Division Description Changes — Bills — Australian Education Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail — 5th Jun 2013

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:37	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715">some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>. The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation. Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. Summary of debate in Parliament The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. Background to Bill This Bill was developed in response to the [Review of Funding for Schooling](http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf), commissioned by [David Gonski](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508) (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are [some differences](http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715) in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill. The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland [have not](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan) signed up to the NPSI. More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22) [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22).
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-30 08:21:19	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715">some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 21:21:35	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 17:27:52	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> ~~<p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p>~~ <p> Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 08:12:38	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 08:04:32	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 08:03:46	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p> More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-29 08:01:35	Title Description <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review.</p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. </p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.</p>
representatives vote 2013-06-05#1 Edited by Natasha Burrows on 2013-09-28 16:26:57	Title ~~Bills — Australian Education Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~ Bills - Australian Education Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail Description ~~<p class="speaker">Robert Oakeshott</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p> The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.</p> <p> Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. </p> <p><b>Summary of debate in Parliament</b></p> <p> The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time. </p> <p><b>Background to Bill</b></p> <p>This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency. </p> <p> In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review.</p> <p> The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. </p> <p>Now begins a long a process in the House of considering in detail the 71 pages of amendments the government dropped into the parliament yesterday. I say at the outset that the sheer incompetence of this government in trying to implement a new school funding model has been quite breathtaking. It has been like watching a passenger jet slamming into the deck of an aircraft carrier which has just hit an iceberg.</p> <p>The Gonski report was handed to the government in late 2011. It was published in February 2012. We are now in parliament in June 2013 with the school funding model due to run out on 31 December this year, yet the government is still trying to get agreement to a new school funding model—six months before it is supposed to take effect.</p> <p>It is quite impossible for this government to implement a new school-funding model competently in the time that it has given itself. If this government were competent, if it understood good public policy, if it were not obsessively inwardly focused, it would have been doing this last year. It would have been going through the process methodically and calmly like adults in the room, rather than threatening and shouting with megaphone diplomacy to the states and the non-government sector.</p> <p>In this particular instance, late last year the government introduced a nine-page bill, a bill full of platitudes, called the Australian Education Bill—a nine-page bill with no detail—which they expected the parliament to debate and which we have been dutifully debating. Yesterday, without any notice to me as the shadow minister, without giving me the courtesy of delivering these amendments to my office, they dropped 71 pages of detailed amendments into the parliament which they expected to debate and pass at five o'clock last night. The minister insists that my office had these amendments delivered to it. It did not. There is no record in my office of these amendments appearing at any point yesterday. In fact, to get access to these amendments, my office had to download them from ParlInfo so that I had access to them. So, whatever the department or his office is telling the minister, I have no record of ever receiving these amendments.</p> <p>There are 71 pages of detailed amendments introducing a complicated new funding model—much more complicated than the model we have had since the year 2000. There is so much detail in these amendments that it is utterly outrageous for the government to expect the parliament to consider them and pass them in a matter of hours. The normal process, if this government had not given up governing already, would have been to have introduced these amendments, to have consulted with the shadow minister and to have given at least a week or two for the Independents and the coalition to consider these amendments and come to a position. Instead, this government has given up governing. It is just trying to tick boxes and it thinks that an asinine debate about a new school-funding model rushed through this chamber will somehow repair its stocks with the public. What would repair its stocks with the public is a government of adults that actually governed for the good of the country rather than an inwardly obsessive government worried about its own political survival.</p> <p>I will over the course of this debate go through in detail many of the concerns that the coalition has about this new school-funding model. But, before I get to the detail of the amendments, which I will go through, I will mention another part of the process, and that is that the sector itself has been shut down with confidentiality agreements that would make the Committee of Public Safety in revolutionary France blush with its heavy-handedness and its draconian measures. The non-government sector has not had the opportunity to speak to its sector, as any government would expect it to do, because of those confidentiality agreements.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Steve Irons</p>~~ <p>I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 consideration in detail. We have just heard from the shadow minister about process. There is no process in this particular bill, as we have seen since it was first brought to the chamber back in late 2012. Since then we have been preparing speeches, and I finally got to speak on it on Monday. I am seriously concerned about the shadow minister's health. I know he has been running around trying to deal with this bill, deal with the minister and deal with all the schools and the stakeholders involved in this, and I am seriously concerned about the process that he has had to deal with. I am sure he will be up to it and I am sure he will make sure that he takes the argument to the government and makes sure that all the stakeholders involved in this bill are greatly represented in this chamber. I know Deputy Speaker Oakeshott is big on representation in this chamber.</p> <p>The government's handling of this bill has been chaotic and shambolic—a debacle. As I said in my speech on the second reading speech, the bill had no proper detail and would have been better suited as a press release rather than a bill in this place. As we heard from the shadow minister yesterday, at five o'clock 71 pages of amendments were produced. The document is that large that we cannot even download it through ParlInfo.