|
representatives vote 2017-05-29#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-06-04 05:56:22
|
Title
Bills — Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Don't agree with bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>I call the member for Parramatta in continuation.</p> <p class="speaker">Julie Owens</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-05-23.90.3) that asked the House to disagree with the main idea of the bill. In other words, to reject the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, the motion was to not read the bill [for a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html).
- The motion had been introduced by Deputy Leader of the Opposition [Tanya Plibersek](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/sydney/tanya_plibersek) (MP for Sydney).
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5866) was introduced to implement the Coalition Government's new school funding proposal. Unfortunately, at the time of this vote there was still no bills digest to explain exactly what the new proposal is, but there is a [very helpful and easy to understand explanation on The Conversation](http://theconversation.com/confused-about-changes-to-school-funding-heres-what-you-need-to-know-78455) by Associate Professor Misty Adoniou. As a brief summary:
- * the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered;
- * every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference);
- * those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal.
- ### How are schools currently funded?
- ABC News has created a [handily jargon-free summary of how Australian schools are funded](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-30/school-funding-explained-without-mentioning-gonski/8555276).
- ### Motion text
- > *''the House declines to give the bill a second reading because the bill:*
- > *(1) would result in a $22.3 billion cut to Australian schools, compared with the existing arrangements;*
- > *(2) would see an average cut to each school of around $2.4 million;*
- > *(3) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019, which would have brought all under resourced schools to their fair funding level;*
- > *(4) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the Government's $22.3 billion cut to schools, compared to 80 per cent of extra funding under Labor's school funding plan; and*
- > *(5) results in fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for our students and less help with the basics''.*
<p>I was talking about the Schooling Resource Standard and the move between the state and the Commonwealth governments to move towards that over time. If the government were genuinely committed to that Schooling Resource Standard, we would still see schools moving towards it, but in my electorate the result is absolutely the opposite.</p><p>In the years 2018-19 alone—that is just two years—Arthur Phillip High School will receive $2 million less than it would have; Granville Boys High School, just over $1 million less; Granville Public School, $770,000 less; Hilltop Road Public School, $900,000 less; Parramatta Public School, $1.1 million less; Westmead Public School, $1.5 million less; and Carlingford West Public School, $998 million less. That is over just those two years alone. In fact, the result of the government's cuts will mean that, by 2027, 85 per cent of public schools still will not reach the Schooling Resource Standard—85 per cent, in 2027. Eighty per cent of the children in school now will have graduated by then, and we still will not have met the Schooling Resource Standard which was absolutely in place.</p><p>I have used figures from the public education system there, but the Catholic system is also going to be hit quite hard. The Reverend Anthony Fisher, who is the Archbishop of Sydney, said in <i>The</i><i>Australian Financial Review</i> on 8 May:</p><p class="italic">What's already apparent is that the government's new "capacity to pay formula" will force fee rises of over $1000 for a very significant number—at least 78—of the Catholic primary schools in Sydney alone. For some areas of Sydney fees could more than double.</p><p>Catholic schools also say that they are set to have lower funding allocations in 2018 than they have in 2017. I know that my local Catholic Education Office was extremely concerned that there had not been consultation by the government on this. As I said earlier in my presentation, the original Gonski agreement took years—years of consultation. It was owned by the communities. It was owned by the schools. It was genuinely sector-blind and genuinely needs-based.</p><p>Where the government has really stepped back into the past is on this sector-blind issue. They are claiming that their scheme is sector-blind, yet they have made this judgement that they would fund 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for state schools and 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for private schools. There is no particular reason for that 20:80 split. It seems to have just been pulled out of the air. But they are going to fund 20 per cent of the state schools and 80 per cent of private schools, regardless of what other funding comes from the states. It is as if the transparency here and the entire focus is actually only about what the Commonwealth government contributes to education. It is almost policy based on the size of the input not the size of the outcome.