levels of government to work cooperatively to support growth and improvement across all school sectors over a six-year trajectory … Victoria has funded its full commitment of Gonski funding until the end of 2018. The Commonwealth Government’s new funding proposal leaves a massive shortfall for Victorian government schools of around $630 million in 2019 against the NERA, which will disproportionately impact on the most vulnerable schools and students. For some schools, this shortfall could equate to $1 million next year alone.

Again, the government, without any consultation with stakeholders, without any serious consultation, simply implements these cuts to education funding. This is not a government that is being honest with the Senate or the Australian people. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of Minister Birmingham's answers at question time today. I think the appropriate place to start with any commentary on this is where it should be focused in this chamber at all times—on the best interests of all of Australian students. Sadly, listening to those opposite on this debate, clearly that is not where their best interests in the arguments lie. It is a tragedy for Australia and Australia's children that, instead of focusing on their best interests, they are focusing on their political needs. It comes down to this, quite clearly: you say you give a Gonski, but you cannot stand the fact that it is those on this side of the chamber who are actually delivering Gonski in full—fully funded, truly needs based, and without the 27 special deals that you concocted, which completely distorted the process.

That is not just my opinion. Let us have a look at what those who were on the original Gonski review and co-authored the report said. Last night, Kathryn Greiner, a Gonski review panel member, spoke on ABC. She was asked about her assessment of the political debate on Gonski 2.0. This is what the member of the Gonski review said:

I am very surprised about the Labor Party. They are behaving like naughty school children at the moment. They should be sat in the corner and given lines because they are behaving like children in that if they're not going to be the ones to implement the Gonski reforms when they had their opportunity—

They blew it—

then they seem to be spoiling it for anyone else to do that.

As I said, they cannot stand the fact that this side of the House is actually delivering the Gonski report and the intentions of the report. She also said:

… at the end of the day, my attitude and I think the attitude of any of us who were involved in the Gonski reforms, this is about the children.

Not those acting like children on the other side, but the actual children of Australia. Her advice to the Labor Party was:

Stop playing the political games and just get on with it.

She said, 'My gut feeling is that they want to spoil it, because they cannot be the ones to bring it to fruition.' I think Kathryn Greiner's comments are absolutely correct, and it has been absolutely evident in everything that we have heard from those opposite. I think it is a national disgrace that the interests of Australian children are being held hostage to the petty feelings of those on the other side—hurt feelings that they were not the ones to implement the report that they commissioned.

Let's have a look at not just what we are saying but what other members of the Gonski review panel have said recently, in addition to Kathryn Greiner's comments. Ken Boston, a Gonski review member and also a leader in education policy, said this month that it is a 'new deal of historic national importance'. He went on to say:

There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle …

And:

It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate—

by those opposite. That is Ken Boston, the second member of the Gonski review. What did Bill Scales, an original Gonski review member, also say last month? He said:

I think these concerns are not necessarily well-founded.

  …   …

If those systems are educating children of great need, then they have nothing to fear.

He also said:

This has to be de-politicised. This is not a political issue ... And we shouldn't make that a political issue.

They are three members of the Gonski review panel. Let's have a look to see what Mr David Gonski himself said recently about this bill and about these amendments. After everything that those opposite have said and are still saying here today, hysterically and very stridently, against this bill—they have signs in their windows saying, 'I give a Gonski'—let's hear what Mr Gonski himself says about this bill and these reforms:

… I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report, and particularly regarding a needs-based situation.

…   …   …   

… I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future.

If Gonski gives a Gonski then those opposite should stand up, be counted and deliver for the children of Australia. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of Senator Birmingham's responses to questions from Labor senators today. First, I would like to absolutely support what Senator Marshall said in his contribution. We have people, and the minister in particular, talking about increases in funding when their own budget papers show us that it is a decrease in funding of over $22 billion. So I say to those senators who are signing up to pass this bill that they should look at their budget papers. They should look at what is in black and white. If you have over $22 billion in cuts, somebody loses out. We have already heard, through Senator Marshall, about the Victorian government's concern about $630 million, I think Senator Marshall said, in one year. In Tasmania, my home state, $60-odd million will be lost to the public education system in Tasmania.

I particularly want to talk about the question that I asked Senator Birmingham, which was about the disability loadings in Tasmania. I did not get a response to that, regardless of how many times we asked that he directly respond to the question. What the Department of Education and Training, his own department, said in a question on notice that was released—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

This is the minister's own department. This is what the department said: 'In 2018 the government sector, government schools, will lose $8 million, the Catholic sector will lose $2 million, and the independent sector will lose $2 million. That is a decrease of $12 million. The minister here would not even confirm his own department's advice—the response to a question on notice. That is how much the minister is evading answering any direct questions. This is very important. Back home in Tasmania, disability loading has been a matter of intense interest over the last few days. People in Tasmania know, parents know, the advocacy networks know that this government is cutting $12 million in 2018 alone from disability loading. If you want to sign up for that, well and good. But this is what is really happening, and you need to understand what is really happening.

Last night, on ABC TV news in Tasmania, Ms Kirsten Desmond, the spokesperson for the Tasmanian Disability Education Reform Lobby, said: 'There should not be one Tasmanian senator who votes for this in its current form, because what they are voting for this funding being stripped out of schools for students with a disability.' Ms Desmond, like so many others, is appalled that this government, this minister, is reducing funding to students in Tasmania with a disability by $12 million in 2018 alone—and this from a minister and a government who pretend to support a needs based funding model. They are being very hypocritical in the position they have taken. Make no mistake, this is a massive cut for students in need in Tasmania.

The minister, in his answers to questions on notice, would not even confirm his own departments figures. I say to the crossbench and the Greens—I am not quite sure what they are doing—that they should have a look at the department's responses, have a look at the answers. They are different from what the minister is telling you. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.