|
senate vote 2017-06-21#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-07-08 20:12:59
|
Title
Bills — Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017; Second Reading- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Criticism of Gonski 2.0
Description
<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>This Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 bill moves away from the fundamental objective that Labor enshrined in the legislation that:</p><p class="italic">All students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education, allowing each student to reach his or her full potential so that he or she can succeed, achieve his or her aspirations, and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-21.4.3) introduced by Labor Senator [Jacinta Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jacinta_collins) (Vic), which means the motion failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the Senate notes that this bill:*
- > *(a) would result in a $22.3 billion cut from Australian schools compared with the existing arrangements;*
- > *(b) removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019 which would have been brought under resourced schools to their fair funding level;*
- > *(c) locks in sector-specific payments of 80 per cent of student resource standard for non-government schools and just 20 per cent for government schools, the very opposite of a sector-lined model;*
- > *(d) sees the Commonwealth government abandon all responsibility for ensuring that Australian students reach, at a minimum, 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard;*
- > *(e) reduces funding to some wealthy overfunded schools, which Labor supports, but it also increases funding for other overfunded schools while cutting funding to some of our most vulnerable school students;*
- > *(f) would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's proposal compared to 80 per cent of the extra funding in Labor's school funding plan—*
- > *(g) results in only one in seven public schools reaching their fair funding level after 10 years.*
<p>Labor opposes both the principles and the practical effect of this legislation, which has continued to unravel every day that it has been subject to public scrutiny. The bill is fundamentally unfair to Australian children, and, consequently, I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Senate notes that this bill:</p><p class="italic">  (a)   would result in a $22.3 billion cut from Australian schools compared with the existing arrangements;</p><p class="italic">  (b)   removes extra funding agreed with states and territories for 2018 and 2019 which would have been brought under resourced schools to their fair funding level;</p><p class="italic">  (c)   locks in sector-specific payments of 80 per cent of student resource standard for non-government schools and just 20 per cent for government schools, the very opposite of a sector-lined model;</p><p class="italic">  (d)   sees the Commonwealth government abandon all responsibility for ensuring that Australian students reach, at a minimum, 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard;</p><p class="italic">  (e)   reduces funding to some wealthy overfunded schools, which Labor supports, but it also increases funding for other overfunded schools while cutting funding to some of our most vulnerable school students;</p><p class="italic">  (f)   would particularly hurt public schools, which receive less than 50 per cent of funding under the government's proposal compared to 80 per cent of the extra funding in Labor's school funding plan—</p><p class="italic">  (g)   results in only one in seven public schools reaching their fair funding level after 10 years.</p><p>Let me repeat that point (f), because that is the point that seems to be lost when commentators suggest that the NERA, the National Education Reform Agreement, is dead. What the act and that agreement delivered was 80 per cent of extra funding for public schools, which this proposal brings down to just 50 per cent. I had prepared a traditional opposition second reading speech to present when we commenced consideration of this bill. But, I have to say, where we are now and where we are today is a complete and utter farce. Reading the commentary, reading the media, listening to the minister's statements leaves the opposition in the position now that there is simply no point in reflecting on the substantive provisions in the bill, because we do not know what this bill will turn into. The government has not been clear about what it is we are dealing with here now. Today, in the situation where we are in now, as the government engages in further negotiations, possibly with senators who are not fully appraised of the impact of the proposals that the government is putting to them, is just a short part, a small part of that picture.</p><p>So let me revisit the week before the budget, when the government first put these proposals into the public realm. Actually, let me take one step further back from there. Let me take you back to the ministerial council meeting ahead of that. This minister turned up to the ministers' council and suggested to them, on the basis of two case studies, that he needed to engage in what I would call a radical market experiment. That is what this government is doing in moving away from the core principle of the Gonski report. Senators might recall that I mentioned that core principle when I quoted a speech from David Gonski yesterday but let me remind you again today. This was the speech of David Gonski on 21 May 2014. He said:</p><p>Lost in the discussion for more money were the central tenets of our review. We advocated:-</p><p class="italic">A. Funding to be unified i.e. given by state and federal governments to the different sectors together rather than states substantially only funding their school system and the bulk of Commonwealth funding being as a consequence paid to independent and faith-based schools.</p><p>Embedded in this bill at 80 per cent. This was David Gonski's review's central—capital A—tenet, and this is what this bill moves away from. As I have said in my proposed second reading amendment, the consequences of that, the impact of that, is that what was planned to be 80 per cent of additional funding going to public schools will now—and remember it is less additional funding—be only 50 per cent of additional funding going to public schools.</p><p>But let me remind the Senate where we were before the Abbott government failed to proceed with the Gonski reform agenda. We had a consensus. We had public education—non-government education; both Catholic and independent, together. We had settled the school funding wars. But what has happened here now is those wars have indeed been reignited. I am described as a 'veteran' senator; I have been around here for more than 20 years, but I have never seen some of the sectarian debate that has occurred. I will get to what happened in the committee inquiry in a moment, but I have never seen something like yesterday's point of order during Committee of the Whole, talking about senators being ghosts of the DLP. As I said at the time, the DLP that would have been relevant to my political participation concluded in 1978; I was 16 years of age. I was not a member of the DLP; I have member never been a member of the DLP. The only political party I have ever been a member of is the Australian Labor Party.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Did you hand out for them?</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I do not see how that is relevant, Senator.</p><p class="italic">Senator Fifield interjecting—</p><p>Here we go again! We are continuing it. Senator Fifield, I do not think you understand what this minister has unleashed. For you to suggest that what any senator here now might have done as a young child is at all relevant is appalling, and you are continuing the appalling behaviour which I will come to with Senator McKenzie soon.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I just thought it was funny.