Canberra
PM: I'm delighted to be here with Minister Garrett, the Minister for School Education.
In the lead up to the Budget I announced that the Government would support an increase to the Medicare levy in order to pay for DisabilityCare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
And I was very pleased following that announcement to be able to strike a series of agreements around the country to deliver DisabilityCare.
We're now in a position where DisabilityCare will be rolled out for 90 per cent of the Australian population and of course work continues to try and persuade the Premier of Western Australia to also join DisabilityCare.
Having delivered the Budget last week, my focus will now be on Australian schools and working around the country to get agreement to improve Australian schools. We must do this as a nation.
The current funding system is broken.
It's unfair because schools that are teaching similar children get different levels of resourcing.
It's confusing, with some schools' funding maintained and some schools' funding guaranteed, schools in comparable positions being treated very differently under the funding arrangements.
It is also worrying schools because state government cutbacks feed into indexation. What that means is schools cannot plan for the future knowing what indexation rates are going to be for their school.
It is not properly resourcing the education of every child, so too many schools in our country do not have the resources that we know they need in order to give the children in that school a great education.
And the current funding system is not tied to a plan for school improvement. So, the funding system is not serving our needs, it's broken, it's unfair, it will not secure what we need in school improvement for our nation's future.
Now that is of concern to Australian parents, but it is of concern too to the whole Australian nation. Because we cannot be the strong economy we want to be for the future if our schooling system falls behind the standards of the world.
Having delivered the Budget, we can now say with certainty what the difference is between staying with this broken system as opposed to embracing our agenda to better fund every school.
And the difference for the whole of the nation is $16.2 billion over the next six years.
That's a staggering difference in funding for Australian schools. I want the nation to understand that's what's at risk for Australian education - $16.2 billion.
Parents and communities will want to understand that far more detailed for their own community - what does this mean for my community, what does it mean for my school?
So today, for the first time, we are releasing figures which show what our plan for better funding means on average for schools around the country, by sector and by state.
So if your child goes to a government school in an Australian state, you will be able to look up the figure for your state with the government schools.
If your child goes to a non-government school, you will be able to look up the figure for a non-government school in your state.
These are average figures, but they will serve to give parents and local communities a greater understanding of what is at risk for their school if the nation does not embrace our plan for school improvement.
To give you some quick figures there, in New South Wales the difference for a government school is $1.7 million.
In New South Wales the difference for a non-government school is $800,000.
In the Northern Territory, the difference for a government school is $4.2 million.
In the Northern Territory, the difference for a non-government school is $2.3 million.
They are resources that could be used in schools for literacy coaches, for extra teachers' aides, for work that would improve the education of those school students.
So in the week to come and in the weeks that follow, I will be making it very clear to the Australian community what is at risk for Australian schools if our plan for better funding for school improvement is not endorsed.
I'll hand over now to the Minister for School Education for some comments.
MINISTER GARRETT: Thanks Prime Minister. Today we see the real cost of Tony Abbott's cuts to education right across schools, right across the nation.
And by identifying the $16.2 billion of additional investment that would go to schools that Mr Abbott will not support, and that again this morning the Coalition would not support, we can now see very clearly what the impact on schools around the nation would be.
Because Mr Abbott is putting the interests of Australian schools and students last.
Just look briefly, following on from the Prime Minister's figures, in Victoria we'd see an average $1.9 million per school lost under Mr Abbott.
An average of $1.7 million per school in the non-government sector.
Under our plan, we'd see schools receive an average of $1.8 million in money over the next six years extra.
And the point about this is where would these extra funds go to - things like literacy and numeracy coaches across six years, something that is important, something that makes a difference in schools and something that Mr Abbott now is not supporting.
In Queensland, and average of $2.4 million per school in the government sector, $2.5 million per school in the non-government sector.
Again, an opportunity for the employment, additional resources, literacy coaches, people in the classroom to make a difference to the education that kids are getting.
And finally quickly, South Australia. Here about an average of $1.4 million per school in the government sector that schools would lose over the next six years because Mr Abbott won't support the National Plan for School Improvement.
And finally just to make this point, we know that if we invest in our schools in a targeted way, we can lift the education in schools right around the nation. We're prepared to make that investment.
Mr Abbott clearly signals that he's not prepared to make that investment. He's putting education last, while we put the students and the needs of schools in Australia first.
Thanks Prime Minister.
PM: Thank you, we're happy to take questions.
