Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens are also working through the amendments that were tabled yesterday. We share the sense of disappointment that it is being debated in one of the final weeks of parliament. This is something that, as I said during my speech on the second reading, ideally we would have done years ago. The funding model of former Prime Minister John Howard was an unfair funding model. It grew the gap between public and private schools. As we know, public schools are where you find the most disadvantage being addressed, so that was a model that needed to be changed. To repeat the point that we made previously, someone who started primary school in the year that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was elected will have finished primary school under that unfair John Howard funding model, despite there being several years of a changed government. And they are probably going to finish high school before the full impact of this new package.

That leads to one of the concerns that we have had and that we will continue to pursue, which is reflected in an amendment that I circulated, which is that we are very concerned that, as we get closer to election time, we want to make sure that any model that finds its way into legislation is one where—especially if it is being back-ended for budgetary reasons—the money goes first of all to those who most need it, and that is the most disadvantaged public schools. In the light of the substantial amendments tabled by the government, it is not immediately clear how our proposed amendment in a technical sense would relate to the amendments proposed by the government, so I just want to indicate to the House and to the chair that the Greens will not be pursuing the amendment here. We will pursue the issue in the Senate after we have had a chance to digest how our amendment might relate to the proposed amendments of the government.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to contribute briefly to this consideration-in-detail debate. The minister in his earlier remarks outlined a series of noble-sounding aspirations, and that is all very well. But I think it is perfectly reasonable for those of us on this side of the chamber to adopt the very sound principle that was articulated by former United States President Ronald Reagan when he said, 'Trust, but verify.' The purpose of a consideration-in-detail debate is to engage in that verification process, to see if the words and language of the bill before us give effect to the noble aspirations which have been stated by the minister and by the government. Based upon the experience of this government's performance in the time that it has been in office, you would be naive and credulous in the extreme if you took the government's representations at face value and failed to go through a detailed process of scrutiny of the actual provisions in the bill, consistent with the very purpose of a consideration-in-detail debate. So I hope the minister will not be offended if, while noting his statement of lofty aspirations, we on this side of the House insist on the opportunity to test the wording and detail of the bill so that we may understand its actual legal effect.

With that, I come first to amendment (1) on the government's list of amendments which has been circulated. That amendment would have the effect that, in the preamble on line 8, after the word 'succeed', we insert the words 'achieve his or her aspirations'. At the moment, as members would be aware, the relevant paragraph of the preamble reads:

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 and contribute fully to his or her community, now and in the future.

The amendment which has been proposed would insert after the word 'succeed' the words 'achieve his or her aspirations'. I am interested to understand the drafting intention behind the addition of the phrase 'achieve his or her aspirations'. I am interested to understand from the minister what the difference between 'succeed' and 'achieve his or her aspirations' is. I am interested to understand the government's thinking in the extent to which the preamble as presently worded is deficient in not including the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' and the benefit which is derived by adding the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' to the preamble. I am also interested to understand from the minister: what is the legal effect of including these words? On the other hand, what would the legal effect be if these words were not included?

I am also interested to understand the minister's perspective at perhaps a deeper level. I am interested to hear from the minister whether it is his view, underpinning the approach that has been taken in the drafting, that it is possible to succeed without achieving your aspirations.

I am interested also to understand, conversely, whether it is possible to 'achieve your aspirations' without 'succeeding', because I think it will assist the House in its assessment of the minister's drafting intentions in adding in the words 'achieve his or her aspirations' if we can understand the minister's view as to the difference between succeeding and achieving your aspirations.

I am also interested to understand from the minister the extent to which the present legislative and regulatory framework in the area of school education impedes students from, on the one hand, succeeding and, on the other hand, achieving their aspirations. I am also interested to understand from the minister—given that he is clearly a believer in legislation through the use of noble statements of intent—why he has not chosen to include such adverbs as, for example, 'fully succeeding' or 'comprehensively succeeding' or 'comprehensively achieving your aspirations' or, indeed, 'spectacularly'. Why has the minister not considered using the word 'spectacularly'?

Finally, I am interested to know why the minister thinks it makes sense to include these lofty aspirations in a bill. (Time expired)

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to raise some points with the minister about this matter because, even as I have been sitting here right now, I have received a letter emailed to me from a Catholic school principal in my electorate. I have not even had time to read it but I want to read the questions that Mrs Helen Kingsley from Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School in my electorate has raised about this matter in a letter to the Prime Minister that has just been sent to me.

Mrs Helen Kingsley asks for clarification about the following outstanding issues:

When will the final financial outcomes for each of the six years of the rollout, 2014 to 19 inclusive, for each of catholic school (both Catholic Education Commission and non-systemicly funded) be known?

Minister, can I have the answer. The second point she raises with the Prime Minister is:

Can you explain your claim on Sunday 19 May that the average non-government school in New South Wales will lose $800,000 if the new funding model is not at adopted?

I would like an explanation too, Minister. The third point Mrs Kingsley raises is:

What guarantees do we have that the full funding for the model will actually be found or delivered by 2019?

A very important question indeed, Minister. The final question Mrs Kingsley asks is:

How can the Commonwealth predict funding for 2016 at this stage given the 2015 review of indexation?