</p><p>If all they care about is being able to tick off that they put 20 per cent into every state school, then I guess they have succeeded. I guess that is it. If policy is actually about their input, then this government has done it. But if they actually care about the results that schoolchildren get, if they actually care about the overall level of funding that our schools get and each child gets, if they actually care about building an education system where parents and their children can move from one state to another—where they can graduate in one state and move easily into a university sector in a different state—and if they actually care about a national standard for schools, then they have to be concerned about the outcome of their policy, not just the inputs.</p><p>This is incredibly poor policy. After so many years of work, and after a funding model which was owned by the education system and owned by parents, which so many people fought for and which was on its way to delivering—after all of that, and after this government, just prior to the 2014 election, committed to funding it and supporting it, to find now that our schools and our children are going to go so far backwards, and to find that even by 2027 we will not have reached the basic standard, is more than disappointing; it is actually shocking. And this government really should rethink its objectives here. The outcome matters. The outcome matters, and you are just not achieving it.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wilkie</p><p>I have been in this place seven years and I have heard all sorts of weird and wonderful things, but I am hard-pressed to think of a bill that has attracted so much sanctimonious claptrap from both the government and the opposition, frankly, as what I have heard during this debate. Mercifully, the debate on the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 has been punctuated with some quite powerful and accurate speeches. I am pleased the member for Melbourne is here. I think his speech was spot-on, and I am hopeful that my colleague the member for Mayo is going to follow soon as well.</p><p>What I have just said is harsh. There are a lot of good people in this place and both sides have a lot of good ideas. When I say that I have never heard so much sanctimonious claptrap it is because both the government and the opposition are either unaware—I cannot believe they are unaware; perhaps they are just ignorant—or sidestepping the fact that when David Gonski first came out with his recommendations he came out with a figure of our education system needing an extra $5 billion a year—each and every year. In fact, $5 billion was a 2009 figure. If we were to index that for inflation, we should now be talking about the need, the pressing need, the legitimate need, for our schools in this country to be getting an extra $6.5 billion each and every year. But what have we got? We have got the Gonski-lite that was introduced by the Labor Party under Prime Minister Julia Gillard—$15.9 billion over six years, which is $2.65 billion a year—and now we have the LNP proposition of $18.66 billion over 10 years or $1.86 billion a year. It is self-evident to everyone in this place that both the LNP government and the Labor opposition are nowhere near delivering Gonski. It is disingenuous for the government and the opposition to come in here and be so sanctimonious and have this cat fight about who is delivering the real Gonski. Frankly, no-one is delivering the real Gonski—no-one at all, and this at a time when in this rich and fortunate country we can afford to deliver the real Gonski. We can afford an extra $6.5 billion a year for our schools and for our kids. It is all about priorities.</p><p>Let's put $6.5 billion in perspective. When I look at the budget that was released in recent weeks, I see that expenditure in this forthcoming financial year, fiscal 2017-18, is estimated to be $459 billion. So, in a country and at a time when we can find $459 billion to spend, we cannot find $6.5 billion to spend on our schools. What is wrong with the priorities in this place? We have a federal budget that is approaching half a trillion dollars a year and we cannot find $6.5 billion. We can find enough money to double our submarine fleet, even though we cannot find the crew for the existing six. We cannot find the money that David Gonski determined we need to fix our schools now and, in particular, to provide the standard of education that all of our children need, including those with special needs. At the end of the day, a lot of kids will get by well enough but there are kids with special needs, those with learning difficulties, and those gifted children—all of those children in our community—who need a bit of extra money. The money is there in the budget this year, yet this parliament, this government and this opposition do not think it is a high enough priority. Surely, we know in 2017 of the importance of education. Of course, it is a building block for this country now and into the future. It is an essential building block for us to succeed in the knowledge future economy. Apart from all of the advantages that education brings our children, it allows them to prosper, to get better jobs, to earn more money, to be happier and to be healthier. We spend so much money on so many things, but we cannot find $6.5 billion a year, starting this coming financial year, to achieve all of that. Instead, what we have in here is what I have described as sanctimonious claptrap and pointscoring. Unfortunately, education and this so-called Gonski has become a political plaything—an opportunity for one side to score points against the other, and an opportunity for that side to then score points against them.</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Watts</p><p>Mate, that's nonsense.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|