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

I seek leave to move a motion:

That the Senate notes:

The Australian Education Bill 2013 was debated in the House of Representatives for less than two hours;

The government allowed just three days for a Senate inquiry into the bill and refused to allow time for hearings—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will see whether leave is granted first before you read it all out. I get the gist of what you are saying, and I think everyone else understands it.

Leave not granted.

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

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, it is sad to see you attempt to carry out a stunt. You say you do not question the genuineness of the Prime Minister's commitment to education, yet you throw lines out about the government supposedly 'throwing' $16 billion at education. You know better than that.

You have asked for more time to deal with this legislation, yet, as I pointed out when we set up the time management motion, this bill has had a lengthy and detailed gestation. You might argue about the limitations on parliamentary time, yet the only person in Senate estimates asking questions about the amendments which were before us at that time was Senator McKenzie. The coalition did not use estimates time to deal with these issues. The amendments may not have been there earlier in the week, Senator Mason, but you had more than adequate time. You did not use estimates time to ask questions related to these measures.

I have already made the point about the necessity for time management. We did a calculation of how many bills we would have progressed in the last two sessions without time management. The answer was a dismal 12. That is how much work would occur without time management being utilised to deal with critical and important legislation—and this bill is. Indexation at the moment is 3.9 per cent. Next year it will drop to three per cent. Christopher Pyne might think he can delude people about these facts, but you know better, Senator Mason. You know that the AGSRC this year is 3.9 per cent. You know that. You know it is not six per cent and you know it is not 5.6 per cent; you know it is 3.9.

So how can you tell—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I ask you to ask Senator Collins to address her remarks through you as the chair.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All senators should be aware that all their remarks should be addressed through the chair.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for that reminder, Mr Acting Deputy President, to address my remarks through you—tempted as I am to respond to some of the cheap rhetoric and stunts perpetrated by the other side on the education reform process. Senator Mason normally knows better. That it is encouraged in this environment is astounding. I do not want to waste any more of the Senate's time dealing with a procedural motion like this. I do not want to eat into the hour and a half that has been allowed for this debate so that we can hear some substance from Senator Mason when he makes his speech. I would rather listen to him attempt to justify the cheap rhetoric that comes from Mr Pyne on these issues than waste more Senate time on procedural matters. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Mason be agreed to.