These are the concerns we are hearing all around the nation at the moment because of the lack of detail in this bill. I was on the inquiry into this bill and I want to record for the House that we had 10 pages in that bill to inquire into, which basically said, 'We believe that children are our future; teach them well and let them lead the way.' Minister, we all agree that is a great proposal for education in this country. But you have put forward 71 pages of amendments. All of the detail that matters to schools in this country is in that 71 pages. And you said 1 pm yesterday is enough time for Mrs Kingsley of the Catholic system in my electorate to consider the detail of your amendments. I can tell you, Minister, it was not.

My further question to you in this matter is: will you now allow the House to conduct a further inquiry into the actual detail of this bill, because every single witness that came before our inquiry said, 'We do not have sufficient detail'? You can read the dissenting report from our members here on this side, which explain to you that with 10 pages every single witness could not identify how the funding model would affect their system, their school or their sector. Every single witness said, 'We cannot talk to you about it because we are in confidential negotiations.' Every single witness came forward and said, 'Sorry, we do not have the detail about what will happen to school funding in Australia under this bill.' That is because they did not have the detail available to them. So that inquiry was a complete farce, and we were required to report before the 71 pages were made available. You required that inquiry to report to this House before we had seen the 71 pages of detail.

Minister, tell us: how can anyone in this chamber vote on this bill without having had a proper inquiry into the detail? I have already started to look through the 71 pages. I can tell you they are very complex. It would be unfair of me to ask you to explain the detail of your amendments, because I am sure at this stage you could not explain to this House the detail of those amendments on how the funding model works and how it affects each sector: the independent sector, the Catholic sector and all of the different education sectors affected by this bill.

Minister, if you cannot explain the amendments to this House and if we cannot explain then because we are just reading them for the first time today to understand what the loadings are, what the indexation is and how these affect each sector, and if the sector itself is writing to me as we speak in this chamber and asking serious questions about what the funding will mean for them—what these amendments will mean for them—how are we supposed to cast a vote on this bill? How are we supposed to cast a vote on this bill without a proper inquiry into its detail? You have provided significant detail on the funding, and we need the time to consider it. We need much more time to consider how it will impact on all the different schools in all of our electorates around the country.

Minister, if what you say is true and this is an important matter and it really means a lot to you—I noted in your second reading speech that you said 'right a moral wrong'—then certainly what you are doing is not the only goal. How you are going to do it is the purpose of legislation—how? And the 'how' you have not explained to this House. We have not had sufficient time to consider the amendments. The detail already appears to be quite complex. It is very complex for the schooling systems around Australia, and that complexity has been noted in media reports this morning. So, Minister, I have asked all of these questions, but will you allow for a further inquiry so that this House can consider the detail?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am mindful of the fact that we are hearing some commentary from coalition members on the other side of the House, and so I think it is useful for me to provide some context and information in relation to the matters that have been raised by members. I am happy to note the member for Melbourne's comments and to basically provide the assurance to him that the new schooling resource standard model, with the loadings that are identified in this legislation, provides the clearest possible commitment and delivery to students of need in our nation.

The fact is that the Gonski panel findings were an absolute challenge to us as Australians. They were a challenge because our school system was not in a position to deliver the best education to all students enrolled. It was a challenge because the gap between children from less well-off backgrounds and those from better backgrounds is very wide—in fact, it is the widest of equity gaps amongst comparative nations. For Australia, this is a crucial and important challenge, and the model which is identified clearly in these amendments goes to that very matter.

The member for Bradfield made an extremely confusing contribution around preambles and aspirations, and then asked me for my perspective on these matters. I am pretty happy to share my perspective with him, I have to say. The first thing I would share of my perspective is that the coalition, under the opposition leader and the member for Sturt, has shown no appreciable interest in, or commitment to, education reform by way of both investment or policy during the terms of the last two parliaments—and I include this parliament. Previously, we had commitments from them to cut education. They wanted to cut the teacher quality national partnership; they wanted to take $425 million away from it. They wanted to abandon the computers in schools program because that was a total waste of money. The program has been delivered by this government. In fact, this government has delivered more than the numbers originally contemplated. The coalition want to cut the trades training centre program. They want to take money from our neediest schools. We are in the process of delivering reforms like the national curriculum—which I know the member for Aston is aware of, although the opposition leader seems to think it has not been implemented. There is the My School website for greater transparency. There are the professional teaching standards and qualities. There has been nearly a doubling in appropriation investment by this parliament compared to the years when the coalition were in government. We have provided the resources, and they can be seen in schools right around the country and are no more than was provided during the Building the Education Revolution.

I go to many schools, so let me share my perspective of that with the members opposite. I have not been to a single school in this country where a principal or teacher has said to me anything other than, 'We are absolutely grateful for the fact that finally a federal Labor government has decided to invest in the infrastructure of our schools'—such as the covered outdoor learning areas and the improved science laboratories. With every single facility in those primary schools improvement has occurred. How many of you would go to those schools and gainsay that investment now? Very few, I would dare to suggest.

This was one of the most significant public infrastructure investments in education that we have ever seen, in record time, keeping this country from recession. That is what this government did, and at the same time delivering significant reforms, working with stakeholders, establishing an institute of teaching and school leadership, a curriculum and reporting authority whose rigour members opposite know delivers to students in this country the best possible curriculum that they can have. These are the sorts of commitments that this government has made and we have backed them up in the budget. We are willing to do the last and most important piece of work, which is a needs based funding system for students and schools around Australia.

The fact is that no school—no school—will be worse off as a consequence of our investment in A National Plan for School Improvement. Schools will be worse off only if the opposition leader tears up the agreements that we have already reached and seeks to block the agreements that we are currently engaged in and wanting to deliver for the good of students in states and territories right around Australia.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order. I seek leave to table a letter from Our Lady of Lourdes Primary School to the Prime Minister in relation to this education funding system model.

