Chapter 2Key issues
The value of education
2.1The value of government investment in education is well established. For example, the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) reflected on the 'robust evidence' confirming that 'engagement in education is a strong protective factor for children's long-term physical and mental health outcomes, economic productivity, and social outcomes such as engagement with the justice and child protections systems'.
2.2The Centre for Future Work (CfW) described 'top-quality and accessible public schools' as a 'vital precondition for successful economic, social and democratic development'. It also pointed to the growing body of research confirming the 'economic benefits of well-funded public schools'.
2.3Further, Professor Alan Reid highlighted the role schools play in teaching students to 'understand, appreciate and respect differences in culture, beliefs, and socio-economic status' which is 'fundamental to building a respectful and tolerant democratic culture'.
Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 and the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement
2.4The Australian Government (government) currently provides 20 per cent of each government school's SRS, while state and territory governments have agreed to 'fund a share of no more than 75 per cent of the SRS' for their government schools—with the exception of the ACT, which provides 80 per cent. This means that, apart from the ACT, no government school system currently receives 100 per cent of the SRS.
2.5As stated by the Minister, the government has committed to working with all states and territories to get all schools on a path to 100 per cent of their fair funding level. This means all governments 'chipping in more to fill that gap'.
2.6The Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 (bill) would facilitate the first step on that path, by turning the current 20 per cent ceiling on Commonwealth funding into a floor that will allow the government to 'ratchet up funding for public schools'.
2.7More immediately, the new funding floor would underpin the higher funding on offer as part of the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (BFSA). According to the department, through the BFSA, the government has offered to increase the Commonwealth share for government schools to 22.5 per cent of the SRS for all states and the ACT, and 40 per cent for government schools in the Northern Territory (NT). The BFSA would also introduce new transparency and accountability measures, without placing an additional burden on schools.
2.8To date, the BFSA has been signed by WA, Tasmania and the NT, with negotiations continuing with other states and the ACT. As noted by the Minister, this means that:
For the first time, all jurisdictions who are party to the BFSA 2025–2034 will have a formally agreed pathway to reaching 100 per cent SRS funding for government schools. By closing this previously existing funding gap, the Australian Government is supporting students to catch up, keep up and finish school.
The link between disadvantage and educational outcomes
2.9The importance of quality education to disadvantaged students was made clear by the ACT Council of Parents & Citizens Associations, which submitted that 'research consistently shows that a high-quality education can improve student outcomes, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds'.
2.10In addition, the Australian Education Union (AEU) Victorian Branch referred to research stating that the primary motivation for the adequate resourcing of public schools is to:
… enhance the life chances of the students who attend them, to reduce economic inequality and segregation, and to ensure that young people's trajectories are less predetermined by the socio-economic status of their parents than is presently the case.
2.11However, as noted by the Hon. Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education (Minister), one in three Australian children from poor families—most of them in government schools—are falling below minimum literacy and numeracy standards. In addition, school completion rates in government schools have also fallen ten per cent over the last eight years—something that hasn't happened in non-government schools.
2.12To this end, the AEU Tasmanian Branch noted a well-established link 'between disadvantage and poor educational outcomes – as well as the need for additional resourcing to overcome that disadvantage'.
2.13This point was underscored by Professors Stephen Lamb and Pasi Sahlberg, who submitted that children from disadvantaged backgrounds 'achieve less well at school, are less likely to stay on at school or enter further education, and are more likely as adults to be unemployed or in low-paid jobs'. In addition, they noted that disadvantaged students 'have higher levels of need and require additional support to achieve the same outcomes reached by other children'. This means:
… schools with larger numbers of disadvantaged or high-need students require more resources to meet the same standards and deliver the same outcomes.
2.14Further, Mr Michael Sciffer emphasised the impact of the 'socioeconomical compositional effect—this is, the relationship between average school socioeconomic status (SES) and individual student learning outcomes caused by 'the concentration of disadvantaged students into disadvantaged schools':
The socioeconomic compositional effect entrenches lower rates of learning by acting as a systemic barrier to school effectiveness. It impedes teachers and principals from ensuring all students achieve their academic potential … The socioeconomic compositional effect lowers the capacity of socially disadvantaged schools to lift the achievement of academically at-risk students. The outcome of the systemic segregation of disadvantaged young people in Australian secondary schools results in them being two times less likely to achieve minimum academic benchmarks in disadvantaged schools compared to attending advantaged schools.
