Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst we are dealing with Senator Hanson-Young's amendments to the government's amendments which would establish a schooling resource body, it may be useful if, as I did last night, I refer to elements of our subsequent amendments in relation to establishing a more independent student resourcing body and canvass a number of issues where the current arrangements here are not yet adequate. This will, of course, allow senators an opportunity between now and 4.30, when we are back again on this bill, to contemplate further improvements that could be achieved in relation to the establishment of this body.

The discussion last night covered issues such as its independence, which Labor believe is critical and which is dealt with in our amendments. Another issue is that it be tasked to do this review of the SES, quite clearly, which is dealt with in our proposal. Another suggestion last night, from Senator Bernardi, that it should address educational outcomes was, I believe, a very good suggestion, and if Senator Bernardi has not yet had the opportunity to look at couching that as an amendment then that is something Labor are prepared to address between now and when we return to this at 4.30.

The other suggestion was in relation to students with disability. There have been significant concerns raised about how this bill will deal with students with disability, and the circumstances there—and again we will probably come to this later in the day—are quite critical. We know that with only limited additional funds we are looking at doubling the number of students over which those funds will be distributed, and we have very little understanding of or information about how just picking up the current nationally consistent dataset will occur and what the impact may be on students already receiving support with respect to a disability.

Another issue that I have heard others comment on is how this relates to the NDIS. I think it is important that a schooling resource body be tasked with helping to develop the implementation of the application of a nationally consistent dataset across students with disability and also with helping the implementation of the NDIS and the line that distinguishes how support is delivered to people with disability if those people are, indeed, school aged. It is a very sensitive area, because historically schools, particularly special schools, have provided a range of supports through their schooling arrangements and, as we move down the path of the implementation of the NDIS, the last thing we want to do is compromise the existing resourcing of students within schools. We want to develop a model that works consistently with the NDIS. So Labor would be open to considering an amendment here that would specify the work that should occur there for students with disability. With the goodwill of the senators here now, hopefully, these are issues that we may in the very limited time be able to deal with between now and when we return at 4:30.

Of course, that leads me to Labor's more ideal position, which is that we should not be addressing these issues under these circumstances. These are very important public policy issues where reviews that should have occurred have not occurred, reviews that should have been conducted under the National Education Reform Agreement have not occurred, the minister—possibly because he has been given far too broad responsibilities as the only minister in his portfolio—has not got on top of these issues and now, for crass political reasons, we are being asked to shove this through the sausage factory. We should not be shoving this through the sausage factory. We should be very carefully considering these issues.

Unfortunately, it was the will of the Senate that the Senate committee's consideration of these factors was far more brief than it should have been. Labor at the time through selection of bills asked that a more appropriate amount of time be provided so that we could address the broad myriad of issues that are now, of course, coming up in this debate here. As I said last night, thank God for our Australian parliamentary system, because at the end of the day we know that these issues do come back to the floor of the Senate. Senator Xenophon understands, for example, that there are a broad range of complex issues—and I know the Greens do too—that need to be addressed before we set up a framework to apply under one version for 10 years. Parliamentary process and Senate scrutiny should not be occurring under these circumstances.

Sure, I understand the raw politics of this for the government. I understand that, once they believe they have the crossbench in the cart, they do not want to allow more time, because they might jump back out of the cart when further information becomes available. But this Senate committee process will be the opportunity for the opposition of the day to highlight what a dud arrangement this is in many respects.

Further to that, though, if at the end of the day we establish a schooling resource body and we set it up the right way, that will allow further scrutiny of some of these issues. But, as I mentioned to senators last night, we have crossbench senators coming onto the floor here and telling us things that are factually incorrect. This highlights the concerns when the government, failing to consult adequately, secretly convinces behind closed doors some crossbench senators that certain circumstances are so and then those senators come onto the floor here, attempting to justify their position, and do not even have the facts right.

Again, Minister, probably because your responsibilities are far too broad and Mr Turnbull did not give you any other executive support in your portfolio, you are not able to provide senators such as Senator Hanson-Young with the information she needs to justify her position. But the suggestion, quite apart from the discussion overnight about students with autism, that state governments do not provide funding to non-government schools is wrong. I went through some of the history of that, but I show that as one of the starkest examples of why we remain concerned that we still do not have your reply to the Senate's order for production of documents.

I understand only from your comments that it is just a letter, so I suspect it is just a letter which says, 'Nothing to see here.' If it says, 'Nothing to see here,' that is the problem in itself. The problem in itself is that you have not properly modelled the changes that you have proposed in this bill. If that is the case, it is incumbent on the Senate here to highlight that inadequacy. However, if you have argued a public interest immunity—that this information should not be available—then that of course is another issue that we should address, because why not? Why can the Senate not understand the impact of these changes that you are so determined to pursue?

And let me run through that determination in the remainder of the time I have here, because you are right, Senator: it is reckless. But let me run through that story. The story starts with outrage that those rent-seeking Catholics could dare complain that what we learn now is $4.6 billion is being removed from their system. Your own senators in the past have run worse lines. But no: this minister here is happy to get up, presumably under the endorsement of Mr Turnbull, and call Catholic educators rent seekers. That is outrageous. But of course they have backflipped on that one now, because the government is out there peddling that what they said for so long was a special deal is not actually a special deal.

Overnight I ran through the details of how government at the time, when I was working with Minister Garrett on school education, responded to the Gonski report in a range of areas. I know I will again be criticised for focusing on just this one area. There will be others in this debate, but this one area is the one that highlights the worst—the extremes—of this minister's behaviour. So, the remainder of the story is that I have argued this consistently, I have demonstrated where his own department has done somersaults to try to protect its minister and failed—needed the furnish the Senate with corrections to the material it provided us—because his argument that the SES had been refined was blatantly untrue.

Now, this is not the only area where the minister has not come up with a correction to this chamber. He also said in question time the day before last that there was an increase in the share of funding for Catholic education, which is wrong. Even the PBO had already highlighted that that is not true. I understand that a minister who is responding to questions in question time might not, on the face of it, respond as clearly as perhaps he should. But I invited the minister to correct his answer, and he has again simply ignored that invitation. He has ignored my invitation, a call made as recently as this morning, to show the common courtesy of providing the senator who has requested it an order for the production of documents that this Senate endorsed. Contempt of the Senate is pretty much the issue here. He has refused still to provide me with a copy of that response.

We will—maybe—get to the tabling of documents, and that may be available to the Senate later today. But those who understand the vagaries of Senate process understand that we may never get to tabling, because of the hours motion that the crossbench and the government agreed to. So, accountability and scrutiny in this parliament have been affected by the hours arrangement that crossbench senators agreed to. The Senate cannot even see the response to its own order for the production of documents. If that is the minister's idea of how to protect what information he might have provided secretly, so be it—although a number of crossbench senators say, 'Well, actually there's nothing there; we haven't seen anything.' If that is the case, so be that, too. My job is to demonstrate that the minister has not adequately modelled the impact of his arrangements.

So let me ask, at the conclusion of these comments: what modelling has been done on the impact of the provisions that I was highlighting yesterday?

On page 11 of the bill, amendment (36), subsection 54(3), you are repealing the table. The table shows the current capacity to contribute arrangements for non-government primary schools. We discussed how Senator Back told us on the doors this morning that he was happy with the amendments, but what the minister still has not made clear is why Senator Back believes he has gotten the best he can out of this minister. I do not believe that he is even convinced that it is good enough. It is not a full moratorium. It is putting the cart before the horse if the government proceed with these amendments before the SES review has occurred. (Time expired)