</p> <p>Through that process, we have gone from a bill with no detail contained in it to a situation where the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill at the eleventh hour—it is probably nearly the twelfth hour. It is good that the minister took the coalition's advice on board and introduced more content into the bill. But he should have done so from the start and not at this late stage of consideration. We now have these detailed amendments in front of us that the House has had very little time to consider. This means that coalition members have had no opportunity to talk with our local communities, to schools or with state governments about the amendments moved by the government.</p> <p>It is particularly disappointing that I will not have the opportunity to speak with local schools in my electorate of Swan in Western Australia, about these changes because, as usual, with anything to do with this government, Western Australia comes out the worst. I know that parents and students at Lathlain Primary School will be disappointed that I have not had an opportunity to talk with them when they will lose, according to reports in the local papers, $466,316 in funding, thanks to the government's proposed changes. I hope that the minister will come to Western Australia, go to Lathlain Primary School and tell them why they are going to loss $466,316 out of their budget because of this bill.</p> <p>These tactics are symptomatic of this government. It is always about politics rather than achieving well-thought through and lasting reforms to our education sector. When the minister treats the parliament like this, it is clear to schools, parents and students—like those at Lathlain Primary School—that they are the ones who lose. Parents and students at Wesley College, Penrhos College, Como Secondary College and the East Victoria Park Primary School are all reportedly under threat of losing large chunks of funding under these changes. I see the minister smiling; I am sure that they will not be happy about losing their funding under this particular system. I am sure that they would all like proper scrutiny of these changes, especially when it is their futures that are under threat. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, despite repeated requests.</p> <p>There is simply no excuse for the chaos and no excuse for the government to be ramming through these changes without proper scrutiny from the parliament and all stakeholders. The only strategy here is getting through the election. There is still no notional agreement on these changes. This is important, as it is the states and territories that run our schools. But the federal government, which does not run any schools and does not employ one teacher, thinks that it is okay to ram through changes like this without the support of the states. That is farcical. The Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, said, 'Why would I want to hand over control of the schools in Western Australia to the federal government?' Victoria have allocated no money in their budget for these new measures. South Australia, a Labor state, have refused to confirm if they will allocated money in their budget today for these measures.</p> <p>The budget papers give us an insight into Labor's true plans for education. What the government does not want the Australian public to work out is that most of the money being promised under this new model will not flow until two or three elections away. The new model is less transparent than the old model and, given the track record of the government when it comes to keeping their promises and telling the truth—especially when it comes to budget figures—the states and territories and the Australian public can be forgiven for being highly sceptical of the government's proposals. I repeat my invite to the minister to come to Western Australia and to Swan and talk to the schools in my electorate that are going to lose out.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Peter Garrett</p>~~ <p>The first thing to say is that this is a truly important day for the parliament in terms of education reform. It is a day when we will see enshrined in legislation a new needs-based funding model for schools and students across Australia. In relation to the debate that we are having here, it ought to be a debate that focuses on why it was that the Gonski panel made the recommendations that they did; how the government has responded to those recommendations after significant consultation and discussion with states, territories and non-government organisations; how crucial and critical it is that we put in place these funding arrangements to meet the needs of students and schools around Australia; and how urgent it is for other states and territories to work closely with the Commonwealth as we deliver this significant reform.</p> <p>In relation to the spray that we just had from the member for Sturt, I remind the member that the amendments were circulated at 1.20 yesterday afternoon. If it is the case that your internal processes are so poorly organised that they do not get a single amendment to you then I do not think that you can come in and blame us for that particular issue. That responsibility lies with your party in this parliament. It should organise itself properly. Those amendments were circulated. I want to make clear that we have also now made available draft regulations for the bill for consideration at this time as well.</p> <p>But we should not be surprised by the spray from the member for Sturt, because he has sprayed from day one. Not only did he walk out 22 or 23 minutes after the Gonski panel brought down its recommendations and its findings and dismissed them out of hand but, when the New South Wales government agreed with the approach that was taken by this government to work to those recommendations to deliver a new national plan for school improvement, he then went on to say that in fact the New South Wales Premier had been conned.</p> <p>The use of colourful language by the member for Sturt is recognised both here and further afield; after all, he was the one who described the goal that is set and that we have enshrined in the National Plan for School Improvement, which is to be in the top five of education nations by 2025, as mad. At no point in the debate over a period of more than 12 months has he ever participated constructively in moving this reform through the parliaments of Australia through their budgets to be delivered to the 9,350 or so schools and 3½ million students or so for whom it is intended. There has not been a single instance on the record where we have had construction engagement from the opposition on education.</p> <p>The shadow minister gets up and says, 'We're trying to reach agreement.' I will remind him that we have reached agreement with New South Wales. The Liberal Premier was very clear about it: he signed up to the deal because 'it provides additional resources, fairer distribution, to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales'. That is what he said. The education minister likewise said, 'It's wrong to suggest'—as the shadow minister on a couple of occasions—'that indexation under the present model would be high.'</p> <p>The fact is that the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales education minister looked at these propositions, spent the time—as we have with other states and territories and non-government school organisations—in working through what a new funding model would look like and then committed to it. They did that because there is more money, money that is provided in the budget to deliver this reform. It does not matter how many times the shadow minister runs his lines out, either here or outside, the fact is that it is in the budget. That is the offer that is on the table from the Prime Minister. And it is a two-for-one offer for states and territories.</p> <p>I say to the member that this is an important piece of legislation and that these amendments not only reflect the discussion, consultation and consideration that we have had of this issue for a considerable period of time but also finally provide for once and for all the opportunity for schools around Australia to be funded on the basis of the needs of their students, whatever school they are in, wherever they live, however much money their parents earn.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:37