JOURNALIST: No mention of WA there. What are the figures showing there?
PM: We can give you the WA figures, and we would expect you to ask, so thank you for the question. The WA figures for a government school, an average of $600,000, for a non-government school, the average is more than that, actually more than that.
We can get you the precise figure but there are losses in WA schools too.
JOURNALIST: Does this show therefore that Colin Barnett's got a point that this system, like a lot of complaints he's had regarding programs, is geared towards the underperforming eastern states?
PM: No, it doesn't show that.
What it shows is what is happening for Western Australian schools is money that we want to invest in them, new money for Western Australian schools, we want every school to come up to a school resource standard in Western Australia closer to that school resource standard than schools in other states.
But they are not, all schools in WA, at that school resource standard. So it is still more money available for Western Australian schools with two dollars out of three flowing from the Federal Government. So of course there is an advantage for Western Australian education.
What we are being very clear about here by giving average figures for government and non-government schools around the country, is that there are two choices for the future of Australian schools.
We can have the current broken system limp on year after year with our children not getting the high quality education they deserve, or we can endorse the Government's new plan for school improvement and new funding, improving funding into schools by $16.2 billion.
Now this is a very different future for our country - better schools, school improvement, $16.2 billion extra invested as opposed to the current system just limping along and schools actually over time having less resources available to them for the education of our children.
JOURNALIST: Can you give us that whole table today?
PM: Yes, you will have that whole table.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, we're less than four months from an election with an opposition which is casting doubt on its commitment to Gonski, it's prepared to say it's going to delay superannuation, it's even not running away from flagging an increase to the GST in two elections' time.
Does that worry you that the Opposition is now so confident it can start making those sorts things and seemingly not be worried about any consequences?
PM: The only thing that worries me is our nation's future and whether it's going to be a strong and prosperous one, and whether every child's going to reach their full potential. That's what worries me.
I've been able to work with Liberal leaders; I've been able to work for example with Premier O'Farrell to seize a better vision for our kids' future.
Premier O'Farrell on TV today said the current funding system in broken and unfair. He acknowledged that the Leader of the Opposition went to see him to try and dissuade him from getting kids in New South Wales a better future.
Well there are two choices for this nation's future when it comes to our children.
Better funded schools with school improvement, or Mr Abbott's plan to reduce $16.2 billion of resources from our schools. So two futures; ours, $16.2 billion of more resources; Mr Abbott's, the current system limping along ultimately meaning cutbacks for schools.
JOURNALIST: How are these negotiations going? Do you think you're going to get enough of these states across the line by June 30?
PM: Well, the question for premiers and chief ministers is whether or not they're prepared to put the children in their jurisdiction first in the way that Premier O'Farrell has.
Discussions are continuing around the nation and we will keep working on it. But I am passionate about making sure we realise a good education for every Australian child.
I don't want to fix this now for one budget year or even the four years of the budget; I want to fix it for generations and generations to come. That we can say every child in every school has the resources necessary to get them a great education.
So there's a clear choice here. The plan that we're putting forward, or the current funding system broken, unfair, supported by Mr Abbott and the other side of politics.
But I do believe Australians have a right to understand the clear difference here including getting a sense about what it means for their child's school and that's why we're releasing these new figures today.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, New South Wales Legal Aid says it doesn't have enough funding to sufficiently represent victims at the Royal Commission into Child Abuse. What is the Federal Government doing to assist New South Wales Legal Aid?
PM: We made some resources available, as we did the Royal Commission, for support services and assistance for people. We'll be happy to get you the details.
JOURNALIST: Is there more available though? They're saying at this stage they don't have enough?
PM: We can give you the figures, not only what is in the Royal Commission's budget which as you would know is a quarter of a million dollars to assist people as well as the details of what we've done for Legal Aid.
JOURNALIST: But that's the final on that, there's not potentially more assistance?
PM: No, what you've seen in the Budget is what there is.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Opposition keeps saying that nobody knows what is in these Gonski bills, that it's a deal that's cobbled together in back rooms. Do you feel like you've done enough to explain how it actually works?
PM: Has Mr Abbott ever met Premier O'Farrell? The answer to that is yes. Why is it that Premier O'Farrell can put his hand up and say this is a good deal for the children in my state, and Mr Abbott wanders round pretending that it's beyond his comprehension?
Well in truth it's not beyond his comprehension, Mr Abbott just hasn't wanted to be upfront. Mr Abbott really needs to say “I stand for $16.2 billion less in Australian schools.” It's not confusing.