The concentration of disadvantage in government schools
2.15Numerous submitters underscored the 'heavy lifting' done by the government education sector in terms of educating disadvantaged students. For example, Welcoming Australia reported that 'the burden of disadvantage is three times that of private schools'.
2.16A similar view was expressed by the Victorian and NSW Councils of Social Service, which highlighted the concentration of disadvantage in public schools, which educate 'the vast majority of students with higher needs'. This includes 'those from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural and remote areas, students with a disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students'. Likewise, the Smith Family noted that:
In 2022, low SES students comprised 31.4 percent of Government school enrolments compared to 13.2 percent in non-Government schools. In 2023, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students accounted for 8.3 percent of enrolments in Government schools compared to 3.3 percent in non-Government schools.
2.17This was reflected in evidence from individual jurisdictions. For example, the NSW Secondary Principals' Council (NSWSPC) stated that more than 50 per cent of students in NSW public secondary schools are in the lowest socioeconomic disadvantage percentiles, while 87 per cent of all Aboriginal students are educated in NSW public schools.
2.18Despite this, multiple submitters observed a disparity in funding between the government and non-government sectors. For example, the National Tertiary Education Union pointed to data from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority showing that in 2023, 98 per cent of private schools were funded above the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), with more than 98 per cent of public schools funded below the SRS.
2.19Various contributors also highlighted the role that concentrated disadvantage, coupled with insufficient funding, plays in increasing teachers' workloads, which, in turn, affects teacher recruitment and retention, as well as student outcomes.
2.20According to the NTEU, this funding disparity has been driven largely 'by successive (Coalition) governments following on from the Gonski reforms', which 'cut, capped and then ignored federal funding for public schools'.
The stratification of education in Australia
2.21Various submitters, including the Australian Secondary Principals' Association (ASPA) drew the committee's attention to the stratification of education in Australia:
Australia's education system stands out amongst OECD nations for its high levels of socio-economic segregation, a consequence of policies that have inadvertently concentrated disadvantaged students in under-resourced public schools while simultaneously subsidising more affluent students attending private institutions.
2.22This was also reflected in evidence from the CfW, which underscored the link between educational inequality and falling achievement. According to the CfW, Australia has 'one of the most privatised and unequal school systems in the industrial world'. By contrast, it noted that in the countries that perform best according to PISA scores, there is much less inequality between advantaged and disadvantaged schools.
2.23In addition, Mr Sciffer pointed to research showing that private secondary schools are a key driver of the segregation of disadvantaged students, which is explained partly by the fees charged by those schools. The research found that no school system is representative of the Australian population:
… on average, each Catholic school increased community-level segregation by 3% and each independent school by 2%. … no school system is representative of the Australian population. Public schools over-represent low SES students. Catholic schools over-represent middle SES students while independent schools substantially over-represent high SES students.
General views on the bill
2.24A range of participants expressed support for the bill's aim to provide a pathway to the full and fair funding of government schools. For example, ARACY stated that it 'strongly endorsed[d] supporting all schools on a path to 100 per cent of the [SRS] by 2029'. The AEU Northern Territory (AEU NT) described the bill as providing 'a promising framework for addressing long-standing inequities in Australia's public education system'.
2.25There was also a strong desire expressed by most contributors to the inquiry for government schools to receive their full allocation of funding under the SRS.
2.26In addition, submitters such as the Independent Education Union of Australia commended 'the purpose and objectives' of the BFSA, which include equity and excellence, wellbeing for learning and engagement, and a strong and sustainable workforce.
2.27The emphasis in the BFSA on 'shared responsibilities to improve and strengthen equity and excellence for all Australian schools and systems' was strongly supported by the National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC). Likewise, the Smith Family welcomed the BFSA's focus on improvements—particularly for equity cohorts—in areas such as attendance, NAPLAN, and school completions, as well as its emphasis on student wellbeing and the use of evidence-based approaches.