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>You might think it is funny, but sectarianism is not very funny. Let's move on to the important issue here, which is what a farce—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Fifield?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Collins is misrepresenting my interjection. It was a lighthearted reference to whether she had, as a child—</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>It is on the record.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Fifield, that is a debating point. Senator Collins.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Senator Fifield will have his opportunity in this debate. It is unfortunate that he did not take his opportunity in the cabinet. That is the problem. That we are now in this farce is the problem.</p><p>I was talking about the settlement that had been achieved during the Gonski 1.0 process, which was seriously damaged by the Abbott government's refusal to move beyond the four years of the six-year transition plan—the six-year transition plan that would have got most schools, in partnership with the states and territories, to a common student resourcing standard. Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham have come in here with the glossy rhetoric that they are on the same path, and that is simply untrue. What Senator Birmingham has done is take what was a combined funding approach and turn it into a Commonwealth share only approach, which will never achieve the outcome that is needed here. It will never achieve the standard, the resources, for Australian schools that is required.</p><p>Senator Birmingham, Senator Brandis and others have verballed various of the players in this debate, but the best example of where we are today, which I saw in this morning's press in an opinion piece in <i>The Australia</i><i>n</i> newspaper, is that by Peter Goss, who basically at one stage says: we have got to accept that the National Education Reform Agreement is dead, but the Senate should seriously fiddle with Gonski 2.0 and add a national education reform agreement. So he is saying on the one hand that we have to get over the fact that this government killed the National Education Reform Agreement—and he tries to make comparisons solely on the act itself and suggests that our only option is the act as it currently stands and this bill—but then says, 'Oh, but we should go back to a national education reform agreement.' Of course we should! And that is where it should have stayed.</p><p>This government criticised Labor for funding over the four years of the forward estimates, and it has been new to some senators in this debate to understand that states and territories do not have four-year forward estimates and it is a very difficult process to make states commit to ongoing funding over the forward years. This has been new information to many senators considering this debate. But look at this government's hypocrisy with this plan: 10 years, with only four years funded over the forwards. When you think about the rhetoric that was put on Labor about our four-year forward estimates of our six-year plan, you only need to reflect on this plan to see what hypocrisy that was.</p><p>So even if this government brings their plan—as has, again, been canvassed by commentators—down to eight years, or to seven or six years, it will still be four to six years too late; it will still be less funding that should be available; and there will be no commitment from states and territories to make their contributions. Let me remind people who are listening to this debate: for the contribution that was achieved with the states who became participating states and the other states that the government failed to bring into the package—the Abbott government failed to bring states who had agreed into the package—the offer there was two Commonwealth dollars for one state dollar. That is not on the table. How on earth does this government propose that we are going to bring the states into this arrangement? We do not know, and all that they say is, 'Um—we've deferred that till COAG next year.' What a farce!</p><p>The other element of this farce is the process farce, of course. The Senate inquiry: now, I accept the will of the Senate. Labor argued that we needed more time to address these matters in detail, and I thank senators for supporting my order for production of documents. To me, that does reflect that senators do now understand that there has not been adequate information and that there has not been proper consideration of the detail.</p><p>But, of course, another element of that Senate inquiry was the farce about how it was conducted. Firstly, and back to my point about sectarianism, for me to be accused on Twitter by the chair as running a protection racket for private schools which was eventually, after the hearing, finally withdrawn, is a joke. But add to that joke that the chair thinks that she can walk and chew gum at the same time. To me that is quite unethical chairing.</p><p>The other part of the joke, I think, was best represented by Crikey.com—not usually a friend of mine—which suggested that Senator McKenzie and Senator Hanson-Young were operating a tag team against me defending Catholic education. Since when does the Australian National Party form a tag team with the Greens to try to deny the Senate an opportunity to explore the details of a bill before it? This is, Senator Fifield, the sectarianism that I am referring to.</p><p>There has been a range of other commentary that it is better not revisited. The point here is that these wars had been settled back in 2013, and should have been left that way. This government is not settling the education wars: it has reignited them! As I said, when we have a clearer picture of what the provisions in this bill are we will deal with those in detail during the committee stage. But until such time as we understand what this bill is going to contain there really is no point in commentating further, other than to ask senators to reflect on their position on these issues in the past.</p><p>In closing at this stage, I will ask Senator McKenzie to refer back to a press release she made on 13 March 2013, where she said:</p><p class="italic">Results show that the Federal Labor Government’s fundng model, which is supposed to address inequity, will result in 25 per cent of the lowest SES Catholic schools losing funding.</p><p>Senator McKenzie, that is actually today.</p><p>But then, for all these stories about scaremongering, let me remind Senator McKenzie of this one, again, from her press release:</p><p class="italic">Under the Gonski recommendations, the average fees for Catholic Schools could rise between 200 - 300 per cent.</p><p>And yet she and other members of the coalition attack Catholic education for highlighting what the changes in this bill do to assumptions around what level of fees, low-fee—particularly Catholic primary school—parents would need to pay. That is the example of the farce occurring here.</p><p>Government senators, other than a few, are being incredibly hypocritical. Senator Fifield and his colleagues should get their act together in cabinet and fix this!</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>The Australian Greens have been abundantly clear all the way through this debate, since we saw the government's legislation, that we do not support the Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 in its current form. We have given effect to that by voting against it in the House of Representatives when the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, as a representative of our united party room on this issue voted against the legislation.</p><p>I am going to speak at some length in my speech about the principles with which the Australian Greens are approaching this issue, but before I do I want to briefly respond to some of the comments made by Senator Collins, who just resumed her seat. Firstly, she is claiming that Labor, when in government, 'settled the school funding wars'. I have rarely heard a piece of spin that bears so little relationship with reality.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Tasmania signed on when you were in cabinet!</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|