Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017. On 2 May the Turnbull government announced an extra $18.6 billion in schools funding on top of the already record funding for Australian schools to be delivered over the next 10 years. This will bring our total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027.

What we are doing in this bill is implementing the true Gonski needs-based funding model. As the member for Macquarie leaves the chamber—it is a shame because I did want to actually pick her up on a very fundamental flaw she made in her contribution. She mistakenly misrepresented the member for Warringah and the government's policy at the time. I want to make this very clear. In 2013 the member for Macquarie, as a candidate for Labor Party, was clearly not listening very intently, because out commitment was to commit on a unity ticket to the first four years of funding, not to the six-year package. The member for Warringah made that very, very clear. It just goes to show how easily the member for Macquarie can get up in this parliament and seek to misrepresent our commitment.

Why did we do that? We keep hearing from members opposite about this additional $22 billion, but the bottom line is that this was never in Labor's budget. This was never incorporated into the forward estimates. It was pushed off into the never-never, in years 5 and 6. All of that funding so-called increase was never delivered as part of Labor's budget. We made a very firm commitment we would agree to the first four years of funding. In fact, when we came into government in 2013 we discovered that the Labor Party had short-changed a number of states and we had to very quickly find an additional $1.2 billion.

What we found here was a lot of smoke and mirrors from members opposite about what the funding was that they committed to, because if the Labor Party were serious about this so-called $22 billion it would have put this money in its budget; it would have included this money in its forward estimates. What we have seen from the Labor Party, like in so many other budgets and in so many other slippery figures, is an absolute failure to deliver on what it said it would do.

We have done a lot of hard work, and I want to commend the Minister for Education for the incredible amount of hard work done to fix Labor's mess when it comes to schools funding. We have had a really astounding result in Corangamite: every school goes forward. In 2017, funding to all 66 schools in Corangamite is equal to $82.967 million. In 2018 this increases by $3.85 million, and over the next 10 years the Commonwealth will provide total funding to Corangamite schools of $1.063 billion—that is more than $1 billion over the next 10 years. That includes an additional $233.9 million, and that is through a fair, needs based funding model.

I do want to make the point that Australian government funding for schools has been increasing for several decades. But while our funding has been growing, our results have been in decline. This is an issue that was never really dealt with by members opposite, who tended to put their heads in the sand in looking at how our dollars were being spent effectively in our schools.

How much funding we provide is, obviously, very important, but what we do with it is what really counts. I reflect on when Julia Gillard first announced the so-called Gonski needs based funding model, before I was elected. What occurred very quickly was that it became evident, consistent with David Gonski's model, that some schools would either have their funding stagnate or they would actually go backwards, because that is what David Gonski intended. He intended to look after the schools which most needed the funding, including schools in Corangamite. When this list became evident and was published, Julia Gillard quickly—basically—completely demolished David Gonski's entire policy by committing that no school would be worse off.

The problem with that is that the Labor Party did not have the courage to implement a true needs based model. The very wealthy schools, which David Gonski had recommended might need to take either a small reduction or a freezing of their funding, actually were given the guarantee by Labor—by members opposite—and by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, that they would get an increase. That is not what David Gonski intended.

I say that we have actually demonstrated considerable courage, as a government, in saying to some very wealthy schools, 'You will not do quite as well because we are implementing a model that puts schools that need funding the most first.' That is why we really had to do a lot of hard work to fix the mess that Labor left behind—and we have heard a lot about the 27 different agreements and some of the various secret deals that were implemented with a whole range of different sectors of the school communities across Australia.

This bill before the parliament today will implement the government's commitment to support parental choice and to deliver real, needs based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools, and it will tie funding to reforms that evidence improvement in student outcomes. The bill will also set Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond. It will apply new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding and it will transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027.

On 2 May, when this policy was announced, David Gonski joined the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and said:

… 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.

What David Gonski said on that day, with the Prime Minister and with the Minister for Education, is that we are implementing a true needs-based model, which Labor failed to do—and that is the fundamental problem.

See this speech in context