2.28The WA Government described its signing of the BFSA as 'a landmark moment in the history of public education in Western Australia' and stated that it 'fully supports the passing of the [bill] … during the Spring 2024 sitting period'.
2.29More broadly, the WA Government contended that passage of the bill would:
enable the Commonwealth to enact the increased funding commitments with WA, SA and the NT;
provide long term certainty by ensuring that the Commonwealth funding share cannot be reduced without legislative change; and
ensure funding continuity at existing levels for jurisdictions that do not sign the BFSA.
2.30The Tasmanian Government also welcomed the removal of the 20 per cent cap on Commonwealth funding for government schools. In combination with regulations preventing any reduction in Commonwealth funding shares, it stated that the new funding floor would 'provide critical funding certainty for government schools'.
2.31Participants also expressed supported for specific elements of bill. For example, the NSW, Victorian and SA governments expressed support for the bill's aims to provide:
greater certainty in funding shares and removal of the 20 per cent cap on Commonwealth funding for government schools;
a 'ratchet' mechanism that would prevent reductions in the Commonwealth funding share for government schools from one year to the next; and
a different funding Commonwealth funding share for government schools in the Northern Territory.
2.32There was also support for the improved transparency measures proposed in the bill.
2.33At the same time, a range of submitters, including some of those who supported the aims of the bill, proposed amendments or additions to the bill or the BFSA. For example, the Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO), argued that the bill should go further in providing targeted supported for equity cohorts, as well as incentives to help address teacher shortages in disadvantaged areas, and additional accountability and transparency measures.
2.34Others, such as the NSW, Victorian and SA governments, AEU ACT and AEU NT suggested that provision should be made for long-term capital investment in government schools—similar to the existing provision for schools in the non‑government sector.
2.35While multiple submitters advocated for the Commonwealth funding floor to be set at 25 per cent, rather than 20 per cent, some of these, including the Refugee Council of Australia, still welcomed the creation of a funding floor. Similarly, while arguing for the floor to be set at 25 per cent, the Mining and Energy Union noted the government's commitment to working with states and territories to put all schools on a path to their fair funding level.
2.36In addition to discussion of the Commonwealth funding share, there was also some commentary on the shortfall in funding provided by state governments, with particular reference to the four per cent allocation for operational costs, as well as suggestions that state governments should be required to fully fund their share of the SRS for public schools.
2.37While raising concerns, other participants, such as the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA), contended that the BFSA 'must be welcomed as an improvement on its predecessor, specifically in regard to increased Commonwealth funding and attention to reporting'.
2.38In addition, the Smith Family stated that the bill will 'see more funding going to schools that need it most' and will 'make a key contribution to improving the lives of young Australians'.
2.39Overall, the department concluded that:
The Bill supports the aspirations of the Mparntwe Education Declaration and gives effect tothe Australian Government's commitment to work with states and territories to put allgovernment schools on a pathway to full and fair funding.
Comments on specific aspects of the bill
2.40Evidence provided to the committee traversed a wide range of matters relating to the bill and the BFSA, as well as school education policy matters more broadly. As the purpose of the inquiry is to examine the specific provisions of the bill, the remainder of the report deals primarily with commentary about:
the Commonwealth funding floor and associated 'ratchet' mechanism; and
the transparency and accountability measures.
2.41However, this section also includes discussion of the inclusion of operational costs within state and territory funding shares in the context of the broader commitment to full funding for government schools.
Commonwealth funding floor and ratchet mechanism
2.42There was support for both the conversion of the 20 per cent Commonwealth funding ceiling into a funding floor, and the proposed ratchet mechanism. For example, the Queensland Teachers' Union submitted that 'Queensland state schools urgently need the Commonwealth Government to turn the 20 per cent funding cap into a minimum, not a maximum; a floor and not a ceiling'.
2.43Further, the Tasmanian Government described how these provisions would provide 'critical funding certainty' for government schools:
Tasmania welcomes the intent of the amendments to remove the ceiling of 20 per cent for the Commonwealth's contribution for Government school funding and replacing it with a floor of 20 per cent. We note that the amendments will prevent any regulation setting a Commonwealth share that is less than one that has previously been prescribed by regulations. These amendments will provide critical funding certainty for Government schools.
