Ms O’CONNOR – On 2.3, I wanted to go to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement; the agreement that the state signed with the Commonwealth around education, initially signed in October 2024, the bilateral agreement for the Better and Fairer schools’ package.
In budget paper 1 on page 84, it talks about how the state’s contributions over the lifetime of a full and fair agreement are uncertain. How uncertain are they? We just had an indication of what the state’s contribution would be under that agreement, given it’s been signed with the Commonwealth, so there must be some metrics in there that tell us what the state’s contribution will be.
Mr ABETZ – I would assume that to be the case. I don’t have that detail with me. Education may well be the place to get down into the minutiae of that agreement and as to what the responsibilities are.
Ms O’CONNOR – And we will, but this is in terms of Treasury’s perspective on what the state’s contribution is likely to be, given that the intent of the agreement is to ensure every school student in public education has sufficient resources for their learning needs.
Mr SWAIN – I can only make a very broad addition to the Treasurer’s answer, but my understanding is some of the funding under that agreement is tied to student numbers and it is also matched. It is not like there’s a single number in the agreement. There’s a formula for the contributions from both parties that will evolve with student numbers.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay. Even across the next year of funding for DECYP – given there’s these other funding pressures in DECYP around out-of-home care, for example, which have already been identified by Treasury and in the budget papers – Treasury must have a broad indication of what will be required as the state’s contribution to meet the spirit and intent of the Better and Fairer Schools Funding Agreement.
Mr SWAIN – That is embedded in the Budget.
Ms O’CONNOR – Not to the out years, though – not fully.
Mr BURGESS – I will back up what the secretary says is there’s much greater certainty about. For instance, what would be required this financial year, because we’ve got a lot of certainty around student numbers and student needs.
Ms O’CONNOR – At this time of year, you mean?
Mr BURGESS – You know, the closer we are to now, the more certainty there is about student numbers. The further you go out in the agreement, the more uncertainty there is about how many students you will have to teach, what their needs will be. That affects the funding of both the Commonwealth and the state. I think that’s what that risk is trying to describe.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay. And so each year, is a new assessment made of need for the funding allocation for the following year?
Mr BURGESS – My understanding is it’s based on assessments of student numbers and needs.
Ms O’CONNOR – Okay. Can we just go quickly to the agreement with the Commonwealth around the $240 million for urban renewal at the Macquarie Point? Have any of the milestones that were set by the Commonwealth in that agreement been achieved? Or, what sort of work is being undertaken to present the housing component of that funding?
Mr ABETZ – To the best of my recollection, they have been – and I think on one, an extension was provided. Does anybody have the exact detail on that?
Mr SWAIN – The work on this has been led by State Growth, so it’s probably better-
Mr ABETZ – Right, better for Macquarie Point-
CHAIR – Can you answer that one later? Okay, we’ll park that one to a bit later.
Ms O’CONNOR – And can I just double check before we go – the model for Homes Tasmania is that they have to leverage to access- for example, the Housing Australia Future Fund. Is there any agreement on housing with the Commonwealth, or is it all just spot funding depending on applications that Homes Tasmania has can partner on to submit a bid for? Do we have any agreement with the Commonwealth on housing, at all?
Mr BURGESS – Yes, there’s a housing agreement, but I’m not across the detailed mechanics.
Ms O’CONNOR – I will ask Mr Vincent about that, but again, slightly falls within this category.
Mr BURGESS – That might be best.
Mr SWAIN – Sorry – the only thing I can add there is that in some of the discussions at Head of Treasuries and Board of Treasurers, there’s a lot of discussion on the Commonwealth’s incentives in relation to housing and the specific targets, which all states are finding very hard to meet. There’s a concerted effort from state treasurers to get those incentives recalibrated to targets that are more readily meetable to all the jurisdictions.
Ms O’CONNOR – What about adjusting the funding model so it’s not so reliant on a HAFF funding round?
Mr ABETZ – Sorry, I can’t comment on that whether –
Ms O’CONNOR – You’re the Treasurer.
Mr ABETZ – If we had more money, wouldn’t that be great?
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, you know, it’s about priorities, isn’t it?
Mr ABETZ – It is indeed, but you cannot spend the stadium money on every single area you might be interested in. You can only spend it once.
Ms O’CONNOR – Or not spend it.
CHAIR – Okay, any other questions?
Mr ABETZ – And if we didn’t spend it, there would then be no money for what you’re suggesting.
Ms O’CONNOR – Then there would be –
Mr ABETZ – Fine.
Ms O’CONNOR – Not $1.8 billion added to net debt within the decade.