Leave not granted.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now put on the record what a swindle these amendments are and this legislation is in attempting to pretend that it is introducing the recommendations of the Gonski report. The Gonski report required $6.5 billion of new spending each year to implement Mr Gonski's recommendations. Over the next four years, over the forward estimates, that would be $26 billion of new money. This government is delivering a $326 million cut to school funding alone in this budget over the forward estimates. This government is, in fact, taking money from schools over the forward estimates and in the never-never, in year 5 and in year 6, is attempting to get credit for apparently rivers of gold that will flow to schools in years 5 and 6 that are not even in the forward estimates.

To believe that, you have to suspend everything you know about the Prime Minister and this government. You have to suspend all the broken promises in the last six years to believe that in five or six years, outside the forward estimates, this government will be re-elected three times and will deliver rivers of gold to schools. What we do know is that in the next four years there is a $326 million cut to schools. That is not including cuts to universities, cuts to apprentices and traineeships and cuts to early childhood education. That all adds up to $4.7 billion. So the total cut to education in this budget is $5 billion. To claim that the government is trying to introduce Gonski reforms is a fraud and a swindle. That is the reason that David Gonski has been so silent on the government's legislation and amendments, because he does not want his good name to be associated with amendments that are not even close to, that are a pale imitation of, the Gonski reforms. If they were implementing the Gonski report they would be costing $26 billion over the forward estimates, but this government is delivering a $326 million cut to school funding over that time.

Do not just take my word for it. The whole sector is up in arms about the shemozzle that this minister is presiding over. Bishop Fisher, the chair of the Catholic Education Commission in New South Wales, wrote to the diocesan directors and principals of congregational schools, and he said:

This is a most unsatisfactory situation and this dissatisfaction has been strongly expressed by the National Catholic Education Commission to the Commonwealth government.

Further:

Compared to present funding mechanisms, the new model itself has become extremely complex and annually variable. It is made even more difficult for schools to predict future funding levels because so much of the model is based on loading which themselves involve poor or imprecise measures of student needs.

That is the Catholic Education Commission of New South Wales speaking on behalf of the National Catholic Education Commission.

The member for Mitchell has read into the Hansard record a letter from one of his local schools. I asked the minister last Thursday to answer a question that Mary MacKillop College in my electorate asked. It was a very simple question: how much in additional funds will Mary MacKillop College receive in 2014, 2015 and 2016? His answer was so vague that I gave him an extension of time that the parliament granted, over the objections of some of his colleagues, so that he could answer in the 4½ minutes he was given to answer that very simple question: how much money in additional funds will schools receive next year, when they have to pay their bills? They will not get to pay their bills in five years or six years. But this minister was entirely incapable of answering that question.

Hearing the minister answering that question was a little resonant of their pink batts disaster. It reminded me of his handling of the pink batts disaster. Now, 101 days from the election, he has his hand on the levers again. (Time expired.)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the beginning of this debate about these amendments, the minister said that these 71 pages of amendments provide funding certainty for our schools. That is the claim that he made. I would like to put on the record that these amendments do no such thing. It is an extraordinary claim for the minister to make, because if these amendments did provide funding certainty, as he claims, then he would be able to tell every school in the nation exactly how much money they will receive next year and the year after and the year after and the year after that. But he cannot do that.

As the shadow minister, Christopher Pyne, pointed out, the minister was asked specifically in parliament only a few days ago, just in relation to one school, to inform the parliament what that one school would receive next year or the year after. Again, we do not know. When you look through these 71 pages of amendments, a framework is outlined and there are a lot of words. There are great complexities, formulas are introduced, but there is no detail for any school to determine how much money they will receive.

The reason for this is that there is so much complexity and there are so many loadings which have no consequential numbers attached to them. For example, there are supposed to be loadings in relation to location, in relation to the size of schools, in relation to disability and in relation to the capacity to pay. There are additional loadings for new and old per student amounts, but there is no detail. We do not know what those are. All we are given in these 71 pages of amendments are the base amounts. But for most schools that is just the beginning. If they were only to receive those base amounts then they would be significantly behind. That is particularly the case for the more remote schools. In your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, some of the remote schools will have per student funding of $50,000 or $60,000. There is no indication in these amendments that those schools will not have their funding slashed. All this document gives is an initial per student amount as base funding.

Perhaps we could be satisfied that there is not sufficient detail at this stage if it were the very beginning of the process towards school funding. But we are not at the beginning of the process. Far from it, we are 100 days from the next election, six months before the new school year and schools have to plan for their budgets. And, what is more, we have had a House of Representatives inquiry and we have had the Gonski inquiry going on for 18 months. But the most damning point in relation to this is that this has actually been a nine-year process, because nine years ago was the last time that the Labor government—that the Labor Party—had a school-funding model. Nine years ago!

We have waited nine years to get to this point. Nine years, so that schools would know what they would be entitled to under a Labor government. We know what the policy was nine years ago: that was laid out very clearly in election documents—incredibly clearly for everybody to see. It was known as the 'hit list'. But at least they were upfront and honest then in 2004. They said, very specifically—they were upfront and honest—that these schools would have their funding cut.

Now, nine years later, we are still waiting for what the policy will be. And in those nine years they have bagged the current policy up hill and down dale. Almost every year, every month, every week and every day they have criticised the SES funding model, but they have not come up with an alternative. And so we have been waiting.

