
Jason Clare says the deal to fully fund NSW public schools is a decade overdue. But it'll take a decade to fully arrive
'This is the big one,' Jason Clare said. 'New South Wales is the biggest education system in the country and this is the biggest investment in public education by an Australian government, ever.'
After more than seven months of squabbling, all the states and territories except Queensland have finally agreed to a pathway that would fully fund public schools and fulfil the promise of Gonski – with a caveat. But more on that later.
In practical terms, it will mean each student will be funded to 100% of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). The SRS is a mechanism, devised by the Gonski review, which estimates how much funding a school requires to meet the full educational needs of its students and reduce the impact of social disadvantage on educational outcomes.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
It is a fixed baseline amount (currently $13,977 for primary students and $17,565 for secondary students), with additional loadings for priority cohorts – like First Nations students or students with disabilities – as well as disadvantaged schools.
The new funding, to be rolled out from next year, will be tied to education reforms and targets, including individualised support, evidence-based teaching practices, phonics and numeracy checks, as well as mental health and wellbeing support.
Most politicians would agree that fully funding public schools is a no-brainer.
'The bottom line is it should've been done over a decade ago,' Clare said on Tuesday.
What's been at issue for so long is who should stump up the money.
Currently, under a model enacted by the Turnbull government , the commonwealth contributes 20% of the total funding to public schools, while states are required to fund public schools at 75% – leaving a 5% gap.
Data from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (Acara) data shows that 98% of private schools are overfunded according to the SRS.
The commonwealth initially proposed a 2.5% increase to public schools, to bring its total funding contribution to 22.5%, with state governments to match the rest – excluding the Northern Territory, which will have its contribution doubled to 40%.
The ACT, Western Australia, the NT and Tasmania were happy to sign up to the deal, but the biggest states held out, pushing the federal government to increase their funding to 25% because it had a comparatively larger pool to draw from.
With the clock ticking, the prime minister eventually intervened, telling the National Press Club in January that Labor would concede to the demands of the major states and ink deals with Victoria and South Australia to deliver the 5% increase.
Sign up to Morning Mail
Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
A deal with Queensland is unlikely. The state's education minister said it had until December of this year, when the current funding agreement expired, to negotiate – despite an election looming sometime in the next two months.
But here's the caveat. Under the terms of the deal, it will take until 2034 for every student at every school to reach that full funding.
The pace of the rollout means another generation of public school students will go through their entire schooling without the baseline level of funding in most states and territories. Only the Australian Capital Territory has already reached the SRS.
Still, Labor can say they got the deal done, and can go to the election with a positive story to tell on education, which, like health, is a core issue for the party.
Education unions have been clear that they will be campaigning hard for Labor.
As with Medicare, the opposition has pledged to match public school funding arrangements Labor has forged with states and territories.
With a mass exodus from the public school sector continuing, and education gaps remaining persistent, the stakes are above politics.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
16 hours ago
- NBC News
Congregation flees after arsonist sets fire to an Australian synagogue door
An arsonist set fire to the door of a Melbourne synagogue and forced the congregation to flee on Friday, seven months after criminals destroyed a synagogue in the same Australian city with an accelerant-fueled blaze that left a worshipper injured. A man doused the double front doors of the downtown East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation and set it alight around 8 p.m., a police statement said on Saturday. Around 20 worshippers sharing a meal to mark the Shabbat Jewish day of rest evacuated through a rear door and no one was injured, police said. Fire fighters extinguished the blaze which was contained to the front entrance, police. A wave of antisemitic attacks has roiled Australia since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel triggered the war in Gaza. Jewish and Muslim organizations and hate researchers have recorded drastic spikes in hate-fueled incidents on both groups. The Australian government last year appointed special envoys to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia in the community. Last December, two masked men struck the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne's southeast. They caused extensive damage by spreading a liquid accelerant with brooms throughout the building before igniting it. A worshipper sustained minor burns. No charges have been laid for that attack, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blamed on antisemitism. The Victorian Joint Counter-Terrorism Team, which includes Victoria state police, federal police and Australia's main domestic spy agency, said the fire was likely a politically-motivated attack. Police say synagogue attack is a serious crime Acting Victoria Police Commander Zorka Dunstan described the latest synagogue fire as a serious crime. Police released a CCTV image of a suspect. 'I'd like to make it very clear that we do recognize that these crimes are disgusting and abhorrent. But at this stage, we are not declaring this a terrorist incident,' Dunstan told reporters. 'In the course of our investigation, we will examine the intent and the ideology of the persons involved, or person, to determine if this is in fact terrorism. At the moment, we are categorizing it as a serious criminal incident and responding accordingly,' she added. A terrorism declaration opens the investigation to more resourcing and can result in charges that carry longer prison sentences. The synagogue's president, Danny Segal, called for the wider Australian community to stand with his congregation. 'We're here to be in peace, you know, we're here for everybody to live together and we've got a fresh start in Australia, such a beautiful country, and what they're doing is just not fair and not right, and as Australians, we should stand up and everybody should stand up,' Segal told reporters. Protesters harass diners in Israeli-owned restaurant Also in downtown Melbourne on Friday night, around 20 masked protesters harassed diners in an Israeli-owned restaurant. A Miznon restaurant window was broken. A 28-year-old woman was arrested for hindering police. Anti-Defamation Commission chair Dvir Abramovich, a leading opponent of antisemitism in Australia, said diners were terrorized as the group chanted ' Death to the IDF,' referring to the Israel Defense Forces. 'Melbourne, for one night, stopped being a safe place for Jews,' Abramovich said. Melbourne Lord Mayor Nicholas Reece condemned both the synagogue and restaurant incidents. 'These criminal acts against a Melbourne synagogue and an Israeli business are absolutely shocking,' Reece said. 'All of us as a community need to stand up against it.' Victoria Premier Jacinta Allan said both incidents were designed to 'traumatize Jewish families.'


