Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Abetz from moving a motion to provide for consideration of matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Australian Education Bill 2013 and a related bill.

The government is, of course, entitled to stand for re-election on whatever grounds it wants. It has chosen to stand for re-election on two signature policies: the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the so-called Gonski reforms. It is entitled to do that. The Prime Minister herself has said these are issues of legacy. These are the most significant policy changes in the areas of education and disability in the history of this country. She is entitled to do that. While the government is entitled to do that, the parliament of this country is entitled to scrutinise those proposals. This is what the opposition argues.

The fact that the Australian Education Bill, known as the Gonski reforms, was debated in the House for less than two hours, that the inquiry was allowed just three days and that there are, indeed, 71 pages of amendments for the bill is absolutely obscene. We are talking about the expenditure of an enormous amount of money, and shortly we will go through the charade of the second reading speeches. Where will it really count? It will count in the committee stage. That is where we should be trawling through this legislation, because of its significance—and I acknowledge its significance—line by line. But we will not get there. The Senate will not be allowed do its job.

We are concerned as to whether the reforms will even work. We are talking about $16.2 billion worth of expenditure. That is a lot of money. The opposition is concerned as to whether this will in fact make a difference. The government has already spent $20 billion on the Building the Education Revolution, computers in schools and various national partnerships. What has happened to our school results after the expenditure of $20 billion? The results have got worse: they are worse in the domestic tests and they are slipping in international comparative examinations. Our point is simply this: it is not that we do not think this area is important—of course it is; it is important to the future of our nation. We are concerned that, with that sort of expenditure—more than $16 billion over the next six years—this area of policy must be looked at. We are not convinced that the expenditure of this money is everything. We think that principal and school autonomy is just as important—perhaps even more important than the expenditure of this money; in other words, giving principals the power in many cases to determine who they have on their staff and for how long. We think that parental engagement is really critical. We want the community and the parents to be engaged in the educational life of children. We think that is even more important than the expenditure of this sort of money. We think this is extremely important for improved results.

What about the huge debate about teacher quality? Whatever differences the opposition and the government may have on education, we now know—the results are in—that teacher quality is absolutely critical for educational results. We think there must be much more debate about that rather than spending $16½ billion without proper scrutiny. Curriculum is also absolutely critical to better educational outcomes. What we are going to do is spend all this money and change, in many significant ways, the red-tape arrangements and the relationships between states and the federal government. Why? Because we are told—take it on trust—that this will in fact lead to better educational outcomes for our children.

Despite all the arguments about education I have had with those on the other side over the years, I have never doubted for one second the sincerity of the Prime Minister's commitment to raising the standard of education in this country. Not once, publicly or privately, have I doubted the sincerity of her commitment. What I dispute, however, is the merit of throwing $16 billion at this issue—and it is a very important issue—when it has not received proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Prime Minister is entitled to run for re-election on this policy. She is absolutely entitled to do that—but only if there has been proper scrutiny of how that money is going to be spent over the next six years.

There are many policy, red-tape and very difficult federal-state relations issues which have to be resolved. Because of this ridiculous guillotining of this signature bill, the Senate is unable to do its job. (Time expired)