And when the minister tabled the 71 pages of amendments yesterday, we thought, 'Finally, we will be able to see.' Finally! One hundred days before the election—six months before a new school year and 18 months after Gonski and our House of Representatives inquiry, we will finally get the details'. But there are no details here. Schools still do not know, and if the minister does know the answers then perhaps he can get up now and say how much money individual schools will get next year, and the year after and the year after that, because at the moment the only certainty we know is in the budget papers, and the budget papers say a funding cut of $345 million over four— (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the erroneous claims that have been made by the coalition in the course of this debate, and to reflect, as it were, on the fact that up to this point in time we have not seen any commitment from the coalition to education reform of any kind. Neither have we seen any commitment from the coalition to investment in schools.

In fact, what we do have is a commitment to a broken funding model—identified as broken by the Gonski panel itself. I was invited by one of those opposite to talk about where it is in the amendments that we give effect to the Gonski recommendations. Quite clearly, the amendments are about a schooling resource standard, plus loadings to be delivered to approved authorities—states and territories and non-government school bodies.

I will just read the recommendation of the Gonski panel itself. It is very straightforward and very clear in what it says—in particular:

The Australian Government and the states and territories, in consultation with the nongovernment sector, should develop and implement a schooling resource standard as the basis for general recurrent funding of government and non-government schools. The schooling resource standard should:

That is absolutely what sits in these amendments to this bill. That is literally what it is about.

For the member for Sturt to come in here and say that, when in the budget papers there is quite clearly additional appropriation in the budget over time—considerable appropriation, that would see $14.5 billion delivered over six years on a two-for-one basis of effective partnership between the Commonwealth and the states—and to maintain that it is anything other than an increase in funding for schools is literally laughable. The shadow minister will say anything at all—that is true.

There is one other point that needs to be made here, and that is that we have, and we will continue, to be in constructive negotiations with states and territories and the non-government school sector, who stand to benefit considerably. For the independent school sector there is around $1 billion and for the Catholic system there is around $1.4 billion. My expectation is that as we reach agreements with those sectors over time, as we should, then we will be in a position to make clear what the benefits are for this National Plan for School Improvement.

When I hear those opposite assail the government on the basis of delivery in education, I think they must be living in a parallel universe where negativism is inherent and where no clear or rational thinking in a debate of this kind is actually delivered. I can see some students watching us here. I look for an example of how this legislation works. The example has been made public, but it is a useful one. Members have been shouting at us, asking, 'How does it work; what does it mean?' I am very happy to share it with them.

Let us look at an inner regional independent primary school of some 220 students. You take the school's characteristics, you look at the base SRS amount and you then see whether the loadings that are inherent in this model would be applied—loadings for low socioeconomic background, disability, the size of the school, its location and whether or not it has students who require additional support for English language proficiency. That is what is included in this legislation that is before the House and which we are now debating. But the fact is that the shadow minister just wants to oppose—that is all the coalition can do—for the sake of opposing. It does not go to the heart of what this will mean for schools and students around Australia.

If we as a nation lock in a funding model which meets the needs of students both now and into the future, we are not only locking in equity and fairness but driving the whole of the appropriation. Yes, there is additional investment, but it is about every single dollar and cent that we as governments spend on education, on a model that is focused on student need. The government have articulated those things which we think are necessary. We have reached agreement with the New South Wales government. We know that those bilateral agreements will reflect A National Plan for School Improvement and we know that those resources will be put to the best possible use they can.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to continue the theme of the government trying to swindle the Australian public on this so-called national agreement, we are debating 71 pages of amendments in the House today on the basis that two jurisdictions out of eight—New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory—have apparently agreed to this national agreement. Before the parliament rises, we will be passing these bills because the government, I assume, has the numbers. We rise on 27 June and, by 30 June, other states and territories may sign up. But there is no national agreement. We are being asked to pass bills on the basis that the minister is claiming that there is a national agreement to introduce a new school funding model. There is not. The non-government schools have not come out and said that they want this new school funding model. The Catholic schools in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and elsewhere have all raised specific concerns. The Independent Schools Council, the AISs in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and other states have all come out and raised concerns. Western Australia has indicated that they will not sign. Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory have all indicated that they will not sign. The South Australian budget is being handed down today. It will be very interesting to see whether there is any money in the South Australian budget to meet the expectations of the federal government of signing this national agreement. My hunch is that there will not be. So there will not be a national agreement. The non-government schools are not on board; the states and territories are not on board. Yet the government intends to ram these bills through the House and gag the debate today, when we have only had since yesterday to consider 71 pages of amendments.

It is no surprise that the government would want to do that, because what is hidden in this new school funding model? It is referred to in part 7 of the amendments that we received yesterday, under the heading 'Implementation plans,' and it is also explained more clearly in the explanatory memorandum:

The amendments also provide the Minister with a residual power to give approved authorities directions in relation to their implementation plans, for example, where an approved authority is not undertaking the activities it has committed to. In deciding whether to give such a direction the Minister must have regard to any relevant education agreement that the approved authority is a party to such as the National Education Reform Agreement or the National Education Agreement.

What does that mean in layman's language? It means that any state or territory or non-government school sector that signs up to this national agreement, and which is implemented, will be handing over the most unprecedented powers to the federal minister for education in Australia's education history.

