Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always great to see the ministers in the chamber, debating these bills, and having an input because they are so passionate about it. I rise today in support of the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017, but not in support of the amendment moved by Ms Plibersek, the member for Sydney.

The bill greatly improves the Australian Education Act 2013 and it finally ends the school-funding wars that have been waged for as long as I can recall. The proposed amendments reflect the core concepts recommended by the Gonski review whilst removing the inequities and special deals created by the previous Labor governments—special deals which included at least 27 vastly different agreements, haphazardly put together. They saw money thrown every which way except the way of the students.

As a parent, I know that our children's education is paramount. Parents all strive to provide their children with a strong education that will hold them in good stead in whatever path in life they choose to take. A good education provides our children with the building blocks to life. It sparks their curiosity, nurtures their strengths and encourages them to be the best that they can be. A good education develops our children into productive citizens who go on to use their talents, their skills and their drives to better our society.

As the member for Swan for almost 10 years, it has been a pleasure to go to countless graduation ceremonies and to watch our young adults take on their next exciting chapter—confident and trusting that their education has prepared them for whatever lies ahead. That is why this government is guaranteeing the essentials to increase opportunity and fairness for Australian students. We are focused on aspiration in education—the aspiration for quality education everywhere, delivered as fairly and efficiently as possible.

By way of background, I would like to provide a brief overview of the bill before expanding on what it means for schools across Australia and in my electorate, and, in turn, what it means for families. The bill implements the commitment made on 2 May for an extra $18.6 billion in recurrent schools funding, on top of already record and growing funding for Australian schools over the next 10 calendar years. This will bring this government's total 10-year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027. The amendments to the act will implement the government's commitment to support parental choice, deliver real needs-based funding and long-term certainty for parents and schools, and tie funding to reforms that evidence shows improve student outcomes.

The bill will amend the act to set Commonwealth schools funding for the next 10 years and beyond, apply new indexation arrangements to Commonwealth schools funding, and transition schools to a common Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard by 2027. It will also enable regulation to allow the Commonwealth to withhold, reduce or recoup funding paid to jurisdictions which do not meet the Commonwealth's requirement to at least maintain their per-student funding levels to both government and non-government schools, to prevent cost-shifting. In addition to this, it actively improves accountability and transparency of school funding arrangements through ministerial reporting requirements, whilst removing the requirements in the current act for schools to have onerous and prescriptive implementation plans and making technical amendments, including to improve the efficient operation of the act.

This government is delivering fairness and quality to our education system. At last we will be able to see all Australian students treated equitably, after the complex and inconsistent arrangements put in place by Labor. Under Labor, some schools would not have attracted their theoretical needs-based funding entitlement for more than 100 years—100 years; a little late, I would suggest, and I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. Labor's election promises were all about money. Labor has continued to throw out false promises on education, with funding black holes they cannot explain.

What we, on this side of the House, understand is that how much funding we provide is important, but what we do with it is actually what counts. While our funding has been growing results have been declining, and that is why this government has made it a priority that this funding is tied to improvements in student outcomes as part of an evidence based reform package. Our funding model will see funding for schools grow faster than broader economic growth, with total Commonwealth funding growing by approximately 75 per cent over the next 10 years and funding per student growing at an average of 4.1 per cent per year.

The government will transition all schools to consistent Commonwealth shares of the Schooling Resource Standard by increasing funding, (1) from an average of 17 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for government schools in 2017 to 20 per cent in 2027, reflecting the Commonwealth's role as a minority public funder of this sector; and (2) from an average of 76.8 per cent in 2017 for non-government schools to 80 per cent in 2027, reflecting the Commonwealth's role as a primary public funder of this sector. At the national level, funding per student for all sectors will continue to increase in real terms, seeing an annual per-student funding increase over 10 years of 5.1 per cent for the government sector, 3.5 per cent for the Catholic sector and 4.1 per cent for the independent sector.

In true Labor form, they have started a scare campaign against these reforms, similar to countless scare tactics we have seen before. I have had number of parents in my electorate contact me after hearing the lies that Labor have been spouting. To each of these constituents I have responded with the results of the funding calculator relevant to their children's school, and they have been pleasantly surprised that their children's school will in fact receive an increase in funding.

In Swan, our needs based funding model for schools will see a total increase in federal government funding for the schools in Swan of $312 million over the next 10 years, going to the 55 primary and secondary schools which educate nearly 21,000 children in my electorate. I am very proud to be a part of a government that is delivering a better education for the 21,000 children of today in my electorate who will go on to be the adults, the inventors, the teachers and the leaders of tomorrow.

The Labor Party has abandoned needs based funding and the principles of the Gonski review that they lauded—until it was no longer going to score them any more cheap political points. When the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education announced the $18.6 billion reform plan, David Gonski himself 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.

…   …   …

… when we did the 2011 review, our whole concept was that there would be a school's resource standard which would be nominated and we nominated one, and I'm very pleased that the Turnbull Government has taken that …

This was praise from the very man behind the landmark educational reforms—the very reforms that the Gillard government accepted, adopted, and then decimated until Mr Gonski's reforms were unrecognisable.