Title

Description

 The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
 Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
 The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
 In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715">some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
 The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.
The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
**Summary of debate in Parliament**
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
**Background to Bill**
This Bill was developed in response to the [Review of Funding for Schooling](http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf), commissioned by [David Gonski](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508) (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are [some differences](http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715) in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland [have not](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan) signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22) [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22).

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-30 08:21:19

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715">some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 21:21:35

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 17:27:52

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
~~ Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation. ~~
Someone who votes aye for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 08:12:38

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 08:04:32

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 08:03:46

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.
More information about the Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillsdgs%2F2221967%22">here</a. The text of the proposed amendments can be found <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d/upload_pdf/BN269.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/amend/r4945_amend_01780cc5-1493-4331-908b-42ee83496c5d%22">here</a>.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-29 08:01:35

Title

Description

The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review. There are <a href="http://theconversation.com/gonski-watered-down-how-does-the-current-policy-compare-16715>some differences</a> in the recommendations in the Gonski review and the Australian Education Bill.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements. Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/04/victoria-better-schools-funding-plan">have not</a> signed up to the NPSI.

representatives vote 2013-06-05#1

Edited by Natasha Burrows

on 2013-09-28 16:26:57

Title

~~Bills — Australian Education Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail~~
Bills - Australian Education Bill 2012; Consideration in Detail