Mr Abbott needs to pick up these budget papers, and let me be very clear about these budget papers, this is budget paper number two.
Mr Abbott can pick that up and he can find the chart, and he can say to himself well, looking at this budget table, what Mr Abbott stands for is $16.2 billion less for Australian schools.
If you stand for that, then you stand for a worse education for Australians.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, another area where there seems to be a clear choice emerging is on the issue of tax reform. The Coalition seems to be promising a white paper looking at tax reform, and are even prepared to go as far as GST.
Does the Government have a tax reform agenda that it would be taking to this year's election?
PM: We do not support and will never support a broadening of the base of the GST or an increase in its rate.
Mr Abbott has put broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST squarely in front of everyone, that's what he and his Treasury spokesperson have done over the last week and his Treasury spokesperson today.
So it's definitely there on their agenda for consideration. It is not on ours.
JOURNALIST: In terms of broader tax reform, does the Government have any kind of tax reform plan that it would be taking to the election?
PM: We have delivered tax reform which makes a real difference.
We've delivered tax reform by tripling the tax-free threshold for working Australians.
We've delivered tax reform for small businesses with the instant asset write-off.
We've delivered tax reform through the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
We've delivered tax reform including the addressing of rorts and inconsistencies in taxation - that was dealt with in the Budget on budget night.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, do you support New South Wales Labor's call to segregate vaccinated kids from non-vaccinated kids in childcare centres, and should that be rolled out nationally?
PM: Look I am concerned about vaccination rates. I'm a big supporter of vaccination. We make sure through the payments that we make available to families that you put those payments at risk if you don't get your child vaccinated.
That is one of the things we do as a federal government to send a very strong message to people that it's in their child's interest to be properly vaccinated.
JOURNALIST: Should the schools actually be segregated, I mean that's the question, should you separate the kids?
PM: For us, the approach we've taken is the payments we make to families which are payments that we directly control, we've decided to use those payments to send a clear signal about vaccinating children.
I can understand in communities, why people are worried about this, and I want to see vaccination rates moving up.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, why was Steve Bracks chosen to be the next consul-general in New York, and what do you think of the Opposition's threat, or reserving their right, to remove him from the position if they win the election?
PM: Mr Bracks has the capacities to perform that role and to perform it well. He's obviously a very experienced person, not only through being Premier of Victoria but in his engagements with corporate Australia since.
So we thought he had the right background to serve the nation in New York.
When you look at the appointments that the Government has made, we've looked across the political spectrum to get the best of skills.
I personally was very enthusiastic to see Brendan Nelson take over the War Memorial position, at this time when we are moving to the Centenary of Anzac.
I thought he was exactly the right person to do it, and of course prior to that, we had asked him to represent the nation at NATO and to the European Union.
So we look broadly across the political spectrum and across Australian life to get the right people with the right skills to do jobs.
JOURNALIST: And the threat to remove him?
PM: Well you'd have to ask the Opposition about that, but I do note that when we came to government there were a number of former Liberal MPs serving in various diplomatic posts around the world.
I personally for example did some things in New York with Robert Hill when he was serving there at the UN.
Of course Senator Vanstone had been appointed to Italy, and there's quite an extensive list and we did not engage in instability and churning of appointments based on who had a political party ticket.
We took the view that what was in the best interests of the nation was stability and having people continue to do their jobs.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, back on the budget, I know you don't like to comment on polls but are you expecting in the near future a lift out of the events of last week, not just your Budget but Tony Abbott's reply - do you see hope there for Labor?
PM: You've answered the question for me in the form of the question, so it doesn't need any other comment.
The focus here is on things that matter to the Australian people. I mean I have been working hard with the team, particularly - we were always working hard, but particularly in recent weeks - we have been so focussed on the things that matter for our nation's long term future.
Securing DisabilityCare, now seeking to secure school funding improvement, and better ways of working with Australian schools, ways that we know work, through our National Partnership money.
We have both been to schools - some of them together and some of them separately - we have both been to schools where we have shown that those children are getting a better education because of new resources and improvements that are being delivered in those school.
Well I want to see that right around the nation. That's our focus, and it's the nation's choice.
Better schools outing our kids first, or school cutbacks and a lesser standard of education.
That's the choice, and I'll be making that choice very, very clear in the weeks to come.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, why haven't the Labor states signed up to the Gonski reforms?
