|
senate vote 2017-06-22#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-11-24 10:25:03
|
Title
Bills — Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017; in Committee- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Commonwealth share
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (6), (7), (8), (9), (12) and (17) on sheet 8176 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [request](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.260.1) moved by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(2) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 20) , omit "' 20% "' , substitute "' 24% "' .*
- Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.260.1):
- > *This amendment goes right to the heart of what we have been debating here tonight and over the last couple of months in this place. This is about ensuring that we look after our public schools. Currently under this legislation the government is proposing to fund 20 per cent from the federal government, 20 per cent of the share of getting schools up to their resource standard. We know that, in order to look after the neediest schools, the best thing we can do is increase the share of federal government funding to our public schools. We are worried that, in some states, they are simply not going to have the cash to get those schools up to standard in a reasonable amount of time. This amendment would ensure that the federal government does its best to look after all of those schools across the country, our public schools. That must be our priority. If we were to lift the Commonwealth share from 20 per cent it would cost the budget that magical number that we have heard a lot about over the last eight weeks—$22 billion.*
<p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1 , page 19 (after line 14) , after item 56 , insert:</p><p class="italic">56A Section 20</p><p class="italic">Omit "' requiring States and Territories to implement national policy initiatives for school education, as well as"' .</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 19 (lines 22 and 23) , omit the heading to section 22 , substitute:</p><p class="italic">22 Conditions of financial assistance—agreements relating to school education</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 19 (line 24) to page 20 (line 3) , omit subsection 22 ( 1 ).</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 20 (line 5) , omit "' also "' .</p><p class="italic">(12) Schedule 1 , item 85 , page 25 (lines 10 to 15) , omit paragraph 77 ( 2A ) ( a ), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(a) the approved authority cooperates with the States and Territories in which the schools are located in implementing the agreements mentioned in paragraphs 22(2) (a) and (b); and</p><p class="italic">(17) Schedule 1 , item 175 , page 37 (lines 8 to 10) , omit subparagraph 130 ( 5 ) ( a ) ( i ).</p><p>These amendments relate to a number of elements that remain in the bill that would require the states to fulfil certain obligations in order to get the funding that has been put aside by the federal government. We are concerned that, in the absence of knowing what these conditions on teachers or states may be, simply leaving that to the discretion of the minister through regulation is not enough certainty for our states, our schools, our principals or our teachers, and we would prefer to see those elements removed. After the Gonski review of these funding arrangements, whenever that reports—at the end of this year or early next year—we can look at what recommendations there may be and what impacts they may have on state and territory school systems. It seems a bit premature to be putting powers in this bill to put restrictions on state and territory school systems without knowing the content of those restrictions. So we would like to have those removed to ensure that we have a full, transparent process going forward for how we engage with the conditions on states, if and when recommendations come from David Gonski and his forthcoming report.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>Labor will support these amendments. We introduced reforms, as well as additional expenditure, in our landmark response to the original Gonski review. There is no excuse for the minister or the previous ministers to have removed the requirements for states and territories to commit to reforms. They are not red tape, as the former minister, Christopher Pyne, described them at the time; they are fundamental. That is why Labor has opposed the removal of the preamble and the objects in the current act. We cautiously welcome these amendments. We believe that, if the parliament is serious about reform, it will ensure that the act retains its preamble and objects.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The government will not be supporting these amendments. The government makes no apologies for wanting to put in place mechanisms to ensure that record, growing funding is used for the benefit of students and that the states are held accountable for that.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>The question is that amendments (6) to (9), (12) and (17) on sheet 8176, moved by Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I refer to amendment (13) on sheet 8176. I seek leave to withdraw that, but I would just like to seek clarification from the minister in doing so.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I would just like to ask the minister: can you please put clearly on the record for us tonight the mechanism that will be used to ensure that the resources board will be able to request documents as they need to ensure that they know where the money is being spent in a state, territory or school system.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I am pleased to confirm for Senator Hanson-Young that the Department of Education and Training already has the power to request documents and to expect those documents to be provided, as well as appropriate checks and balances being in place. The secretariat for the National Schools Resourcing Board will be provided by the department, and therefore the powers do not need to be given explicitly to the board, as they will be able to be exercised by the department on behalf of the board.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—I move</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1 , item 6 , page 4 (line 4) , omit "' 2027 "' , substitute "' 2023 "' .</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 8 (lines 9 to 12) , omit subsection 35B ( 7 ), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(7) Unless the regulations otherwise provide, the <i>transition rate</i> for a transition year is the rate set out in the following table for the year.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1 , item 47 , page 17 (line 21) , omit "' 10 transition years "' , substitute "' 6 transition years "' .</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1 , item 71 , page 22 (line 6) , omit "' 10 transition years "' , substitute "' 6 transition years "' .