Senator McLUCAS (7:30 PM) —I rise tonight to speak to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. The debate that we are having here in this chamber about the funding of schools is one that unfortunately we have had many times before. It is a debate that we actually had for most of the last century. It was a debate that was characterised by division whereby the denomination of the church in which we were christened determined how we approached the discussion about education funding. It was hurtful and irresponsible and was not based on any understanding of the differing needs of children in our communities. It was a debate about religion and class, and it was divisive and destructive. It is to the shame of this government that they have extended the politics of division that we have seen in their dealings with indigenous, health and women's issues—in the whole way that this government have operated. They have extended the politics of division to education.

We need to remember that it was a Labor government which, in the early seventies, tackled the issue of education funding and brought a sense of peace and closure to the whole state aid debate through the bringing down of the Karmel report. Professor Karmel's report set the model for the funding of education with an even-handed approach to each sector, with funding being provided on the basis of need—not religion; not the old school tie—but in a fair and responsible manner that ended the division about education funding.

Ever since the Howard government's election, there has been a concerted effort by this government to break down the peaceful coexistence between each of the sectors of the education system. The first thing they did, we remember, was to abolish the new schools policy, which regulated the establishment of any new private schools in favour of a policy of funding any non-government school which met minimum state standards. The result was that any new non-government school could be established without analysis of the impact on the schools in the surrounding area. There were no requirements for minimum or maximum enrolments, and we know that the result has been a burgeoning of a large number of very small schools, most of them based on specific beliefs. And it is true that many of those schools are fundamentalist Christian schools. I find it quite ironic that, on one hand, we have the deregulation of the planning for schools in the schooling sector, yet, on the other hand, we have this government embracing—and I think quite rightly—a planning system for the opening of new child-care centres, whereby any new application for a child-care centre has to be assessed for its impact on any child-care centre in the surrounding area. That is a sensible policy: it acknowledges that the opening of a child-care centre will impact on the operations of other child-care centres in the area and will diminish the quality of care available in those pre-existing child-care centres. They can do it for child care, but they cannot do it for schools.

Their next action in the move to cause division within the education sector was to create the enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme, which shifts $1,700 per student from the public to the private school when growth in the private sector occurs. Given the abolition of the new schools policy, growth in the private sector will be at a rate of about five times that of the public sector, resulting in significant movement of funds from the public to the private sector. The third action was the abolition of the education resources index, which responded to the capacity of private schools to raise their own funds. This will allow private schools to raise funds without any impact on the funds that are provided by government. It is very evident that, in the private sector, there is a capacity for private fund raising—widening even further the resource gap between private and public schools.

The result of these three actions and the intent of this bill are clearly to shift enrolments away from the state school system and into the private system. It is a huge shift away from this particularly Australian policy setting whereby publicly funded private schools coexist with the public sector. It is a unique Australian arrangement that is based on the existence of a strong and effective state schooling system and, where parents decide to enrol their children in the private sector, they do so in response to specific religious or cultural needs. It is premised on excellence in the state school sector and the belief that I think all Australians have—the belief that every Australian child, whatever their background or wherever they live, has access to an excellent education.

The shift of funding to the private sector undermines the capacity to deliver the excellence in the state school systems that all Australians believe should be there. I think of the small rural towns in the state of Queensland which have one state school to provide education services to that community. There are no options for families to enrol their child in a private school; there simply is not one in town. With the shift of funds from the state sector to the private sector, these small rural communities will receive relatively fewer education dollars than the large towns or cities. This government, which has all the rhetoric of caring for rural and regional people, is advantaging city people over their country counterparts. I suggest that country people will not be pleased.

I think too of the role that a state school plays in a suburban setting. These suburban state schools play a significant role in providing a sense of community cohesion through sports days, fetes and tuckshop duty—all the things that happen around a state school which bring us together around our children. I think of my daughter's school—a state school—and the diversity of our school community, and the way that all of these school events bring us all together from our suburbs, building links between families across the small feeder region. The establishment of schools with specific ethnic or religious foci means that the suburban cohesion created by us all knowing each other is undermined. The government's intent to divide us will reach down to the suburbs, where the growth of small fundamentalist schools has been the greatest. It is building distrust through a lack of understanding of our neighbours and can only lead to further division in the suburbs.