Description

~~Robert Oakeshott~~
~~The question is that the amendments be agreed to.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
 The Aye votes succeeded in passing amendments proposed by the Gillard Government in support of the Australian Education Bill. This vote means that the amendments will be included in the legislation.
 Someone who votes ate for this amendment supports these measures. The measures in this legislation includes clarification on the main aim of this legislation.
Summary of debate in Parliament
The debate in Parliament focused on discrepancies between the Coalition Opposition and the Labor Government about when these amendments were circulated. The Coalition argued that they did not receive the text of the proposed amendments with enough time to spare, and Labor argued that they did circulate the amendments in time.
Background to Bill
This Bill was developed in response to the <a href="http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Review of Funding for Schooling</a>, commissioned by <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-27/whats-in-the-gonski-report/4219508">David Gonski</a> (known as the 'Gonski Review'). The Report explored the issue of the decline of performance in Australian school children over the past 10 years and the gap between the highest and lowest performing students. The Report found that the current funding model for Australian schools was unnecessarily complex and proposed a new funding system. As an alternative, a new funding model was proposed. This included a base 'per student' fee that is to be set for a student at any school. Additional loadings would be paid for disadvantage such as disability, low socioencomic background, school size, remoteness, number of Aboriginal students and lack of English proficiency.
In response the Gillard government developed the National Plan for School Improvement. This Bill gives the Commonwealth greater involvement in public and private schools. The NPSI supports the main idea of the funding model established in the Gonski review.
The Bill was criticised by the Coalition, the Greens and the Independents Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor for being rhetoric but with little substantive policy. The Bill does not establish specific provisions regarding funding arrangements.
Now begins a long a process in the House of considering in detail the 71 pages of amendments the government dropped into the parliament yesterday. I say at the outset that the sheer incompetence of this government in trying to implement a new school funding model has been quite breathtaking. It has been like watching a passenger jet slamming into the deck of an aircraft carrier which has just hit an iceberg.
The Gonski report was handed to the government in late 2011. It was published in February 2012. We are now in parliament in June 2013 with the school funding model due to run out on 31 December this year, yet the government is still trying to get agreement to a new school funding model—six months before it is supposed to take effect.
It is quite impossible for this government to implement a new school-funding model competently in the time that it has given itself. If this government were competent, if it understood good public policy, if it were not obsessively inwardly focused, it would have been doing this last year. It would have been going through the process methodically and calmly like adults in the room, rather than threatening and shouting with megaphone diplomacy to the states and the non-government sector.
In this particular instance, late last year the government introduced a nine-page bill, a bill full of platitudes, called the Australian Education Bill—a nine-page bill with no detail—which they expected the parliament to debate and which we have been dutifully debating. Yesterday, without any notice to me as the shadow minister, without giving me the courtesy of delivering these amendments to my office, they dropped 71 pages of detailed amendments into the parliament which they expected to debate and pass at five o'clock last night. The minister insists that my office had these amendments delivered to it. It did not. There is no record in my office of these amendments appearing at any point yesterday. In fact, to get access to these amendments, my office had to download them from ParlInfo so that I had access to them. So, whatever the department or his office is telling the minister, I have no record of ever receiving these amendments.
There are 71 pages of detailed amendments introducing a complicated new funding model—much more complicated than the model we have had since the year 2000. There is so much detail in these amendments that it is utterly outrageous for the government to expect the parliament to consider them and pass them in a matter of hours. The normal process, if this government had not given up governing already, would have been to have introduced these amendments, to have consulted with the shadow minister and to have given at least a week or two for the Independents and the coalition to consider these amendments and come to a position. Instead, this government has given up governing. It is just trying to tick boxes and it thinks that an asinine debate about a new school-funding model rushed through this chamber will somehow repair its stocks with the public. What would repair its stocks with the public is a government of adults that actually governed for the good of the country rather than an inwardly obsessive government worried about its own political survival.
I will over the course of this debate go through in detail many of the concerns that the coalition has about this new school-funding model. But, before I get to the detail of the amendments, which I will go through, I will mention another part of the process, and that is that the sector itself has been shut down with confidentiality agreements that would make the Committee of Public Safety in revolutionary France blush with its heavy-handedness and its draconian measures. The non-government sector has not had the opportunity to speak to its sector, as any government would expect it to do, because of those confidentiality agreements.
~~Steve Irons~~
I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill 2013 consideration in detail. We have just heard from the shadow minister about process. There is no process in this particular bill, as we have seen since it was first brought to the chamber back in late 2012. Since then we have been preparing speeches, and I finally got to speak on it on Monday. I am seriously concerned about the shadow minister's health. I know he has been running around trying to deal with this bill, deal with the minister and deal with all the schools and the stakeholders involved in this, and I am seriously concerned about the process that he has had to deal with. I am sure he will be up to it and I am sure he will make sure that he takes the argument to the government and makes sure that all the stakeholders involved in this bill are greatly represented in this chamber. I know Deputy Speaker Oakeshott is big on representation in this chamber.
The government's handling of this bill has been chaotic and shambolic—a debacle. As I said in my speech on the second reading speech, the bill had no proper detail and would have been better suited as a press release rather than a bill in this place. As we heard from the shadow minister yesterday, at five o'clock 71 pages of amendments were produced. The document is that large that we cannot even download it through ParlInfo.
Through that process, we have gone from a bill with no detail contained in it to a situation where the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth is moving detailed and complex amendments to the bill at the eleventh hour—it is probably nearly the twelfth hour. It is good that the minister took the coalition's advice on board and introduced more content into the bill. But he should have done so from the start and not at this late stage of consideration. We now have these detailed amendments in front of us that the House has had very little time to consider. This means that coalition members have had no opportunity to talk with our local communities, to schools or with state governments about the amendments moved by the government.
