Dan Tehan says he hopes states and territories won’t make schoolchildren ‘pay the price for our discussions’

The education minister, Dan Tehan, has conceded the states could derail the Coalition’s $4.6bn package for Catholic and independent schools but warned “we don’t want to make schoolkids pay the price” for debates about fair funding.

The comments on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday raise the prospect that children in all sectors – including government schools – could miss out on funding increases legislated in 2017 if dissidents such as the New South Wales education minister, Rob Stokes, continue to demand state schools share in extra funding given to non-government schools.

Tehan repeatedly defended the $4.6bn package by reference to the fact both the Gonski and Chaney reviews called for a more accurate measure of schools funding using parents’ income, but was not pressed on the second-largest component – a $1.2bn “choice and affordability fund” derided by opponents as a “slush fund” for non-government schools.

School chaplains agency faces tax challenge over $33m in donations Read more

Stokes has said that the federal government “can’t just strike a special deal with certain schools and not the others”.

“It’s not about which school you go to, it’s about ensuring every child is supported according to need,” he said at a doorstop on Friday.

Tehan told Insiders that he had had “very good” conversations with Stokes on Friday and federal officials would brief the states next week on the changes.

Asked if NSW could disrupt the funding arrangement, Tehan replied: “They could if they want to – we pay our share to state schools, Catholic schools and independent schools through the NSW government.

“But I think that all states and territories would agree that we don’t want to make schoolkids pay the price for our discussions.”

Tehan noted that NSW state schools were receiving record funding levels after the Turnbull government passed a schools funding package worth $23.5bn over 10 years in 2017.

Tehan said he was “very confident” all states and territories would agree, citing one Labor state and a territory government that had both expressed a desire to conclude bilateral negotiations on schools funding.

The education minister did not rule out tweaking the package or giving extra money to public schools but said the negotiations were about “more than just pure dollar figures”. For example, the NSW government wants things included in how its contribution to state schools is counted, he said.

Earlier, on ABC News’ Breakfast, Labor’s education spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, said that Labor believed that funding “should be restored to Catholic and independent schools” and said it was “terrific that some money would be restored to two sectors”.

Plibersek added that “most importantly” funding should be restored to public schools, because it teaches 65% of Australian children and had received 85% of funding cuts when the Abbott and Turnbull government tore up Gillard-era government funding agreements with the states.

Coalition recycles old nonsense with business-as-usual schools deal | Lyndsay Connors Read more

The Greens have suggested that the $1.2bn choice and affordability fund and possibly the $3.2bn schools funding model changes can both be disallowed by the Senate. Labor has not ruled out that option but has first called on Scott Morrison to explain why public schools do not have access to the “sector-blind” $1.2bn fund.

On Insiders, Tehan also gave details of discussions with university vice-chancellors on Thursday to discuss new rules to protect “free speech” on campus in the face of counter-protests. Universities agreed to provide him with their current policies.

“One of the things I’ve said separate to those discussions is: why should it be that those putting on the peaceful events have to pay for security costs when the protesters ... have no cost put on them as well.”

Tehan suggested the security costs should be shared between event organisers and protesters or else protesters would have “a weapon that they can use – to just drive up security costs – and I just don’t think that’s fair and reasonable”.

“I do strongly believe that we have to protect freedom of speech on campus,” he said. Tehan said shared security costs was “a good way to proceed” but the practicalities of the policy were still be investigated.