2.44A similar view was expressed by the AEU NT, which detailed structural challenges facing the NT but also noted the 'critical operational funding' that would flow from the 40 per cent funding floor for the NT, coupled with the commitment to achieving 100 per cent SRS funding by 2029.
2.45The introduction of the 40 per cent funding floor for Northern Territory government schools was also commended by the Australian Secondary Principals' Association.
2.46While welcoming the move from a funding ceiling to a funding floor, participants such as the AEU South Australia Branch (AEU SA), ACSSO and the Refugee Council of Australia also advocated for a higher funding floor. Indeed, there was widespread support for the Commonwealth funding floor to be set at 25 per cent. For example, while SA Unions noted the government's support for full funding of public schools and acknowledged the 22.5 per cent share on offer, it submitted that the bill should set a floor of 25 per cent in order to fill the remaining 'funding gap'.
2.47To this end, various contributors noted that the difference between a 22.5 per cent funding share and a 25 per cent funding share equates to an additional $1000 per student. Submitters argued that this extra funding, if provided, would allow schools to:
provide more resources, such as additional teaching staff, specialist programs and teaching and learning materials;
operate with smaller class sizes;
improve education quality for rural and remote students;
support students with additional needs;
invest in parent and community engagement to support student engagement;
invest in student wellbeing; and
decrease learning gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students.
2.48According to other contributors, the additional funding would also help to reduce burnout and support the attraction and retention of teachers and school principals, including in rural and remote areas.
2.49Further, participants such as MissingSchool and the CfW pointed to the broader economic benefits of fully funding public schools and argued that this would generate 'substantial and cumulating' benefits amounting to 'total additional GDP estimated at $18 to $25 billion per year after 20 years'.
2.50Some participants also raised concerns that setting a floor of 20 per cent could result in future funding cuts for schools, should a future government decide to revert to the floor.
2.51However, the department pointed out that the bill provides a ratchet mechanism to ensures that once a Commonwealth funding share is set by regulation, 'it cannot be reduced without changing legislation, with future shares to be equal to or greater than the ones already set'.
2.52The AEU NT described the ratchet mechanism as 'a vital component' of the bill, which would safeguard against funding increases being wound back by future governments:
It ensures that once SRS funding increases are achieved, they cannot be reduced by future governments. This protection is essential for long-term planning and sustainability in schools, particularly in the Northern Territory where funding stability is critical for addressing deep-rooted educational challenges.
2.53Similarly, the WA Government stated that the ratchet mechanism would provide government schools with long-term financial security 'by ensuring that the increased Australian Government funding share commitments cannot be reduced without further legislative change'.
2.54For clarity, the Explanatory Memorandum further explained that no future regulations—including regulations that may claim to repeal existing regulations—would be able to decrease a Commonwealth share for a government school for a year.
Transparency and accountability measures
2.55A range of submitters welcomed the transparency and accountability measures contained in the bill. For example, the NCEC indicated strong support for the provisions in Schedule 2 of the bill which make it clear that a key purposed of the Australian Education Act 2013 is to 'support transparency and accountability in relation to funding arrangements for school education in Australia'.
2.56In addition, the ACTA stated that the transparency requirements 'will assist in improving public understanding and trust in how funding is distributed to schools and used by them'.
2.57This sentiment was echoed by ACSSO, which expressed support for annual reporting on the BFSA and argued that 'transparency in how funds are allocated and their impact on student outcomes is essential for building community trust'.
2.58Further, the Smith Family described increased transparency and accountability as 'critical if the education outcomes of all students, and in particular equity groups, are to improve'. The Smith Family was particularly supportive of the requirement for an annual statement on BFSA progress:
We see this as providing much needed transparency and scrutiny for public funding, both within the Parliament and across the community. We believe this can contribute to holding Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments more accountable and enhance public confidence in and understanding of school education in Australia. We see this as very important given the power education has to positively change the lives of young Australians, especially those experiencing disadvantage.
2.59Some contributors raised concerns about the potential administrative workload attached to the new reporting requirements. For example, the SA Primary Principals' Association stated that 'any changes to transparency and accountability measures must be balanced so as not to overburden public school leaders and staff unnecessarily'.