It has been argued that the decrease, in relative terms, of funding to the state sector is in fact a threat to our democratic system. The argument was extremely well made by Professor Alan Reid of the University of South Australia when he said:

I need to make it very clear that I am not arguing against funding for the private school sector but against what is fundamentally wrong with the shift of resources from the state school system to the private sector, and that is that it is based on ideology and not on need. That is what this government is hell-bent on doing. As I have said, the last 25 years have been characterised by a respectful recognition of the different but complementary roles of each of the sectors of education services, but this bill, if it is passed in its current form, is an attack on this fair and sensible approach.

I will take a moment to look at the history of school funding over the last decade. In 1983, 3.6 per cent of Australia's GDP was spent on the schooling sector. By 1997-98 that had dropped to 2.7 per cent. This decline in the priority of education means that schools have $45 billion less funding to do what they do best—to teach our children—than they would have had if their share of GDP had stayed at 1983 levels. It is also interesting to note that, in 1996, 57 per cent of Commonwealth funding went to private schools. If this trend continues, by the year 2003 it will rise to 65 per cent of total Commonwealth funding for schools.

I turn now to the bill and what we know about it. The States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000 provides much greater funding increases for private schools, including some of the richest private schools in Australia, than for government schools. It introduces a new funding model which, under the guise of equity, is, as I said earlier, a recipe for increasing inequality in education. It continues the enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme, which takes from government schools the funding to which they are entitled under the Commonwealth per capita funding formula. It is part of a plan to increase the privatisation of the provision of schooling and to increase costs for parents. We know that, on average, 62 of the most well resourced elite private schools will receive increased funding of around $800,000 a year. We know that the Catholic schools will receive increases of around $60,000 a year while government schools will receive increases above indexation of only around $4,000.

Dr Kemp has claimed that the Commonwealth has the responsibility to fund non-government schools and that the new bill will promote equity and choice in education. This shows no understanding of the largest schooling sector, the state sector, which enrols the vast majority of students from low income families, those of indigenous origin, those from remote and rural areas and those with disabilities.

Turning to the socioeconomic status model, the legislation changes the formula for funding non-government schools from one based on school resources, including fees that are charged, to one based on a statistical estimate of parental incomes. By removing the link to school resources, the new model allows very wealthy schools to increase expenditure to levels even further above those of government schools, while continuing to receive increased funding from the Commonwealth. Dr Kemp has claimed that the new funding model means that:

Statements like this anger the Australian public. It shows absolutely how out of touch he is with the reality in the schooling sector. It shows that he has no understanding of the education system that he is meant to be managing. It also shows that he has no understanding of the geography or the demographics of Australia. We know that most private schools have said they will not be cutting their fees. Melbourne's Wesley College has said it will cut its $11,000 fee by $200. Let's get real, Dr Kemp. That will hardly open up that school to low income families.

I turn now to the introduction of the enrolment benchmark adjustment. The unstated but very real intent of the EBA is to shift enrolments from the public to the private sector. We have heard that leaked minutes from the coalition's 1991 expenditure review committee record that Dr Kemp had:

He has denied that over and over again, but that is the underlying ideology of this bill. Further, Dr Kemp had also said he would report on:

And that is what we will get if this bill were to pass unamended.

The government's strategy is to talk up private schools, to talk up a crisis in government schools and to shift the dollars into the private sector. As enrolments continually shift into the private sector, the EBA will kick in yet again, further diminishing funds to state schools. I am pleased to be able to support the ALP amendments that will make this bill fairer for all children in Australia. Firstly, we will move to abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment, and thus limit the encouragement of the enrolment drift from the public to the private sector. Secondly, we will reduce the funding increases for the ERI category 1 schools and redirect that funding to special education in both government and non-government schools. This reflects Labor's commitment to fairness and equity in our education system. And, thirdly, Labor will provide increases in federal funding for government schools to match the significant increases for non-government schools. Surely this is only fair for all.

Before I conclude I would like to make some comments about how we compare internationally in terms of education spending. It is true that the level of private spending on education is now above the OECD average. The level of public spending on private schools in Australia is also above the OECD average. The level of public spending on education in Australia is well below the OECD average. Australia has a strong and effective schooling system. It is one which we should be very proud of; it is one which, when we are in government, we will support and grow. We have excellent teachers who should be encouraged and supported whether they work in state or private schools. This bill does nothing to show these teachers that we value them. Our amendments will go some way to retaining the education system that we value.