Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Paragraph 1.9, Senator Marshall, in case you do not know. It is your own report. It is sad that Labor senators need this sort of assistance from the opposition. But what hubris and what arrogance for Labor senators to say that these school organisations knew and were told that the Labor government would not listen to them and that you could not change the government’s legislative intentions. The simple fact is that their legislative intentions have been changed this evening by virtue of the government moving its own amendment. But this is the approach of this government to every peak and representative organisation: they try to bully them into submission. I congratulate the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria who actually stood up on this issue and represented their membership.

I admit—and when I say ‘admit’ I am very proud of the fact—that prior to my entry into this place, I was the deputy chairman of an independent school’s board. There is a great degree of philanthropy and a great degree of commitment by many good, solid citizens all around Australia to the independent school movement. But to say to them, as the Labor majority in this Senate committee report did, that, no matter what, the government will not change its legislation, indicates the hubris and arrogance that has set in within the first 12 months of this government. Also, very interestingly, Minister Gillard told us earlier today:

If Christopher Pyne has his way, every non-government school in this country will miss out on the Federal Government’s funds when it starts next year. Those funds are critical to the operation of those schools

Here we have at least one admission by the government that they had overstepped the mark. What Labor and the class warriors on the other side of the chamber need to understand is that there are very many genuine men and women in this country who make substantial donations and offer substantial support to the independent school movement without wanting to be identified and without wanting to be recognised. That is why, when I was aware of this, I said to my good friend and colleague Senator Mason that I would want to be part of the committee stages of this bill.

The Labor Party, because of their philosophical mindset, just do not get that there might be people who are philanthropic and who do not necessarily want to have public recognition or be publicly identified. I also say to those opposite and to the government that there are people who would be willing to make a capital donation to a school for a particular purpose which, at the end of the day, will not assist that school in any way, shape or form in relation to its recurrent expenditure needs.

What I detect with clause 24, which Labor wants to have in this legislation, is that if somebody were to, for example, donate a substantial sum for a gymnasium, a library or a swimming pool, that could somehow be seen as the wealth of the school, or the income of the school, and, as a result, the recurrent funding to that school would be diminished. If that is the government’s intention it will mean philanthropic support for those schools will be diminished. But if somebody were to make a similar contribution to a state government school for a quadrangle, a donation to its library or whatever, would the federal government then be seeking to diminish its support for that particular state government school? Of course, one would hope not, and I trust that it would not be the case.

I do not know if Senator Marshall got as far as paragraph 1.22 of the report—he did not read paragraph 1.9, so I dare say he does not know about 1.22—but it states:

In bridging the gap between public and non-government schools, the government has promised to apply the same financial transparency requirements across the education sector.

Until the government moved this amendment tonight, there was no such transparency requirement on anybody donating to a state public school to have their donation publicly disclosed. What is very interesting in this report is that Labor senators are talking about bridging the gap between public and non-government schools. But, of course, we know which way that gap runs. That gap runs on the basis that taxpayer support of non-government schools is substantially less than that of government schools. If Labor senators are genuine about bridging that gap, they would of course be committing themselves to increasing the funding for the non-government sector. I have got a funny feeling that that will not be the case and it is not what Labor actually meant.

I indicated to my colleague Senator Mason that my contribution to this debate would be brief. I made copious notes and I had copious questions to ask of the minister until the government raced in with this last-minute amendment—and it was not before time. But it is an outrage, when these issues have been in the public domain for quite some time, that the minister asserts that there was an unsubstantiated scare campaign. If it was unsubstantiated the minister might care to explain to us why a government amendment was actually necessary. The reality is that the campaign that was run was a good campaign, a robust campaign, and one that was based on substance. It so embarrassed the government that they were forced into the chamber this evening with an amendment. The government were prepared to do a humiliating backflip on this issue. I congratulate them on doing so, because it was the right thing to do, the proper thing to do, and we of course support the amendment.