2.60Similarly, while the Australian Catholic Primary Principals' Association submitted that it 'fully supports and encourages transparency and accountability in new educational agreements', it also 'strongly advocates for avoiding the imposition of additional administrative burdens, increased workloads, or compliance pressures on schools and principals'.
2.61The SA Government urged strong collaboration with states and territories to 'ensure the bill does not increase the reporting burden for systems and schools, which is already significant and adds to teacher workload'.
2.62However, other submitters suggested that the transparency and accountability measures in the bill could be strengthened. For example, Professors Lamb and Sahlberg called the proposed measures 'a step in the right direction' but contended that 'they may not go far enough'. They pointed to the findings of a review by the National School Resourcing Board (NSRB), which reported that:
.. the lack of transparency around financial data, such as school-level income and expenditure, had severely limited [the NSRB's] ability to assess how much funding schools received, how they spent it, and whether or not the amounts were sufficient to meet need.
2.63For this reason, the NSRB review had recommended the inclusion of clauses in Commonwealth-state school funding agreements that would facilitate access to better data to support monitoring activities.
2.64Further, contributors such as Mr Sciffer, ASPA and the Queensland Secondary Principals' Association suggested that accountability measures should include features such as:
measures of socio-economic diversity (using a multi-faceted measure of socio-educational advantage, such as ACARA's Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage);
measures and reports of systemic barriers to the learning of student equity
groups;
metrics to quantify the impact of school segregation on student learning outcomes; and
a 'community contribution index' to measure the extent to which schools are enrolling and supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
2.65In addition, some participants argued for other groups to be identified—and reported on—as priority equity cohorts under the BFSA, including students with disability and English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners, including First Nations EAL learners.
Inclusion of operational costs within state and territory funding shares
2.66Currently, state and territory governments can include certain operational costs—such as depreciation, funding for regulatory and curriculum bodies, kindergarten costs, and student transportation—as part of their SRS funding contribution to government schools (up to an amount not exceeding four per cent of the total SRS for their government schools). The ACT is the only jurisdiction that does not claim these operational costs as part of its funding share.
2.67Save Our Schools (SOS) provided an example from Victoria to illustrate the impact of the four percent allocation on the funding available to schools. According to SOS, while Victoria had a 2024 target SRS share of 70.43 per cent, its actual share after adjusting for the four per cent allocation was 65.82 per cent—an estimated funding loss of $661.4 million.
2.68The Tasmanian Association of State School Organisations described the practical impact of the allocation:
These allocations divert much-needed funds away from direct educational support, limiting schools' ability to deliver core programs and services. Addressing this issue will ensure that funding is directed towards where it is most needed—supporting students and enhancing their learning environments.
2.69Similar views were expressed by other submitters such as the Australian Literacy Educators' Association, which stated that the provision 'diverts over $2billion annually from classroom funding', and Children and Young People with Disability Australia, which argued that it allows states and territories to 'inflate their reported spending on public education without necessarily improving student outcomes'.
2.70Some participants questioned the inclusion of these operational costs as part of state and territory funding shares when they were not considered as part of the calculation of the SRS itself. For this reason, submitters such as SOS and ACSSO proposed that state and territory funding calculations should 'align with ACARA's methodology for Net Recurrent Income Per Student, which excludes items like transport, depreciation, and curriculum administration'.
2.71Others, such as the WA Secondary School Executives Association and the Australian Association for Research in Education, also noted that the four per cent allocation applies only to state and territory funding shares for public schools, not to their funding share for private schools.
2.72Further, submitters such as the AEU Victorian Branch and the NSWSPC – Western Sydney Secondary Principals' Council contended that that the non-government sector benefited from some of the functions included in the four per cent allocation:
.. these funds are used in NSW to divert funding from government schools to cross-sectoral corporate administrative functions, school transport and whole of government services to all schools.
2.73In addition, some contributors claimed that the four per cent allocation would also prevent public schools from ever reaching full funding. For example, Professors Lamb and Sahlberg argued that while government schools are earmarked to receive 100 per cent of the SRS in 2029, this would not happen in practice because of the four per cent allocation:
… it won't be a full-share because of the agreements over what can be included in the relative shares of funding. Non-recurrent funding items, such as funding for capital depreciation and school transport among other things, are allowed to be included in the estimation of government school costs. But they shouldn't be. The items amount to 4% of funding nationally. It means, government schools will never receive the full 100% of the SRS.