No wonder the Labor government wants this bill to go through, because then the federal minister for education would love to be able to tell the states and territories how to run their schools. He would love to be able to say to the Catholic systems, which Labor has always hated and opposed violently since 1963. They did not introduce the funding of non-government schools, the Menzies government did. And ever since then, ever since 1963, every bit of Labor government policy when it has been in power has been to try to undermine the funding of non-government schools, particularly Catholic schools.

This legislation, these amendments, will allow the minister for education to say to the Catholic systems: 'If you intend to vary the national model we have established, you need to get agreement from the federal minister for education.' So if the Catholic systems want to say that St Ignatius' Riverview will cross-subsidise St Monica's down the road in their system, they will have to get agreement from the federal minister for education. And every time they vary their system, they will have to go to the federal government to get agreement to do that. If I was a Catholic principal, if I was a Catholic educator in one of the Catholic education commissions, I would not be handing over my power to the federal minister to distribute amongst the Catholic schools in the way they have done for decades so that local parish schools can be cross-subsidised by wealthier, high-end Catholic schools.

It is not just for the Catholic schools though, of course. Every independent school is handing over this power to the federal minister for education, and every state and territory. And that is one of the reasons they will not sign up. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see the minister for education sitting at the table. Minister, I am the member for Forrest, and that is in the south-west of Western Australia. My schools today would be looking at these amendments, if they can download them, and they would find, like so many in this chamber, that basically this group of amendments to them is as clear as mud. It is as clear as mud for them. This does not give them any certainty at all. In fact I repeat: this gives my schools in the south-west of Western Australia no clear idea of what you are intending; this is as clear as mud for them.

We have had these amendments for such a short time. Bunbury Catholic College would be really interested; they would be flipping through this saying, 'You know, what does this actually mean for Bunbury Catholic College?' I defy them to be able to send me an email right now and tell me exactly what this means for them. At the Georgiana Molloy Anglican School, a very good school in my electorate, I know the principal there, Ted Kosicki, would be looking through this and he would be saying, 'What does this actually mean for Georgiana Molloy Anglican School?' I am sure that is what he would be thinking—well, I am not really sure, according to this. I cannot find a list that says this is what GMAS is going to receive. There is nothing in here for my schools.

And yet—after what is an absolutely shambolic process that we have seen here—let us face it, Minister: government is supposed to be about process. That is what we understand on this side—that is, that good government is about good process. But we have had six years of a shambles and a circus, a circus and a shambles, and it is almost, to me, as though this is just a dreadful indictment on a very serious issue. We on this side take education extremely seriously, but in dropping these amendments on the table just yesterday, a short time away from an election, I ask: how important is education really to this government? They come in here and make incredible statements, but when you look at the facts the opposite is the case. The government could have done this, as we know, such a long time ago. Gonski, that they talk about so much: we hear that it has gone from a noun to a verb and back—that is interesting for schools—but what we do know—

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Yes, it is an interesting thing for schools to debate about Gonski: is it a noun, is it a verb? And that seems about the extent of the government's concern about education in this nation. To introduce this at this point shows contempt, as does throwing 71 pages of amendments at us, the opposition, and saying, 'You have to pass this.' I would liken it to this: what is our duty of care to our schools? It is to actually scrutinise this in detail, as the shadow minister needs to do; to look at this and say, 'What exactly does this mean for every school in our country?' But we are not being given the opportunity to do so. Clearly this government does not place that value on our schools, and certainly not on the schools in my electorate.

There has been such a complete lack of detail and it is truly, as we have heard from the shadow minister, a swindle. We know that the funding is not in the forward estimates. The funding is simply not there. The Australian people, they understand this government; they understand that you cannot believe a thing that this government says. So why on earth would you believe anything that they would say about education—particularly when you look at the process the government has used? Gonski was delivered at the end of 2011. Here we are, almost two years later, on the eve of an election with a couple of weeks left of parliament, and the minister comes in and says, 'There's 71 pages and we want you to pass them now.' But for my own schools in the south-west of Western Australia—and I suspect some of them will be watching this debate with no idea what any of this mean for them—it is as I said: when my principals in my schools read these documents they are as clear as mud, and yet here we have a minister who is saying to us, 'Tick and flick.' That is not how the schools in this nation work, and it certainly is not the way that we as an opposition work, Minister. We do not tick and flick because we know there is nothing that this government says that can be trusted, and we certainly know, in looking at the budget figures, there is no money in the budget for what you are proposing.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respond to the comments made by the minister who dismissed my previous contribution in relation to the first amendment to this bill, the Australian Education Bill 2012, that the government has moved and who, in a hand-waving way, described it as 'confusing' and had nothing more to say. The point that I am making is that the minister has included, within both the bill and now the amendments, many pages of worthy aspirations. It would seem from the amendments that the government is moving that it was not satisfied with the first several pages of worthy aspirations and wanted to add some more.

In my view, this is a meaningless exercise with no legal validity. The inclusion of these many pages of statements will not affect one iota the way that a court interprets the substantive provisions of the legislation. As I read the bill I see that is also the government's view, because proposed section 10 of the bill—prior to the amendments being moved—states:

This Act does not create rights or duties that are legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings.