It is particularly disappointing that I will not have the opportunity to speak with local schools in my electorate of Swan in Western Australia, about these changes because, as usual, with anything to do with this government, Western Australia comes out the worst. I know that parents and students at Lathlain Primary School will be disappointed that I have not had an opportunity to talk with them when they will lose, according to reports in the local papers, $466,316 in funding, thanks to the government's proposed changes. I hope that the minister will come to Western Australia, go to Lathlain Primary School and tell them why they are going to loss $466,316 out of their budget because of this bill.
These tactics are symptomatic of this government. It is always about politics rather than achieving well-thought through and lasting reforms to our education sector. When the minister treats the parliament like this, it is clear to schools, parents and students—like those at Lathlain Primary School—that they are the ones who lose. Parents and students at Wesley College, Penrhos College, Como Secondary College and the East Victoria Park Primary School are all reportedly under threat of losing large chunks of funding under these changes. I see the minister smiling; I am sure that they will not be happy about losing their funding under this particular system. I am sure that they would all like proper scrutiny of these changes, especially when it is their futures that are under threat. The government has still refused to hand over individual school information to the sector for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, despite repeated requests.
There is simply no excuse for the chaos and no excuse for the government to be ramming through these changes without proper scrutiny from the parliament and all stakeholders. The only strategy here is getting through the election. There is still no notional agreement on these changes. This is important, as it is the states and territories that run our schools. But the federal government, which does not run any schools and does not employ one teacher, thinks that it is okay to ram through changes like this without the support of the states. That is farcical. The Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, said, 'Why would I want to hand over control of the schools in Western Australia to the federal government?' Victoria have allocated no money in their budget for these new measures. South Australia, a Labor state, have refused to confirm if they will allocated money in their budget today for these measures.
The budget papers give us an insight into Labor's true plans for education. What the government does not want the Australian public to work out is that most of the money being promised under this new model will not flow until two or three elections away. The new model is less transparent than the old model and, given the track record of the government when it comes to keeping their promises and telling the truth—especially when it comes to budget figures—the states and territories and the Australian public can be forgiven for being highly sceptical of the government's proposals. I repeat my invite to the minister to come to Western Australia and to Swan and talk to the schools in my electorate that are going to lose out.
~~Peter Garrett~~
The first thing to say is that this is a truly important day for the parliament in terms of education reform. It is a day when we will see enshrined in legislation a new needs-based funding model for schools and students across Australia. In relation to the debate that we are having here, it ought to be a debate that focuses on why it was that the Gonski panel made the recommendations that they did; how the government has responded to those recommendations after significant consultation and discussion with states, territories and non-government organisations; how crucial and critical it is that we put in place these funding arrangements to meet the needs of students and schools around Australia; and how urgent it is for other states and territories to work closely with the Commonwealth as we deliver this significant reform.
In relation to the spray that we just had from the member for Sturt, I remind the member that the amendments were circulated at 1.20 yesterday afternoon. If it is the case that your internal processes are so poorly organised that they do not get a single amendment to you then I do not think that you can come in and blame us for that particular issue. That responsibility lies with your party in this parliament. It should organise itself properly. Those amendments were circulated. I want to make clear that we have also now made available draft regulations for the bill for consideration at this time as well.
But we should not be surprised by the spray from the member for Sturt, because he has sprayed from day one. Not only did he walk out 22 or 23 minutes after the Gonski panel brought down its recommendations and its findings and dismissed them out of hand but, when the New South Wales government agreed with the approach that was taken by this government to work to those recommendations to deliver a new national plan for school improvement, he then went on to say that in fact the New South Wales Premier had been conned.
The use of colourful language by the member for Sturt is recognised both here and further afield; after all, he was the one who described the goal that is set and that we have enshrined in the National Plan for School Improvement, which is to be in the top five of education nations by 2025, as mad. At no point in the debate over a period of more than 12 months has he ever participated constructively in moving this reform through the parliaments of Australia through their budgets to be delivered to the 9,350 or so schools and 3½ million students or so for whom it is intended. There has not been a single instance on the record where we have had construction engagement from the opposition on education.
The shadow minister gets up and says, 'We're trying to reach agreement.' I will remind him that we have reached agreement with New South Wales. The Liberal Premier was very clear about it: he signed up to the deal because 'it provides additional resources, fairer distribution, to deliver higher standards and better outcomes in schools across New South Wales'. That is what he said. The education minister likewise said, 'It's wrong to suggest'—as the shadow minister on a couple of occasions—'that indexation under the present model would be high.'
The fact is that the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales education minister looked at these propositions, spent the time—as we have with other states and territories and non-government school organisations—in working through what a new funding model would look like and then committed to it. They did that because there is more money, money that is provided in the budget to deliver this reform. It does not matter how many times the shadow minister runs his lines out, either here or outside, the fact is that it is in the budget. That is the offer that is on the table from the Prime Minister. And it is a two-for-one offer for states and territories.
I say to the member that this is an important piece of legislation and that these amendments not only reflect the discussion, consultation and consideration that we have had of this issue for a considerable period of time but also finally provide for once and for all the opportunity for schools around Australia to be funded on the basis of the needs of their students, whatever school they are in, wherever they live, however much money their parents earn.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~