2.74Accordingly, multiple submitters advocated for abolition of the allowance. For example, the AEU NSW argued that the government should 'remove the funding loophole created by the Morrison government … that allowed 'artificial inflation of the NSW government funding share of the [SRS] by including costs not directly related to the learning needs of students such as capital depreciation and regulatory costs'. In 2023, these costs equated to $640 million.
2.75To this end, the AEU Federal Office suggested incremental removal of the 4 per cent allowance over four years starting in 2026. According to the AEU Federal Office, 'removal of this loophole, which … was never intended to form part of the SRS or … be counted as recurrent funding for schools, is imperative for full and fair funding of public schools'.
Committee view
2.76The committee would like to thank all participants who contributed to the inquiry via written submissions and evidence provided at the committee's hearing in Canberra.
2.77The committee also recognises the broader consultation processes underpinning development of the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 (bill). These include negotiations around the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (BFSA) and significant consultations undertaken as part of the Review to Inform a Better and Fairer Education System, which involved a Ministerial Reference Group, a survey of nearly 25 000 educators, parents, guardians and students, as well as a consultation paper that received 266 submissions.
2.78The committee also acknowledges that a great deal of the evidence provided to the committee traversed matters beyond the scope of the specific provisions of bill, with teacher workforce issues being of significant concern.
2.79While not addressed by the bill—and therefore not a focus of this report—the committee supports ongoing work by all governments to progress actions under the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan. This includes a $337 million investment by the Australian Government to implement Action Plan initiatives.
2.80As underscored by many inquiry participants, quality education is critical to the life chances of Australian students. It also underpins Australia's economic prosperity and its civic and social development.
2.81While Australia has a good education system, the committee recognises that more needs to be done to continually improve it and make it more equitable. The research shows us students from socio-educationally disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to fall behind and not finish school.
2.82The research also shows that this disadvantage is heavily concentrated in the government school sector. This point was underscored for the committee by multiple inquiry participants who described the 'heavy lifting' being done by public schools—currently the most underfunded schools in the country.
2.83As the Minister for Education has noted, all non-government schools are already either funded at the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) level set by David Gonski, are on track to get there, or are funded above that level and are coming back down to it. However, most public schools are not.
2.84This bill provides an opportunity to change this funding trajectory by removing the cap on Commonwealth funding contributions, facilitating the additional $16billion Commonwealth investment on offer through the BFSA, and doubling the Commonwealth investment in Northern Territory public schools. Importantly, the bill also introduces a ratchet mechanism that ensures that—once enshrined in the Regulations—Commonwealth funding for schools cannot be reduced in future years without further amendment to the Act.
2.85During the course of its inquiry, the committee heard significant support for both the removal of the cap and the introduction of the ratchet mechanism, which, taken together, will increase critical funding certainty for states and territories.
2.86There was also support for the improved transparency and accountability measures in the bill, which will build trust in Australia's education system by allowing the community to understand how school funds are allocated and their impact on student outcomes.
2.87The committee recognises that many participants asked for the bill to set a higher Commonwealth funding floor. The committee notes that the BFSA and the associated $16 billion funding offer would represent the biggest additional investment in public education ever delivered by an Australian Government.
2.88In relation to concerns about the potential administrative burden of the proposed reporting requirements, the committee is reassured by evidence provided by the department about the explicit commitment in the BFSA that the reporting requirements will not impose any additional burden on schools.
2.89The committee welcomes the additional funding for equity and inclusion measures that is tied to the BSFA and are in line with the national reform directions. In particular, the committee notes that stakeholders were strongly supportive of initiatives to reduce teacher workload, school leader and student wellbeing, strengthen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural safety, and pilot incentive packages to attract staff into regional and remote areas.
2.90Overall, the committee believes that the bill will deliver much-needed funding certainty to Australia's schools and set them on a pathway to their fair funding level. Critically, as the Minister has argued, it will help more Australian students to catch up, keep up and finish school.
2.91Accordingly, the committee recommends that the bill be passed.
2.92The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator Tony Sheldon
Chair
Senator for New South Wales