I have two specific questions for the minister, because I have not been able to work them out myself in the time available. Will proposed section 10 still stand after the amendments are moved, assuming they are accepted? Will proposed section 10 stand in relation to every provision of the bill or, as I presume is more likely, in relation to the preamble and some other clauses? I would like an answer to those questions. More broadly, the question I am asking the minister to address, which to date he has simply dismissed by describing my contribution as 'confusing', is: what is the substantive point of the many pages of wafty and lofty statements of aspiration contained in the original bill which are expanded upon, in ways I have already commented on, in the amendments? Also, what is the work which is done by the further amendments to these statements of high-minded and desirable aspirations?

To put the question another way, in language that lawyers often use, what work do these words do? If you put language into a contract, if you put language into a bill, you do so because it is intended to have a legal effect. The words are intended to do some work. I do not know whether the minister practised as a lawyer but I know that he has a law degree, so I assume he will understand the point I am making. What is the work which these words do? Could the minister explain it to the House and could he explain further the effect of the amendments? If the government has moved amendments it presumably thinks they are intended to have a purpose. Therefore, in a consideration in detail stage the minister ought to be able to explain to the House what that purpose is. He ought to be able to explain to the House why he considers it is appropriate that the parliament should pass into law a bill which contains these words.

There are many serious concerns we on this side of the House have about the bill and the 70-plus pages of amendments which are before the House. We have very serious questions about process; we have very serious questions about the government's bona fides; we have very serious questions about whether this bill does what the government claims it does. Our concerns are only heightened by the appalling process in which the government has dropped 70 pages of amendments on us with only a few hours to analyse them. I also have—as I am sure my colleagues have—other serious questions, and one of my serious questions is: what is the purpose of this high-minded statement of aspirations when proposed section 10 of the original bill says this act does not create legally enforceable obligations? Could the minister please explain how that clause will now apply in relation to the preamble and other parts of the bill? Could the minister please explain the purpose of these high-minded provisions and how precisely the government expects the court to interpret them?

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Education Bill. This is what it has come to with this government. All that time telling the people of Australia about the education revolution has come down to a nine-page bill and a 71-page amendment. The sum total of consultation or committee for this series of amendments is zero. After six years in government, with education at the core of what our current Prime Minister said was at her heart, this is what the government has given us. This government should hang its head in shame.

Education funding is already very complex, and this makes it ridiculous. I always found in sales meetings that the sales guy who had not made a sale or who had nothing to add always went on with the most detail. These amendments show that this minister has not been across the detail. He has not made the sale. Otherwise, he would be able to come in here and explain these things to us. His legacy will be one of failure.

I have some questions for the minister. Can the minister tell me what additional funds individual schools will get in 2014 as compared to 2013? If so, can he supply a list of my schools and get me those numbers? If not, why not, and how can any school budget for anything next year? What does the National Plan for School Improvement do that the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority could not do or does not already do? In an era of quality control and best practice, how does this bill address the issue of teacher performance in areas of: (1) classroom management; (2) content delivery; and (3) monitoring and feedback of student progress given that research identifies that the teacher—that is, teacher quality—is a key factor for student success?

Should my son's school principal or the Principal of Mundingburra State School apply for a loan now on the strength of this funding model for the dollars the minister says will come after three more elections? If the government were a bank would it take on the loan on the proviso that the principal and interest will become payable only if the government comes good with its funding? If not, why not?

As an organisation, how much extra funding can the Townsville diocese of Catholic education expect in funding from this government each year from 2014? If a teacher is performing above and beyond what is reasonably expected, how does a principal in this model reward that teacher? If a teacher is not performing anywhere near the standard required, how does a principal in this model counsel that teacher? And, inevitably, how does he get rid of that teacher if they are not suited to the work? Does this bill make that easier?

The minister before raised the issue of computers in schools. I would also like to ask the minister what provision in the budget has come for the replacement of those schools that were bought out? What provision has come for the replacement of all those computers that you put into high schools in Queensland—or have you just passed that on to the state government for them to pick up? What should you do?

We have seen what they have done to the home insulation business. We see what they are doing to the telecommunications industry at present. Please: let's pull back from here, because this is folly. This is untested. This is partisan politics at its worst. Not one state education minister has seen this document. The private, Catholic, Christian and independent schools have not seen this document, and neither have their concerns been answered by this increasingly erratic and desperate minister.

We should be building communities of learning. Instead you are ripping $2.8 billion out of the university sector and you cannot tell me if the money raised by the parents at St Joseph's The Strand's Beach-A-Thon will count against them in this rubbish amendment. The problem we have here is that you are not giving any certainty. Schools are not the place for an experiment. Schools are not the place to experiment with funding models. We must have certainty. Schools must have certainty. Go into my son's school or Mundingburra State School and explain to the teacher's aide that their funding next year or the year after has been cut, because that is what the principal has to do. Of course when you go to a school everyone is telling you what a good job you have done. Bloody hell! You have to look beyond that to what is actually happening out there. This minister should hang his head in shame.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have spent three months on an inquiry with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment looking at the Australian Education Bill 2012—the first version, or the version without amendments, it must be said; the 1,400 words, the aspirational bill—and I have not come across one person, including the members of the coalition, who seriously disliked the bill. But, of course, it was an aspirational bill, and largely there is nothing in it. So we have had three months looking at a bill that said nothing, and now, at the eleventh hour of this parliament—some could say, in fact, five minutes to midnight for this parliament—the government brings in 71 pages of amendments to that bill, still with no clarity about what it means in individual dollars for individual schools. It does have funding formulas in there; but, of course, we cannot fill out the Xs and Ys in an algebraic fashion to know exactly what that funding means. We are given no time at all to discuss, to discover, to explore what these amendments mean for Australian schools.