</p><p>This tranche of amendments is directly in relation to the overfunded schools currently in the system. We know that the previous arrangements put in place by the Gillard government following the first Gonski review locked in growth rates for schools regardless of whether they were above the resource standard. We know that the result of that has been that there are at least 24 well-overfunded schools that do not deserve continued support in terms of growth rates from the public purse. But we also know that there are a number of schools that will get to a much higher level very soon. The government's original proposal before us allows those schools to be drawn down over a 10-year period. If we are serious about putting equity into the system and ensuring that we redirect our quantum of money to those that need it most—if we care about needs based funding—we will ensure that overfunded schools have their funding brought to the appropriate level, down at the same rate as underfunded schools go up. It is only fair that, as you put more money into schools going up towards the resource standard, those that are well above come down at the same rate. It is about using the public money in the most appropriate and efficient way. If we care about our poorest schools, this is what we will do.</p><p>We have heard over and over again that there is not enough money on the table to fund schools at the levels that we want. Well, here is a way of saving some money. Here is a way of making sure that the money that is needed will go to the schools that need it first and foremost. I implore the government and the crossbenchers to consider this. It is an important demonstration that we are absolutely fair dinkum about needs based funding.</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>Just to be clear, Chair, Senator Hanson-Young moved that the House be requested to make amendments (1), (3), (5) and (10)?</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>No, Senator Leyonhjelm: (1) to (3).</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>No.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: 'To' as in 't-o'?</p> <p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>No, (1), (3), (5) and (10)—four items. That is why I am standing.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will just seek some advice from the Clerk. That is right—okay, then. She has moved that the House be requested to make amendments (1), (3), (5) and (10).</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The government will not be supporting these amendments. These amendments would create extra detriment to a number of schools and systems around Australia. We believe the 10-year transition for those schools is a fair transition pathway.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>In doing this, we are ensuring that we redirect the money in the most efficient and fastest way. We have heard a lot from all sides of politics about not having enough money to fund our underfunded schools. Well, this is how you would get it. Get serious about needs based funding, get serious about putting equity into our school funding system and ensure that we stop overfunding wealthy schools that simply do not need to continue to rely on this type of growth rate from the public purse.</p><p>Question negatived.</p><p>I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 8176:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 20) , omit "' 20% "' , substitute "' 24% "' .</p><p>This amendment goes right to the heart of what we have been debating here tonight and over the last couple of months in this place. This is about ensuring that we look after our public schools. Currently under this legislation the government is proposing to fund 20 per cent from the federal government, 20 per cent of the share of getting schools up to their resource standard. We know that, in order to look after the neediest schools, the best thing we can do is increase the share of federal government funding to our public schools. We are worried that, in some states, they are simply not going to have the cash to get those schools up to standard in a reasonable amount of time. This amendment would ensure that the federal government does its best to look after all of those schools across the country, our public schools. That must be our priority. If we were to lift the Commonwealth share from 20 per cent it would cost the budget that magical number that we have heard a lot about over the last eight weeks—$22 billion. It is the figure that the Labor Party has banged on about for the last two months. This is the opportunity for the Labor Party to put its money where its mouth is. Prove that you care about public schools. Prove that you give a damn about putting your money where your mouth is. Do not wait until the next election. Do not tell the voters to hold their breath and wait. Fund it now, do it now, put it in legislation and let 's make sure we look after our public schools and bank that $22 billion tonight.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the opportunity to make the point that the Labor Party's position on this has not been, as the government has often characterised it, just about the money. The $22 billion is a figure designed to fully implement the Gonski 1.0 process. The failure of this government to stay true to the Gonski principles is the issue here. So with this shift that other senators appear to have been prepared to accept away from the Gonski recommendations, away from a combined Commonwealth-state funding model, to a sole Commonwealth funding model—the minister's words here are 'a consistent Commonwealth funding model'—is the problem. That is the issue. Simply creating a new arbitrary percentage for state public schools, which is proposed in this amendment, is not going to remedy that problem.</p><p>So, thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, for the opportunity to highlight that our reform agenda in relation to school funding was never just about the dollars. These provisions involve a fundamental shift away from the Gonski review principles. The work that needs to have occurred with the states and territories has clearly not happened. The partnership that was envisaged with the states and territories clearly has not happened. I would just be repeating myself to highlight our scepticism that great success will occur there given the path that this government has taken. But we will not be supporting the amendments for the reasons I have already outlined.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>In opposing this amendment from the Greens, let me agree with Senator Collins insofar as agreeing that it is not all about the money. These reforms, though, absolutely are about ensuring we have consistency, fairness and equity in the delivery of needs based funding. That is what the Senate is happily on the verge of passing. We welcome that. But we do not support the Greens trying to put tens of billions of dollars extra on top of what is already a very significant additional investment.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that request No. 2, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, on sheet 8176 be agreed to.</p><p>The CHAIR: The question is that the bill as amended be agreed to subject to requests for amendments.</p> -
-
|