The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
O'Brien on Liberal ‘soul-searching' amid nuclear and net-zero policy review
After a bruising election loss, the Coalition is at a crossroads. Can it reinvent itself as a credible alternative to Labor, or will internal divisions over nuclear energy, net zero and the Liberal party's identity doom it to another term in opposition? Guardian Australia chief political correspondent, Tom McIlroy, speaks with the deputy opposition leader, Ted O'Brien, about the road ahead – from climate policy to rebuilding trust – and whether the Coalition can rise from the ashes of defeat


Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Scottish Sun
Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION ‘gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash
The ruling has been upheld by the Supreme Court BAAH HUMBUG Sheep farmer's ex-wife LOSES battle over £80MILLION 'gift' he gave her for kids… after she divorced him & kept cash Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A SHEEP farmer's ex-wife has lost a five-year legal battle to keep half of a £80million sum he gave her as part of a tax avoidance scheme. Clive Standish, 72, transferred the multi-million pound gift to his former partner Anna in 2017, with the intention of eventually placing the money in an offshore trust for their children. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 Clive Standish will keep the majority of an £80million gift he gave his wife Credit: Central News 5 It was initially decided by the High Court that Anna should receive half of the funds Credit: Champion News Clive, a former chief financial officer at UBS, made the decision to move the funds over to his Australian wife to exploit her non-dom status and avoid a crippling 40% inheritance-tax rate. The former banker believed he would face a bill of about £32 million if he died with the money in his name. But the pair's 15 year marriage later hit the rocks and divorce proceedings began in 2020 with the assets still in her name. It was initially decided by the High Court in 2023 that Anna, 57, should receive half of the funds in the settlement. Read more News CHEEKY BURGERS Uber Eats kitchen cooking burgers set up in asylum hotel is SHUT DOWN But last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that her share should be reduced from half to £25million. The amount was judged to fairly represent her contribution to raising the children and looking after their home. And despite Anna's recent attempts to overturn the decision, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court yesterday. Five judges argued that the sum was not a marital asset because it had not been shared by the couple and Mr Standish had intended it for their children. The ruling said: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80 million should not be retained by the wife.' Fresh twist in Eamonn Holmes & Ruth Langsford's divorce as celeb pair battle over £3.6m home His wife never established two offshore trusts as he had expected, so Clive was judged to be the sole owner of those assets when divorce proceedings began. Lord Faulks, representing Anna, tried to argue that the money had become shared property after the initial transfer, adding that she had contributed by accepting the gift. Mr Standish moved to Australia in 1976 and married Anna in December 2005, before the pair moved to the UK five years later. The couple lived together at Moundsmere Manor, an 18-bedroom mansion near Preston Candover, Hampshire. Clive's laywer, Tim Bishop KC, explained that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3 million, while Anna had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had come from Clive's initial fortune. Mr Bishop added: "The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020". Delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens agreed with the Court of Appeal's verdict. 5 The pair lived together at Moundsmere Manor in Hampshire Credit: Champion News Service 5 Clive moved the funds over to his Australian wife to avoid inheritance-tax Credit: Champion News Service Ltd They said: "There was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because the transfer was to save tax and it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. "The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. "Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. "The 2017 assets comprise the husband's pre-marital assets and earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007, to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and child carer during those years. "In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. "Rather, the intention is simply to save tax."