I consider it my responsibility as deputy chair of that committee to make sure that legislation we do not fully understand is not passed through this place. It is the committee's job to explore the bills so they can explain to the parliament what it is that changes markedly, that changes the way we do business in Australia—in this case, the way we do business in the education sector. Quite seriously I cannot give that advice to the parliament. Our dissenting members' report, for instance, highlighted the lack of detail and lack of good process where the government seem to be virtually thumbing their nose at the parliament, saying, 'We have the numbers.' That is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. 'We have the numbers,' and we presume that sometime today the government are going shut off the debate on this bill and use those numbers to push the bill through the parliament when we do not know what it means and neither does any school in Australia.

It has been a great frustration to the committee throughout that inquiry that, while some of the leading educators in Australia have come to speak to us, those very few that were inside the beltway and had some idea of where the negotiations were going were not at liberty to discuss those negotiations with the committee that is supposed to report to the parliament and give advice on how this bill is going to affect their everyday lives. The rest of the contributors just do not know. They do not have any idea. There is absolute confusion out there. Most of those in the education sector are being asked to take the government at trust. If the last three years have taught us anything about this government, it is that you cannot trust them. You cannot trust their word. They say not only 'Trust us on this bill, and it will be alright on 1 January next year' but also 'Trust us; we're going to take $300 million out of education, but you're going to be better off in five years time.' That is the kind of trust the government is asking schools and the education sector to take them on. Quite clearly the members of the coalition on the education and employment committee could not recommend that this bill be passed on that basis.

We asked that the bill lie on the table until the detail is provided. Apparently about 12 hours ago the minister provided the detail, but we have not yet had the opportunity to have a look at that detail. As we expressed in our dissenting report, we believe strongly that, once that detail is provided, it should come back to the education and employment committee to reconsider and not have a 24-hour, 48-hour or three-day inquiry as many of the bills in the education and employment sector that are being referred back to that committee in this time are. It should have a genuine inquiry that will give the educators and the schooling systems of Australia the opportunity to fully explore what this legislation means for them—what these amendments mean. As of today, as far as I know, they do not know, and that is a very serious concern for all educators in Australia.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All of us in this place would agree that the greatest asset of our nation is our young people. The current generation and future generations deserve nothing but the best. We would all agree that their future and reaching their fullest potential will depend on many factors and one of these factors is their education. We all agree on the significance of education for their future, but it is about priorities. It is about how money is spent. The focus ought to be on teacher quality. It ought to be on pedagogy. Teachers and educators in my community in the electorate of Macquarie are telling me on a daily basis that it is how teachers are trained and mentored and how they are connected with the teaching environment once they are trained.

The minister is saying that drawing out the best of future generations—the gifts, the talents, the abilities and the strengths—is about more money. Well, all of us in this place, having looked at the budget closely, understand that that there is no additional money in the budget; in fact there is less. So how can the minister come into this place and claim that he is committed to the future education of our people? I do not think so. The current bill does not cater for the diversity in the non-government sector. We have moved an amendment to supplement the definitions in this bill, to define both systemic and non-systemic schools. We have not seen the minister respond to these issues adequately.

Looking at these amendments, there are some more questions. The 71 pages of amendments to this bill actually raise more questions than they give us answers. The minister talks today about buildings. He mentioned how significant the buildings revolution, as he called it, was. However, again let me focus on what the educators in my community are telling me. While buildings may be of assistance, they do not really bring change. It is the people inside the buildings that bring change, and that is where the investment ought to go.

What is deeply concerning about the bill here is that there are a number of sections that give power to the minister in a way that we have never seen before—power for the minister to intervene in school systems that distribute money according to the various needs of their students and their schools. The minister again says today that he is concerned about meeting the needs of students, but how can a minister in Canberra really know what is needed across a particular system? The Parramatta diocese, which looks after the students in the Catholic schools in my electorate, understands the needs of all its communities. It has new schools, large schools, smaller schools, isolated schools—the list goes on. But there are some sections about giving the minister power that are deeply concerning. Proposed section 81 in division 2 talks about variation or revocation of approval on a minister's own initiative, and this is very deeply concerning. I will just read proposed subsection (2) of that, because I think the minister needs to answer questions about what this means for individual schools and individual systems:

Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister may vary an approved authority’s approval by making the approval subject to one or more conditions, and the approved authority must comply with those conditions.

Please clarify all the conditions that could be imposed or removed.

What is important here is that there needs to be a level of trust, firstly, in the government—well, there is none. With all due respect to the minister, we do not trust what you or your government say, and the people of my electorate, the electorate of Macquarie, do not either. You have broken so many promises. Dollars have not added up, and this is no different. Then you introduce a bill with no transparency, no consultation and no opportunity for us to consult with our local schools and our local communities. You expect us to read it in a brief period of time while we are standing here about to debate, and then you want to interfere in schools' autonomy and their ability to make decisions. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to take the opportunity to respond briefly to some of the contributions that we have heard from the coalition and to clarify some matters for them, as it is clear that they have not been paying attention closely. That is a pity, because this is a very important piece of legislation which is an expression of the desire of this government to see students funded on the basis of need across our schooling sectors.