I still do not understand how the Labor Party, who initially adopted the reforms, can stand opposite and argue against our government's plan to deliver funding to schools. I support the Minister for Education and Training in calling on Labor to explain a few things. Why do those opposite, after using his name for years, now insist on going against David Gonski's endorsement of the coalition's plan? Or is it that Labor prefers different funding methodologies that advantage some non-government schools over others? And why will Labor vote for schools of identical need to receive different levels of federal funding for the Schooling Resource Standard just because they are in different states? Finally, perhaps the biggest question of all: why do those opposite continue to use educational reforms merely as a pawn in their game, denying Australian children the right to a strong education through needs based funding?

I must admit I could not believe it when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, went to not one but two Catholic schools to hold a doorstop interview to sprout about our reforms and threaten major funding cuts to these schools. The first was the Holy Family School in Mount Waverley, which over the next 10 years will receive an additional $4.3 million. Next year alone, the school will receive $73,000 in additional resources. Just a day later, the Leader of the Opposition trotted on over to Our Lady Help in East Brunswick, again threatening cuts. But, had he done his research, he would know that this school was going to receive $3.5 million extra over the next 10 years. Time and time again, Labor have misrepresented this funding package. They misrepresented and lied about Medicare during the horrific 'Mediscare' campaign, and now they are doing it again with education.

I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister for education and his office for the work they put into these amendments. They have been developed to ensure all our children receive a good education. The work put into these amendments will last for decades to come, as record Commonwealth funding has grown exponentially under the coalition and will continue to grow. I know sometimes you have to keep your ear to the ground to drown out Labor's misrepresentations and negativity, but the support by third parties for these changes has been resounding. The support is not only from certain sectors but across the board.

On Monday I received a letter from the Rehoboth Christian College which supported this government's changes. It reads:

Dear Mr Irons,

Rehoboth Christian College has been operating for over 50 years, and we have been very thankful for the funding that Federal and State governments have provided over that time. Approximately 42% of our operating budget for 2017 is received from Federal funding and 19% from State, with the remaining 38% derived from tuition fees paid by over 150 dedicated families. Rehoboth has grown from just 23 students and 2 staff in 1966 to over 717 students and almost 100 staff across two campuses in 2017. This growth is a testament to the support extended by the Federal and State governments to non-government schools such as Rehoboth. However, the lack of predictability with the funding model often causes us concern, and I am writing to convey our support of the Gonski 2.0 proposals.

Over the past four years, we have encouraged the government to embrace the Gonski principles. We believe they offer stability and a long-term funding model that is needs-based and sector-blind, thus giving non-government schools a 'fair go.'

Now, with the Gonski 2.0 proposals, we encourage you once again to seriously consider lending your support to them as basis for a policy framework that has a good chance of legislative success, and as a means of dealing with the inconsistencies and unpredictability of the existing funding model.

The reforms proposed provide a model that can be fairly applied across all sectors and jurisdictions, including the consistent application of the principles and formula informing SRS funding.

Rehoboth is one school within a network of 125 Christian schools, many of whom we know will be writing to their local Members to express similar thoughts. The Gonski 2.0 reforms would positively impact hundreds of schools and thousands of students. We ask you to consider our voice, raised against the strong campaign we know some in the non-government sector have mounted in opposition to these reforms.

This issue is not about self-interest, but what is best for all schools, and the sector, in the long term; indeed, overall schools in our network would be better off should the 2013 Act remain intact. But the policy that would result from these reforms would be fair, affordable, and consistent.

We encourage you — do not let schools be unnecessarily caught up any longer in the "funding wars" of the last few decades. This is a rare moment when it is possible to resolve a long-standing issue for the benefit of all.

If you'd like to know more about the specific implication for Rehoboth, I would be pleased to talk further with you.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Steyn

Chief Executive Officer

Association for Christian Education

Operating Rehoboth Christian College

I invite the members opposite to contact him as well to find out about his support for our program. Also, from Mr Phillip Spratt from the Australian Council of State School Organisations:

The move to reduce the 27 funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors.

From Martin Hanscamp, the executive officer of the Australian Association of Christian Schools:

AACS would like to express its profound support for the bold schools funding policy... This is good policy and our bunch of Christian schools want you to hear that loud and clear.

From Shelley Hill, from the Australian Parents Council:

It is very positive to hear the commitment to a single, needs-based, sector blind funding model for Australian schools.

As I said, I have plenty more that I could share with you in the House. I would like also to note some points from the Australian Association of Christian Schools, who also said:

Well done for: providing a long term funding model; providing a model that can be applied fairly across all sectors and jurisdictions; addressing deals and inconsistencies; affirming a needs-based and sector blind approach; the consistent application of the SRS funding principles and formula; developing a policy framework that has a good chance of legislative success; tackling the timidity of 'no school will lose a dollar'; offering 10 years of adjustment and even extra transition arrangements where there's a reasonable case; continuing to provide a generous measure of most reasonable funding (for the Commonwealth's part that is).

As I said, there is plenty more that I could tell you about, but time constrains us. This is a good policy. It is good for our students, our parents and our teachers, who are eager to provide our children with an education that every single one of them deserves. I encourage Labor to put aside politics for once and support these amendments so we can provide for Australian students. I am in full support of the amendments and commend them fully to the House.

See this speech in context