PM: We're still working hard - we're working hard with all states, including with the Labor states.
As Premier O'Farrell showed in New South Wales, this does, because it's significant new resources for schools, mean that state governments have to look very long and hard and forensically at their budgets.
Premier O'Farrell had to do that in order to put forward the extra resources for schools. We had to do that too, and so are states around the country including Labor states.
What's different between Labor states and conservative states is Labor states don't have Mr Abbott on the phone or at their door urging them not to sign up and not to put children first.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you toured the country signing up states onto the NDIS. Were you discussing Gonski with them at the same time?
PM: We focussed on securing the National Disability Insurance Scheme immediately after the announcement of the Medicare levy.
But even as we were doing that our officials were continuing to discuss school reform and school improvement with premiers and chief ministers.
So this process has never stopped. Inevitably, how public the process is-
MINISTER GARRETT: (Inaudible)
PM: You can vouch for that. Inevitably how public the process is, whether or not you're there with TV camera rolling, depends a bit on what else is happening in the nation's life that day and I'm not surprised that the focus of reporting has been on the successful securing of DisabilityCare agreements.
Indeed I would have been astonished if it was anything else.
But even during those days while we were securing agreements for DisabilityCare, we've been working on a plan for improving schools.
JOURNALIST: PM, are the dollars you're talking about today just Commonwealth dollars or do they include state funding?
PM: It's the total dollars so from both sources.
And you would know that we've talked about $14.5 billion that is on a two-for-one federal government and state.
If you just keep the current broken system, then that inevitably means indexation rates will go down, because they trigger off state government cutbacks, and that means less for schools, which is why you get to a difference of $16.2 billion for the current system, just chugging along ultimately delivering cuts as opposed to our plan for new resources and new ways of working with schools.
It's a very clear choice and I would urge Australian parents and communities to make sure they are familiar with these figures broken down by state and school system so they can get a real sense of what it means for them, their child and their community.
JOURNALIST: PM, Joe Hockey today said that in the years in the short term, education funding actually decreases because of some of the fiscal fiddles and shifting money into Gonski.
Can you confirm that and explain why this is the case?
PM: Mr Hockey is 100 per cent wrong. He's obviously picked up his lines form Mr Pyne, who is 100 per cent wrong.
You would have been there in the Budget lockup when these budget papers were released, and I'm sure you've studied every page.
Mr Hockey certainly should have done so given he says he wants to be Treasurer in a forthcoming government.
This is Budget Paper number one, all you need to do is open it up, take yourself to page 6-20, Table 7, Summary Expenses - Education, and there you see funding going up year after year for schools.
Funding goes up each year for schools as you would expect with our school improvement agenda.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Mr O'Farrell broke ranks with some people on his side of politics and he's upset quite a few of the, were you surprised that he did that, and what do you think about his actions?
PM: I think Premier O'Farrell proved that you can be a Liberal leader and not be a wrecker. I think that's what he proved.
I think it was very hard for Premier O'Farrell, absolutely, because he was under extraordinary pressure from the Leader of the Opposition to not sign up.
So the Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to put the schoolchildren of New South Wales first. I'm delighted that Premier O'Farrell resisted the pressure and he put kids in his state first.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in the announcement of the New South Wales funding deal, Premier Barry O'Farrell said basically that there was a potential sting in the tail if they didn't sign up.
Is the Federal Government similarly offering that sting in the tail of funding cuts to other states and territories?
PM: Let's be very clear here. The way in which school funding works is that the indexation rate gets triggered off state government cutbacks.
So if you have states cutting back education, then it feeds into indexation to the federal government funds and it drags it down.
If the nation doesn't endorse our plans for school improvement, what you will continue to see is state governments withdrawing effort and reducing indexation rates.
If that happens then the indexation gets pulled down.
At the same time, a number of time-limited national partnerships are coming to an end.
So, what's the future for schools if you do nothing?
State government cutbacks feeding into less money coming from the Federal Government and time-limited national partnerships coming to an end, versus what we have promised, which is new money building on top of everything that's in the national partnerships, new money, higher indexation, stability over time, this issue fixed for generations to come.
And every (inaudible) with a plan for school improvement so people know that there's not only more funds going into education but those more funds are being used to get better results for kids.
More kids reading, more kids writing, more kids doing maths, more kids attaining the high levels of education we are absolutely passionate about making sure that they get.
Thank you very much.
[ENDS]