Very quickly, I say to the member for Bradfield, who raised the question about the legal capacity that we might have to understand those matters that are in front of us: I assure you that we do. It is a great pity that the member for Bradfield did not take more time to read these amendments carefully before he started producing spurious and slightly dubious legalistic arguments from the other side of the House. But I just take him to amendment (12) on page 21 of the amendments that have been delivered to him, where the omission of clause 10, the 'not legally enforceable clause', is provided for. I am sorry to point this out in such a basic way to the member, but if he is going to stand up in the federal parliament and start playing bush lawyer then he had better be across those matters to which he is referring. He clearly was not in this case.

In relation to the questions that were put by the member for Macquarie and others, on the issue of ministerial discretion and direction under the bill, I just make the point that, firstly, similar to the Schools Assistance Act, the Australian Education Bill does give the minister power to make decisions and determinations and give direction, and they are necessary powers to give full effect to the legislation. But as a safeguard, where the minister has these powers, decisions are not made without regard to what is defined in the bill as relevant arrangements. The point is that that is defined in the bill. It is a written arrangement between the Commonwealth and an authority. It relates to the grants of financial assistance provided in accordance with the act. For a participating government school, it is the National Education Reform Agreement, and that is absolutely straightforward. For non-participating governments, it is the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. For the Catholic sector, for example, it would be a memorandum of understanding agreed with the state-based Catholic education commission. Remember that states and the non-government sector are afforded added protection through the appeals and review process in the legislation. It is considerably more robust than existing arrangements, so you actually have more safeguards in this bill.

So I really query the point that is being made by those opposite. It may be that we have a bunch of political cliches searching for a solution here, but you have to read the amendments to understand that and look at it closely.

Leave not granted.

I want to finally respond to some of the additional misplaced and incorrect contributions that we have heard from the coalition, and in particular from a very heated member for Sturt.

The first thing to say is that the preamble expressly identifies, recognises and acknowledges non-government school systems. So those views that have been put by members opposite on that matter are incorrect. The fact is that, if there is any risk or threat to funding for government and non-government schools, it lies in a continuation with the current broken funding model that would see $16.2 billion less going to schools over time. That was recognised by Minister Piccoli when he said specifically—and after all he is a National Party education minister—that the status quo would see New South Wales worse off.

In the absence of any real policy for the future, what we have now is very clearly in front of us a bill that enshrines what we have been talking about and working on with state governments, territory governments and the non-government school sector for a considerable period of time. The fact is that the community has moved on from sectoral debates; it has moved on from the kind of half-hearted scare campaign about alleged means-testing in the model—which is not there at all. The community has moved on, and this bill enshrines what we have been talking about as a government; making sure that every student gets the support in their education that they need and deserve. And we have been prepared to back it in the budget with over $9 billion of investment. If you add that to the states, who want to see this National Plan for School Improvement, we would see $14.5 billion in investment going to schools in the future.

I note that even today Mr Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group is reported as recommending the principles of the National Plan for School Improvement, the Gonski recommendations. He said that they are fundamentally sound and he wants to see governments deliver them. That is a rational response; not like the constant cavilling, carry-on and caterwauling that we have heard from those opposite.

This bill is about better schools for all Australians. That is what we want to see happen right now. That is what the parliament will vote on, and that is what the parliament will deliver.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Equity in education matters. And this is a really important contribution to that principle of equity. I have been chased up hill and down dale about a certain 17-minute speech, but anyone who listened beyond about the 10-minute mark would have heard me talking about the importance of equity in education and the clear failures in the education data around rural students, Aboriginal students and low-SES families. So I am thrilled that we are actually seeing that education data being addressed in a substantive way. That is why this legislation does need to progress through this chamber. That is why state sovereignty as promoted in the budget in reply should be protected and endorsed in an agreement between New South Wales and the Commonwealth, and that is why my judgement call is that this should progress through this chamber relatively swiftly this morning.

I am listening to this debate and I am seeing people get up for a second and a third time and in many ways repeating messages of a political kind rather than drilling down on the detail. It is a pretty simple proposal before the House. We either accept the education data or we do not. If we do accept the education data, we are accepting a massive failure of public policy. So, righto; if we accept there is a problem, what is the solution? The Gonski process identified an 'intolerable link' between the education data and the funding formula. So either we accept that link or we do not. We accept that it is tolerable or intolerable. Once we have got across that very simple hurdle, we accept loadings and a new funding formula or we do not.

We can complain about 70 pages and we can complain about what schools know what level of detail, but in the end it is a pretty simple question before the House: is there a problem in our education data? Yes. Is there an intolerable link that has been identified? Yes. Is the solution to put in place loadings specific to regionality, Aboriginality and to socioeconomic status? That is the question before the House. I think everyone has had a crack at second reads; everyone has had a crack in this debate this morning. And I know I am going to get a bucketful from the shadow minister in the chair—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We only got the amendments yesterday, you fool.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt is warned.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but we have a backlog over the next two weeks of 50 bills. We have been around the buoy of arguments in this debate on numerous occasions. It is a pretty simple question before the House. Rather than the government moving a gag motion, I am going to do it myself. I am going to express my no confidence in the shadow minister in the chair and I move:

That the question be now put.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Higgins!

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't have the courage to do it yourself so you got your quisling to do it.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Sturt has been warned. The doors are open. I remind the member for Sturt of something which he should know by now: he is not covered by privilege in that time. I only came into the chair because I was appalled at his behaviour to one of the deputies before me. And the member for Higgins can show some respect.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twenty-four hours, Rob.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Aston should have been listening to my warning to the member for Sturt, if he wants to be here for a vote. I can assure him he will not be if he continues the way he is going. The question is that the question be now put.

I now put the question that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to